TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 - #2

[Deleted member 165916]

Hi, FW Cat, Nice to meet you! I've read your previous posts and I was curious about your thoughts on these fundraisers to get the cars out of the lake.

I don't think there's anything wrong with that article. The early reporting of the Fort Worth Star-Telegram was very good and since it was contemporaneous I think one of our more reliable sources of information. I used many of their early stories as sources for my own article, in fact. I don't think their reporting started getting sloppy till the early 2000s. At that point they began to basically rehash the same story every time they ran it, with perhaps a new quote from Rusty or the like. The problem with that is that once they got a piece of information wrong (for instance the car being full of gifts), they began to repeat it going forward. Kind of like a game of telephone.

Oh, my gosh, Sally Kimball, I just skimmed the article and completely missed that it said that. FW Cat I'm sure that's why you posted it. Interesting. Fortunately they didn't go on repeating that particular error for long.

 

[TGwebs]

Nope! Many fuzzy-details become AP fodder for decades. What I want to do is gather all the newspaper clips into a single PDF and post it. Intelligent people reading the articles back-to-back will see the shifts and know who has everything to lose...

FW Cat, If you were to do that I think that would be an amazing benefit to anyone interested in this case, including LE.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

See if I can get to the point...

I would find it very disturbing if Rachel's mother sided with her son-in-law, to protect him.

Getting warmer...

 

[TGwebs]

Nope! So, the author of this Christmas Day update to reporters is Rachel's mother. And it's a flat lie. That's not all...

I think there is another possibility besides Rachel's mother lying to the reporter that could account for the error. It could be simply confusion and misunderstanding. It's easy for me to picture a scenario where Fran, who was surely distraught and upset to have no idea where her daughter was on Christmas day speaks to a reporter and says something along the lines of, "We received a letter," instead of "Tommy received a letter." I don't know the distinction would have seemed important to her at the time and this could have been said without intending to mislead anyone. I think it's a possibility worth considering.

 

[Sally Kimball]

Getting warmer...

I think that maybe her parents weren’t the ones to find the car in the lot. I don’t remember who did. But I think that may be another inaccuracy you’re pointing out in this article.

 

[Via Marple]

I think there is another possibility besides Rachel's mother lying to the reporter that could account for the error. It could be simply confusion and misunderstanding. It's easy for me to picture a scenario where Fran, who was surely distraught and upset to have no idea where her daughter was on Christmas day speaks to a reporter and says something along the lines of, "We received a letter," instead of "Tommy received a letter." I don't know the distinction would have seemed important to her at the time and this could have been said without intending to mislead anyone. I think it's a possibility worth considering.

TG, Can I pick your brain please?

In your research, have you seen it mentioned that Rachel's mother gave Tommy an alibi on Dec 23? I seem to recall that like a fact posted on this thread.

It's quite amazing that this thread including #1, has gone on for more than 10 years!

 

[Via Marple]

TG, Can I pick your brain please?

In your research, have you seen it mentioned that Rachel's mother gave Tommy an alibi on Dec 23? I seem to recall that like a fact posted on this thread.

It's quite amazing that this thread including #1, has gone on for more than 10 years!

That's a lot to unravel; but here goes.
Under no theory would Rachel have gone by the shop. She was sneaking out to go at all. When the police asked Rachel's mother where TT was that afternoon she replied, " At work, at his shop." But, being the police that comes with a follow-up question. "How do you know he was there?" And according to witnesses she responded, "Because I was there." Witnesses know she was home all day. My thinking on that lie is this (leaving Francis out of it for now.) My theory is that about 4:00 he called Rachel's parent's house. He wanted to check in with people. He probably called home and talked to Debbie, again. He asked Francis if Rachel was over there. He told her he called home and there was no answer. Although we know Debbie was there. He set up his own alibi by explaining to them he was going to close the shop early and go straight to the bowling alley for his usual Monday Night League instead of going home first - since Rachel was still out. I don't think he made those phone calls from his shop. I think he made them from a payphone on Granbury Rd. - about a 20 minute walk to the bowling alley. So when he talked to Francis she took his story at face value. (The girls aren't missing yet.) When the police challenged her with a follow-up question she didn't expect, she got defensive and lied. If she believed TT was there because of a phone call "from the shop," that's what she should told the police. Instead she lied, so they would stop suspecting and investigating her family members? People feel that's the logical explanation especially as time went on. She wasn't there. She cannot testify as to his whereabouts for one minute of that entire day.

Found this post from FW_cat. Witnesses to Rachel's mother giving that alibi. (My underlines)

 

[TGwebs]

TG, Can I pick your brain please?

In your research, have you seen it mentioned that Rachel's mother gave Tommy an alibi on Dec 23? I seem to recall that like a fact posted on this thread.

It's quite amazing that this thread including #1, has gone on for more than 10 years!

Via Marple, I have never seen Rachel's mother being Tommy's alibi mentioned anywhere except this forum by FW Cat. FW Cat, is it possible to share how you came about that information and also how you confirmed it? You mention witnesses so it would be helpful to know who they were.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I think that maybe her parents weren’t the ones to find the car in the lot. I don’t remember who did. But I think that may be another inaccuracy you’re pointing out in this article.

True: They were not yhere.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

True: They were not yhere.

not "THERE"...is what I meant.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

FW Cat, If you were to do that I think that would be an amazing benefit to anyone interested in this case, including LE.

It has been on my to-do list. I have a lot of "digital goo." It

Via Marple, I have never seen Rachel's mother being Tommy's alibi mentioned anywhere except this forum by FW Cat. FW Cat, is it possible to share how you came about that information and also how you confirmed it? You mention witnesses so it would be helpful to know who they were.

Adults, neighbors, other parents, who know for a fact and agree, that she was not in places she claims to have been - because they were there. People with no reason to lie.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I don't know why - but WS keeps crashing on me. And I'm not getting notices on e-mail. It makes it hard to keep up and reply in sequence. Sorry.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

TG, Can I pick your brain please?

In your research, have you seen it mentioned that Rachel's mother gave Tommy an alibi on Dec 23? I seem to recall that like a fact posted on this thread.

It's quite amazing that this thread including #1, has gone on for more than 10 years!

shocks the hell out of me. never thought I'd still be doing this...only joined WS in 2016. I've been wandering alone in this desert for a long time.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I think there is another possibility besides Rachel's mother lying to the reporter that could account for the error. It could be simply confusion and misunderstanding. It's easy for me to picture a scenario where Fran, who was surely distraught and upset to have no idea where her daughter was on Christmas day speaks to a reporter and says something along the lines of, "We received a letter," instead of "Tommy received a letter." I don't know the distinction would have seemed important to her at the time and this could have been said without intending to mislead anyone. I think it's a possibility worth considering.

Debra got in her car (Minot Ave.), drove to her parents house (less than 4 miles), and shows her mother the letter. Francis calls police, who come to the Arnold's house on 6th Avenue. They pass it around, and ask to see the envelope it was mailed in. Debra's like, "uhhhh, be right back." She leaves. Later that day - much later - the envelope is driven downtown and turned over to police (by someone in that family.) That is the most consistent version of the story. It's impossible to verify because neither of the other two girls families were there. Not even informed about it until the next day. I'd like to see that police report, and the follow ups.

 

[Via Marple]

Debra got in her car (Minot Ave.), drove to her parents house (less than 4 miles), and shows her mother the letter. Francis calls police, who come to the Arnold's house on 6th Avenue. They pass it around, and ask to see the envelope it was mailed in. Debra's like, "uhhhh, be right back." She leaves. Later that day - much later - the envelope is driven downtown and turned over to police (by someone in that family.) That is the most consistent version of the story. It's impossible to verify because neither of the other two girls families were there. Not even informed about it until the next day. I'd like to see that police report, and the follow ups.

It does fit into the timeframe in the newspaper article on Dec 25 that you posted. And how came the other parents said then that they didn't think much of the letter - it didn't feel right when they were told.

And how come the policemen didn't go with Debra back home to look with her and Tommy? I remember she was on this forum before and said it was all a blur afterwards. I am not surprised, it was not her job to record down everything.

 

[TGwebs]

[QUOTE="Adults, neighbors, other parents, who know for a fact and agree, that she was not in places she claims to have been - because they were there. People with no reason to lie.[/QUOTE]

Respectfully snipped. FW Cat, can you elaborate on this a little more? It's still a little unclear to me. Are you saying you personally spoke to adults, neighbors, other parents, etc. who confirmed this for you? If so, was it back in 1974 or more recently? Can you be more specific about what they said?

 

[nannymo]

Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters

FW Cat, it is apparent you have a lot of inside information about this case. Have you considered becoming a verified insider on the case? I am not questioning your knowledge of the case. It just gives you a lot more freedom in posting information if you become verified.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

[QUOTE="Adults, neighbors, other parents, who know for a fact and agree, that she was not in places she claims to have been - because they were there. People with no reason to lie.

Respectfully snipped. FW Cat, can you elaborate on this a little more? It's still a little unclear to me. Are you saying you personally spoke to adults, neighbors, other parents, etc. who confirmed this for you? If so, was it back in 1974 or more recently? Can you be more specific about what they said?[/QUOTE]
Sorry. The short answer is "No." The long answer is "Noooooooo." How do you "snip"? I think everyone here would benefit from knowing that.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

Verification Process for Professional or Insider Posters

FW Cat, it is apparent you have a lot of inside information about this case. Have you considered becoming a verified insider on the case? I am not questioning your knowledge of the case. It just gives you a lot more freedom in posting information if you become verified.

I was verified insider shortly after I "joined", but with the new website format - I no longer am. I'm fine with it. My anonymity was blown by Rusty Arnold to all of our mutual Facebook Friends. People that had NO IDEA I've been working in the background for years. When you are betrayed by someone who should be grateful...it's a frustrating set-back to the case. What happens on FaceBook stays on FaceBook. WS is the "Drama-Free Zone." So, back to work...

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I think that maybe her parents weren’t the ones to find the car in the lot. I don’t remember who did. But I think that may be another inaccuracy you’re pointing out in this article.

Neither of Rachel's parents left the house that day - except to go next door, neighbors that contradicted Francis Arnold's account of being 18 miles away in east Arlington; Period. Who lies about a thing like that under those circumstances?