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

[Florent B]

Hi There !
I'm currently working on a case involving the disappearance of two 15-year-old girls in Rome in 1983. And, by implication, it is at one point the subject of an (indirect) link with Avon.
As a result, I've been thinking about Renee and her "Sweet Honesty" T-shirt.
The first question, which I've been asking myself for a long time, is that it must not have been cold in Fort Worth around Christmas in 1974 for a young girl to be walking around, dressed only in a T-Shirt, in an open mall.
07ac371e77f5ef7fa6911f4dadddeced--avon-sweets.jpg (Image JPEG, 735 × 492 pixels)
The second thing is more subtle. Does anyone know who would have been the person selling this brand's products around the trio? For example, a reason to go and pick up products ordered for Christmas that day from this person?

 

[Valiant]

Hi There !
I'm currently working on a case involving the disappearance of two 15-year-old girls in Rome in 1983. And, by implication, it is at one point the subject of an (indirect) link with Avon.
As a result, I've been thinking about Renee and her "Sweet Honesty" T-shirt.
The first question, which I've been asking myself for a long time, is that it must not have been cold in Fort Worth around Christmas in 1974 for a young girl to be walking around, dressed only in a T-Shirt, in an open mall.
07ac371e77f5ef7fa6911f4dadddeced--avon-sweets.jpg (Image JPEG, 735 × 492 pixels)
The second thing is more subtle. Does anyone know who would have been the person selling this brand's products around the trio? For example, a reason to go and pick up products ordered for Christmas that day from this person?

Dec 23, 1974 roughly high of 76ºF and a low of 65º.
Avon was sold by many agents from their homes, a mostly part time job for mostly women to earn a little extra money.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Hi There !
I'm currently working on a case involving the disappearance of two 15-year-old girls in Rome in 1983. And, by implication, it is at one point the subject of an (indirect) link with Avon.
As a result, I've been thinking about Renee and her "Sweet Honesty" T-shirt.
The first question, which I've been asking myself for a long time, is that it must not have been cold in Fort Worth around Christmas in 1974 for a young girl to be walking around, dressed only in a T-Shirt, in an open mall.
07ac371e77f5ef7fa6911f4dadddeced--avon-sweets.jpg (Image JPEG, 735 × 492 pixels)
The second thing is more subtle. Does anyone know who would have been the person selling this brand's products around the trio? For example, a reason to go and pick up products ordered for Christmas that day from this person?

Renee had an aunt who sold Avon.

 

[Toniab329]

I seem to recall TTs first wive sent an email (to LE ?) back in 2000 outlining the 'pick up' and seeing Rachel at Minot Ave., in the Oldsmobile at around 12.30pm, I think.

I would love to see a copy of that email.

I have an image of it, I've been looking at the rules but not sure if it's OK to post it? Got it from one of the FB pages.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Dec 23, 1974 roughly high of 76ºF and a low of 65º.

RSBM
So, it would've been rather warm. Doubtful anyone was wearing a coat. There were no articles of clothing found in the car except the jeans in the trunk. Hmmm...

 

[Brightchaser47]

The girls being trafficked is a possibility that's been discussed and debated for years. One reason it gets dismissed is because no one connected to the girls appeared to gain financially from the girls' disappearance. But that's assuming they were sold by a family member. What if someone connected to one of the girls owed someone money (a lot of money), failed to pay up, and the girls were taken that day as "payment"?
Also, there's good reason to believe some family members/individuals weren't completely honest in their statements to police, but it's very possible that members of LE had something to hide as well. jmo

 

[T rex]

The girls being trafficked is a possibility that's been discussed and debated for years. One reason it gets dismissed is because no one connected to the girls appeared to gain financially from the girls' disappearance. But that's assuming they were sold by a family member. What if someone connected to one of the girls owed someone money (a lot of money), failed to pay up, and the girls were taken that day as "payment"?
Also, there's good reason to believe some family members/individuals weren't completely honest in their statements to police, but it's very possible that members of LE had something to hide as well. jmo

I was thinking along theses lines when I made this post.

So if we assume that TT has been honest and we go back to his earliest thoughts on this case what was the whole ransom thing about?
Could TT and/or some of the others have misrepresented him and his finances?
Is it possible that the word ransom could be a substitute for collateral?
Could some of these people have gotten in over there heads with someone and when this someone realized there was no money then ransom/collateral turned to sex trafficking in order to cut some losses?

I don't know, I'm just throwing some stuff out here.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

The girls being trafficked is a possibility that's been discussed and debated for years. One reason it gets dismissed is because no one connected to the girls appeared to gain financially from the girls' disappearance. But that's assuming they were sold by a family member. What if someone connected to one of the girls owed someone money (a lot of money), failed to pay up, and the girls were taken that day as "payment"?
Also, there's good reason to believe some family members/individuals weren't completely honest in their statements to police, but it's very possible that members of LE had something to hide as well. jmo

I think your theory has some merit, but I am going to play devil's advocate here, if I may.

Where does the 'Runaway' Letter fit in with this scenario ? Is it to direct LE to the Mall if the abduction took place somewhere else ? Is the letter really needed in this scenario ?

 

[falkenberg3132]

What would a sex slave trafficker et al want with a nine-year-old? Also, would one of the older girls be um "trained" for men and the other for women?

 

[Brightchaser47]

What would a sex slave trafficker et al want with a nine-year-old?

RSBM
You'd be amazed at what people will pay money to see or do involving children.

Also, would one of the older girls be um "trained" for men and the other for women?

IMO, anything is possible. These aren't pleasant thoughts (and I would love to be mistaken), but I just can't dismiss this theory as a possibility.

 

[falkenberg3132]

Yeah. I only asked cause i don't know - and indeed, I'm glad that disgusting "Agony in Pink" fic got that Usenet group banned all those years ago. That's the second thing John Howard got right as PM (after gun law reform following the Port Arthur massacre)

 

[Brightchaser47]

I think your theory has some merit, but I am going to play devil's advocate here, if I may.

RSBM
By all means.

Where does the 'Runaway' Letter fit in with this scenario ? Is it to direct LE to the Mall if the abduction took place somewhere else ? Is the letter really needed in this scenario ?

I'm not sure where or when the abduction took place, but the focus was on the car that evening/night-- finding it, watching it (at least for one family). Police were not searching anywhere that p.m.; not the mall, not homes, not businesses-- so whoever held the girls were in the clear all that night to do whatever (contact a buyer, move them, etc).
The next morning the letter appears, indicating the girls have left freely, and will return in about a week. Although Det. Wilbanks claims he feels Rachel wrote the letter under duress, nothing more is actively done; again, no searches are made of homes, businesses, etc. The "wait and see" approach is taken. So, again, whoever has the girls is free to hold, sell, transport them, without police interference (IIRC, there were no BOLO or APB alerts for at least a week). In the course of that week, SM, VB, DA all leave town. All just a possibility and opinion.

 

[Brightchaser47]

There's the theory (with variations) that TT killed Rachel in their home in a fit of jealous rage (because she was keeping company with VB/CJG), then with help from DA killed Renee and Julie to eliminate witnesses, and co-wrote the letter to divert suspicion.
In this theory we're asked to believe:
* Rachel was having multiple affairs, yet it was just this affair/relationship TT had a problem with.
* A 22 yr old mechanic with no known history of violence (domestic or otherwise) was psychologically able/willing to kill his young wife, her young friend, and a 9 yr old, without a slip-up, yet leave VB unharmed and simply go on with life (with no other such incidents occurring throughout multiple marriages) as though nothing happened...
If he killed her accidentally (in a struggle, for example), why in the world did the other two have to die??

* Assuming DA was his accomplice, she too was allegedly able to commit murder of minors, then proceed with her life, and never kill again, never crack (not even under therapy or polygraphs)...
* DA and TT collaborated on a letter to divert suspicion that essentially gave them a week to dispose of evidence and bodies, when that could easily have been accomplished in a matter of minutes --hours at most-- rendering such a letter unnecessary.
* ST, VB, SM, and DA  all allegedly gave faulty statements to LE/ a P.I. concerning their knowledge and whereabouts in this case-- would they  all cover for a 22 yr old mechanic killing his wife? An ex-wife, a suspected lover, a DJ, and sis-in-law? If they had no involvement, why would they all lie? Were they involved in something else that would get them killed or jailed if they told the truth?
* There is reason (imo) to believe members of LE were complicit in this case-- why would LE cover up a case of capital murder for a young mechanic with no known LE connections?

Then there's the disposal of their bodies...
* Was TT truly mentally capable of disposing of the bodies of three young girls, one being his own wife, and her younger friend, and one being only 9 yrs old? If not, who would he call on to do so?
* Was Rachel's father truly mentally and physically capable of disposing of the body of his own young daughter, her younger friend, and a 9 yr old, or arranging for their disposal, with no qualms, to cover for his son-in-law?
* If someone connected to organized crime were called on to dispose of bodies, who were they, who contacted them, and what's their incentive?

Just some thoughts and jmo.

 

[Brightchaser47]

DBM

 

[Olivier La Buse]

RSBM
By all means.

I'm not sure where or when the abduction took place, but the focus was on the car that evening/night-- finding it, watching it (at least for one family). Police were not searching anywhere that p.m.; not the mall, not homes, not businesses-- so whoever held the girls were in the clear all that night to do whatever (contact a buyer, move them, etc).
The next morning the letter appears, indicating the girls have left freely, and will return in about a week. Although Det. Wilbanks claims he feels Rachel wrote the letter under duress, nothing more is actively done; again, no searches are made of homes, businesses, etc. The "wait and see" approach is taken. So, again, whoever has the girls is free to hold, sell, transport them, without police interference (IIRC, there were no BOLO or APB alerts for at least a week). In the course of that week, SM, VB, DA all leave town. All just a possibility and opinion.

Te letter was obviously a ruse to create a narrative. It seems the police took the bait, at least for a while. One might wonder why the letter was specifically sent to that address.

 

[Olivier La Buse]

Te letter was obviously a ruse to create a narrative. It seems the police took the bait, at least for a while. One might wonder why the letter was specifically sent to that address.

Or I'd rather say "appeared" in that specific mailbox...

 

[Olivier La Buse]

Then (apparently) only in April 2001, one Bill Hutchins, a former Fort Worth police officer and security guard at the Seminary South Sears outlet, comes with that odd story of him seeing the "smiling" girls in a van whose driver he had an argument in the night they disappeared. It is another ruse worth considering. A pity the guy is dead now.

One hypothesis: the whole story of the letter arriving so "early" ( and don't forget the false stamp) and Hutchins' weird tale appearing only years latter points out to an elaborate hoax and one may wonder who was in command of the criminal act (even in 2001). Whoever he was, he carefully planned it days before, and kept clearing traces, it was not a crime of opportunity.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Te letter was obviously a ruse to create a narrative. It seems the police took the bait, at least for a while. One might wonder why the letter was specifically sent to that address.

Or I'd rather say "appeared" in that specific mailbox...

It's possible that whoever took the girls initially held them for ransom, as we've discussed. If so, it makes sense that the letter would be sent to Rachel's husband, as he was the one thought to have money. So why wasn't it a ransom letter?
This letter was shown to police. A ransom letter would've likely involved searches, surveillance, a hand-off, more LE, etc. I those behind the letter wanted to avoid all that. jmo

 

[Olivier La Buse]

It's possible that whoever took the girls initially held them for ransom, as we've discussed. If so, it makes sense that the letter would be sent to Rachel's husband, as he was the one thought to have money. So why wasn't it a ransom letter?
This letter was shown to police. A ransom letter would've likely involved searches, surveillance, a hand-off, more LE, etc. I those behind the letter wanted to avoid all that. jmo

I might be the case that by means of that letter, the criminals were trying to gain some time and also divert the attention of the investigators or mislead them.
If that was the case it was a perfect plot.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Then (apparently) only in April 2001, one Bill Hutchins, a former Fort Worth police officer and security guard at the Seminary South Sears outlet, comes with that odd story of him seeing the "smiling" girls in a van whose driver he had an argument in the night they disappeared. It is another ruse worth considering.

and Hutchins' weird tale appearing only years latter points out to an elaborate hoax and one may wonder who was in command of the criminal act (even in 2001). Whoever he was, he carefully planned it days before, and kept clearing traces, it was not a crime of opportunity.

RSBM
IMO, Hutchins' story is pure bull. He was head of security for Sears at the time. We're told that both Renee's and Rachel's mothers called and/or visited stores in the mall to have the girls paged, when they were missed. I don't know how many kids got separated from familes Christmas shopping and had to be paged, or how many security guards Sears had at that time, but--even if Hutchins somehow didn't get the memo right away, there's no way in the universe he could remain ignorant of it.
At the time he claimed to see the girls in a truck with another guard, customers were gone. It was just mall employees closing up, and there was a police presence near the Olds, which was parked in the "employee" parking area (an area I assume Hutchins would've traversed at closing). In fact, wouldn't Hutchins have parked in that area, as well? It's very possible that he was knowledgable of what happened to the girls, if he wasn't involved himself. jmo