D
Deleted member 165916
Guest
I'll have a look...
This tragedy had very little to do with money, other than he controlled all of it, was the source of it, owned everything out-right, had no living relatives or anyone else he had to share it with. Rachel was disposable. She deceived him into a marriage he would not have gone through with if he'd known. Adding Debbie as the "house-guest" with no plans to leave made him feel even more used, and manipulated. Out-manipulated and played for a fool. He wasn't wealthy, except in contrast to the sister's background.
There is a belief among Rachel's immediate family that Rachel was pregnant when she disappeared. No evidence of it. Do you think he'd fall for that again? This was about whether or not he was willing to continue to take care of these sisters who contributed nothing - on vacation, basically, while he went to work. He wasn't. He did not go there to kill her or anyone else. He went to confront her and regain control. Only he lost it.
In 1974 there were no at-home pregnancy tests. You went to a doctor who collected a urine sample. That urine was injected into a laboratory rabbit. If the rabbit died (from the presence of a certain hormone), you were pregnant. It took 3 days. If she were actually pregnant, he would not have killed her.
The financial situation was not a factor in his decision to "undo" his commitment to Rachel. This was about power and control. Rachel turned 17 November 15th, a child bride from a troubled home, gone 36 days later. Whether she lied or not (about either "baby") he had reason to believe she did.
She up-graded her surroundings, escaped an abusive father, and got to run around without parental supervision by getting married at 16.
All 3 of mine were. 1972, 1974, and 1977. Interesting article.Pregnancy tests were not done that way in 70s. https://www.early-pregnancy-tests.com/history
This tragedy had very little to do with money, other than he controlled all of it, was the source of it, owned everything out-right, had no living relatives or anyone else he had to share it with. Rachel was disposable. She deceived him into a marriage he would not have gone through with if he'd known. Adding Debbie as the "house-guest" with no plans to leave made him feel even more used, and manipulated. Out-manipulated and played for a fool. He wasn't wealthy, except in contrast to the sister's background.
There is a belief among Rachel's immediate family that Rachel was pregnant when she disappeared. No evidence of it. Do you think he'd fall for that again? This was about whether or not he was willing to continue to take care of these sisters who contributed nothing - on vacation, basically, while he went to work. He wasn't. He did not go there to kill her or anyone else. He went to confront her and regain control. Only he lost it.
All your questions have been asked and answered. Drill down into the threads of the past 2 years. I'll summarize, but again; read.Hi, I’m not exactly new to this site but I’m mostly a lurker rather than sleuther.
However, I came across this case from another source and thought I’d check on any new developments since it’s hard to find anything more online on it then had already been mentioned.
(sorry for the long introduction)
Ok so here’s my reason for posting...
I believed from the beginning of reading this case that the Husband, and only the Husband, is responsible for their disappearance.
still I have some questions about his motive and would appreciate if you could clarify.
I understand there’s certain things you can’t talk about and i apologize in advance if I’m overstepping here.
1) You mentioned in a post that he wouldn’t have married her if he had known the truth. I’m wondering what exactly the truth is or why he seemed coaxed into marriage?
2) She had a secret that he discovered and there was a lot of talk about pregnancy and him not falling for that AGAIN. I’m curious to know what that secret was. I know you mentioned you can’t divulge, but could you possibly give a hint? Why so much talk about pregnancy and secrets? Him being tricked into marriage?
3) The brother stopped updating his website on instructions of LE to stop posting any updates.
Could that mean that LE has gathered more information over the years and is trying to build a case against someone?
Are they anywhere close to solving this case or have that zeroed in on a suspect and need more evidence to prosecute?
Im glad to see this case getting more attention as of recent.
Also, I’m intrigued by the information you have already provided.
Thank you for keeping this case alive!
All your questions have been asked and answered. Drill down into the threads of the past 2 years. I'll summarize, but again; read.
1) TT would not have married a girl he didn't at least believe was pregnant.
2) There is no evidence she was EVER pregnant - not at the time they were married, nor before, nor later. It's all family gossip. Her mother maintains that Rachel had an abortion (TT's baby) that Spring of '74 before they were married in June. That cannot possibly true, as she stated it to me.
3) LE cannot suppress anyone's freedom of speech. Not with threats, by suggestion, or intimidation. PERIOD. That website remains virtually unchanged since the day it was created. It's not a blog - it is static by design. Rusty wants a seat at the table with LE he will never have. LE has threatened to arrest him but his website has nothing to do with it. I love him, but he gets in his own way.
That’s what I was asking earlier...if the envelope could have been from mail sent to him from someone else that conveniently had the correct postmark and date he needed.OMG! The envelope. I just figured something out. One detail can change everything and nothing. If TT did not mail that envelope to himself - then he dug it out of the trash.
I just found proof he can ONLY have dug it out of the trash.
Forget the handwriting analysis. Put that envelope into a gas spectrometer and you will find the pencil used to address the envelope is not the same one used to scrawl "Rachel" as the return address. Finally; I don't have a xerox of the back of the envelope - so I didn't mention it; several people who saw and handled the envelope noted that the back flap was crudely torn in half. That was a common location to rubber-stamp a return address. Thomas A.Trlica got a Christmas card on Christmas Eve. We can test the envelope and have a new fact for the pile of circumstantial evidence. It all helps. Thanks for your questions.