TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 - #3

[dms]

very unfortunate hair

Har.

He did get a car for his 16th birthday. So did most Wedgwood kids. What I remember about his car is that it was the sort of car your very old parents might "surprise" you with. It was not a car he would have chosen for himself. That's how you know it's a "gift." I know of only one worse 16th birthday car. It's a social disaster.

That could describe an Olds 88 -- great big comfortable grandma boat. Am I on the right track?

ETA: Or even better: a station wagon.

 

[Parksestx]

That’s not the car he got. The Olds was his mother’s vehicle. He took possession of it when his parents died.

Har.


That could describe an Olds 88 -- great big comfortable grandma boat. Am I on the right track?

ETA: Or even better: a station wagon.

 

[Via Marple]

You are right where I am. Even with the addition of the convicted pedophile.

I'll been researching like crazy to find more info on them both. No one is willing to give up anything on Rachel's father.

Never bought the someone they trusted theory.

No one has more control over you than someone you fear.

You can start researching with Cat. In thread #2, which I cannot quote now, she had said

Q: "Are you saying Cotton and Fran never left the house the day of the disappearance? Not even to go to the mall when the girls didn't come home?"
A: That's what I'm saying.

So according to Cat's sources, Cotton did not leave home on that day.

So as Fran could not be two places at the same time, either Cotton was at home, or Tommy was at the shop. Two suspects, take your pick!

 

[dms]

That’s not the car he got. The Olds was his mother’s vehicle. He took possession of it when his parents died.

Yes, I know. My poorly-expressed point was that the other vehicle must be even more of a stuffy granny-boat.

 

[Mandam]

You are right where I am. Even with the addition of the convicted pedophile.

I'll been researching like crazy to find more info on them both. No one is willing to give up anything on Rachel's father.

Never bought the someone they trusted theory.

No one has more control over you than someone you fear.

I am somewhat in that same area of thought.

I need to start writing things down, I’ve read so much but haven’t taken notes.

 

[raven9860]

You can start researching with Cat. In thread #2, which I cannot quote now, she had said

So according to Cat's sources, Cotton did not leave home on that day.

So as Fran could not be two places at the same time, either Cotton was at home, or Tommy was at the shop. Two suspects, take your pick!

There's a 3rd possible scenario within that.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

I would also like to ask too. Is it ok to elaborate on this, without naming names?


From the stuff that I had read on that group, Terry Moseley was not contradicting Rusty. He did clarify things when the discussion got totally absurd... But not about what Rusty said.

I suppose one has to tread carefully in that group.

Lying and embellishing has gone unchallenged for decades. Is this or that the hill I want to die on? There are many tales not worth contradicting because it makes no difference to the outcome. Peace comes at a price. Tread carefully or don't. I recommend you wear waders and don't make a splash.

 

[steverogers]

One question that keeps bugging me is, "Why would Rachel's mother lie in order to give Tommy an airtight alibi?," which is what's been alleged. Why would any mother lie in order to supply an alibi to a son-in-law who might have murdered her daughter?
-
A mother would only do that if she were certain that her son-in-law was innocent. How could Rachel's mother have been certain that Tommy was innocent? That's easy: she knew who the real murderer was—her husband, Cotton Arnold.
-
We know that Cotton was hard up for cash. What if Cotton's friend the serial rapist and human tooth collector had been paying Cotton for years for the privilege of having his way with Rachel? What if the friend expected Cotton to continue supplying the merchandise even though Rachel was married? Cotton and his friend might have abducted the girls from the mall or from Rachel and Tommy's house. The friend might have decided that he wanted to sexually assault all three girls. Afterward, he and Cotton may have decided to murder all three girls so that the girls couldn't talk.
-
So Rusty has stated that Rachel stopped by that day in order to invite her mother to go shopping? Maybe Rusty has a memory of Rachel being at the Arnolds' house that day, and that story is how Rusty's mother explained away Rachel's presence at the house.
-
LE has used ground penetrating radar and dug in various places looking for the girls, but did LE ever dig up Cotton Arnold's back yard?
-
I'm not necessarily sold on the theory that I just outlined, but it seems plausible in light of what we know about Cotton.

I'm heading this way also have been for awhile.I'm not sure about how or who carried it out exactly.I think Tommy and Cotton struck up a deal for Rachel.The behaviour of the Arnolds has been strange since then.That is the reason all news articles are all over the place as RA has become the spokeman

 

[Ozoner]

There's a 3rd possible scenario within that.

Color me intrigued. Are you thinking that the serial-rapist-human-tooth-collector friend acted alone? He might've spied Rachel in the company of a nine-year-old girl and decided that he wanted to sexually assault Julie. He could have used his familiarity with Rachel to get the girls into his vehicle; Rachel might've been afraid to say no to her father's friend.
-
Or—dig this—Cotton's good friend probably drifted into the transmission shop often enough; Tommy probably knew him, too. Maybe Tommy and the serial-rapist-and-human-tooth-collector-friend both intercepted the girls at the mall. (That one might be a little far fetched—I'm just spit-balling, so to speak.)
-
Maybe the girls really did stop by the Arnold house to invite Fran shopping; maybe the friend was there and followed the girls to the mall.
-
All the possible permutations are making my head spin.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

One question that keeps bugging me is, "Why would Rachel's mother lie in order to give Tommy an airtight alibi?," which is what's been alleged. Why would any mother lie in order to supply an alibi to a son-in-law who might have murdered her daughter?
A mother would only do that if she were certain that her son-in-law was innocent. How could Rachel's mother have been certain that Tommy was innocent? That's easy: she knew who the real murderer was—her husband, Cotton Arnold."

I have to disagree with the logic. If someone you cannot envision being capable of a thing like this calls you on the phone, asks if your daughter is over at your house, because she isn't at home, and chit-chats (around 4pm) about closing the shop early and going straight to the bowling alley; wouldn't you believe it? And if the police question you as to your son-in-law's whereabouts - then you would have no reason to think he wasn't at the shop all day. If the police ask a pesky follow-up question, such as "How do you know that?" You might fold your arms and say "Because I was there!" What you want is for them to get off your front porch and go look for your daughter. That is one (mostly innocent) way to alibi your son-in-law.
If you have a sleeping-with-the-enemy experience you understand the disbelief and denial that goes with that. Go read Cynthia Anthony's story - her defense of her daughter Casey's innocence, long after her the red flags were flying. The person she knew could NOT have done those things to Caylee.
The Arnolds did not know their son-in-law at all. This entire case is about trusting the wrong people - even today, all the wrong people.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

"There is alot known that is not shared with the public and all of this is watched carefuly to get the proof of all connections. That you or I or the others share.
Rusty is a bundle of nerves , knowing many things. But trying to put pieces togather to really be certain of what did occur... No proof but, a theory. Or shell I say a feeling that does not let me rest."

Rusty is a collector of information. If he relied more on the testimony of the adults that were there, and less on predatory pro-bono private investigators the case would not be in the (present day) ditch it is in.
I'm not getting much rest either. Feelings that don't go away are also known as good instincts.

 

[Ozoner]

I have to disagree with the logic. If someone you cannot envision being capable of a thing like this calls you on the phone, asks if your daughter is over at your house, because she isn't at home, and chit-chats (around 4pm) about closing the shop early and going straight to the bowling alley; wouldn't you believe it? And if the police question you as to your son-in-law's whereabouts - then you would have no reason to think he wasn't at the shop all day. If the police ask a pesky follow-up question, such as "How do you know that?" You might fold your arms and say "Because I was there!" What you want is for them to get off your front porch and go look for your daughter. That is one (mostly innocent) way to alibi your son-in-law.
If you have a sleeping-with-the-enemy experience you understand the disbelief and denial that goes with that. Go read Cynthia Anthony's story - her defense of her daughter Casey's innocence, long after her the red flags were flying. The person she knew could NOT have done those things to Caylee.
The Arnolds did not know their son-in-law at all. This entire case is about trusting the wrong people - even today, all the wrong people.

Your explanation is plausible, but barely. I haven't known many mothers-in-law who would go to bat for a son-in-law. That's more difficult to understand than Cynthia Anthony's being in denial about her own daughter.
-
I do think that Tommy wrote the letter, which is difficult to explain if he didn't have some culpability.
-
Still, Cotton seems like an über-creep who hung around with other über-creeps. His possible involvement should not be dismissed out of hand. It definitely seems like there's something rotten in the state of Arnold.
-
If Tommy acted alone and drowned to girls in Benbrook Lake, as you believe, he would have had to walk all the way back to the bowling alley, right? Could he have walked all that way without attracting attention to himself?
-
You've speculated that the army corps of engineers might already have pulled the murder car out of Benbrook Lake; perhaps a FOIA request could get you their records (probably not free of charge).
-
Are there other bodies of water that might be possible grave sites? A much smaller lake or pond would work; many farms have artificial irrigation ponds deep enough to hide a submerged car.

 

[babeebluus]

I was a teenager in 1974, frequented SS, wore those popular bright colored hip huggers from AN, and was singing Christmas carols at SS around the time the girls went missing. I was also very familiar with Wedgwood, the bowling alley, spent summers at Benbrook Lake, and knew just about every backroad to get there.
I have no true experience in these matters other than watching a lot of crime documentaries. My family calls them murder-death-kill shows. Even though odd things do occur, such as stranger abductions, rapes, murders, etc., I find that many times the responsible party is the one closest to home...the most obvious...the shortest most direct path to the conclusion. I also think caution is thrown to the wind when someone is in a fit of anger...only to look back at what has occurred and to try in some way to deflect attention...usually leading to their own demise. I think many of the theories out there could have been possible had it not been for the letter followed by the envelope (the deflection and the demise).
Having said that, I think it's a cat and mouse game. I think there are a lot of us cats without access to all the info, looking for the answer, and the mouse has become relaxed and complacent. Hopefully, the lake will reveal the one thing that will close the files for good. Looking forward to the spring, but as a dive master, I don't think the lake will warm up until early summer.

 

[raven9860]

Color me intrigued. Are you thinking that the serial-rapist-human-tooth-collector friend acted alone? He might've spied Rachel in the company of a nine-year-old girl and decided that he wanted to sexually assault Julie. He could have used his familiarity with Rachel to get the girls into his vehicle; Rachel might've been afraid to say no to her father's friend.
-
Or—dig this—Cotton's good friend probably drifted into the transmission shop often enough; Tommy probably knew him, too. Maybe Tommy and the serial-rapist-and-human-tooth-collector-friend both intercepted the girls at the mall. (That one might be a little far fetched—I'm just spit-balling, so to speak.)
-
Maybe the girls really did stop by the Arnold house to invite Fran shopping; maybe the friend was there and followed the girls to the mall.
-
All the possible permutations are making my head spin.

No. None of that.
Maybe Rachel's husband WAS at work and Rachel's father WASN'T at home.

 

[Via Marple]

There's a 3rd possible scenario within that.

No. None of that.
Maybe Rachel's husband WAS at work and Rachel's father WASN'T at home.

So your pick is the father? Well then it was one of the two scenarios in my question

I thought your 3rd scenario was the two of them going out together. But then it would mean Fran lied to protect son-in-law before her husband. This she wouldn't do, if she had any inkling that her husband was actually involved.

Fran is a very important witness indeed, even when she was not accurate.

And by supporting the latest POI and lake theory, by supporting Rusty's mission, she has essentially admitted she had lied about TT's alibi. The two can't co-exist.

And to make heads spin even more maybe Fran was protecting herself! If she's involved in some way... She was not to going to place herself anywhere near the mall within the timeframe. So she was with TT

All are speculations MOO!

 

[raven9860]

So your pick is the father? Well then it was one of the two scenarios in my question

I thought your 3rd scenario was the two of them going out together. But then it would mean Fran lied to protect son-in-law before her husband. This she wouldn't do, if she had any inkling that her husband was actually involved.

Fran is a very important witness indeed, even when she was not accurate.

And by supporting the latest POI and lake theory, by supporting Rusty's mission, she has essentially admitted she had lied about TT's alibi. The two can't co-exist.

And to make heads spin even more maybe Fran was protecting herself! If she's involved in some way... She was not to going to place herself anywhere near the mall within the timeframe. So she was with TT

All are speculations MOO!

A comment a while back on that other page caught my eye. A woman claimed to have seen a FWPD report that said it was Rachel's father that said he knew Rachel's husband was at the shop because he had been there. I asked the woman if she was sure it said Rachel's father (not her mother) and she said that she was positive.

Did we know where the info here came from that says it was Rachel's mother that said it?

 

[Love trumps all]

Rusty is a collector of information. If he relied more on the testimony of the adults that were there, and less on predatory pro-bono private investigators the case would not be in the (present day) ditch it is in.
I'm not getting much rest either. Feelings that don't go away are also known as good instincts.

..what adults were there.?
The ones according to you that has lied ,the one on his death bed,the one at work ?

 

[Love trumps all]

..what adults were there.?
The ones according to you that has lied ,the one on his death bed,the one at work ?

Sorry did not realize how this sounded it was not ment to sound rude or disrespectful

 

[Deleted member 165916]

Color me intrigued. Are you thinking that the serial-rapist-human-tooth-collector friend acted alone? He might've spied Rachel in the company of a nine-year-old girl and decided that he wanted to sexually assault Julie. He could have used his familiarity with Rachel to get the girls into his vehicle; Rachel might've been afraid to say no to her father's friend.
-
Or—dig this—Cotton's good friend probably drifted into the transmission shop often enough; Tommy probably knew him, too. Maybe Tommy and the serial-rapist-and-human-tooth-collector-friend both intercepted the girls at the mall. (That one might be a little far fetched—I'm just spit-balling, so to speak.)
-
Maybe the girls really did stop by the Arnold house to invite Fran shopping; maybe the friend was there and followed the girls to the mall.
-
All the possible permutations are making my head spin.

I sure hope this is an attempt at humor. IMO it's in pretty bad taste. If you are being serious -

"Your explanation is plausible, but barely. I haven't known many mothers-in-law who would go to bat for a son-in-law. That's more difficult to understand than Cynthia Anthony's being in denial about her own daughter."
I see your point, however, the "knee-jerk" reaction has hair-trigger here in Texas. LE spend a lot of precious time "
-
I do think that Tommy wrote the letter, which is difficult to explain if he didn't have some culpability.
-
Still, Cotton seems like an über-creep who hung around with other über-creeps. His possible involvement should not be dismissed out of hand. It definitely seems like there's something rotten in the state of Arnold.
-
If Tommy acted alone and drowned to girls in Benbrook Lake, as you believe, he would have had to walk all the way back to the bowling alley, right? Could he have walked all that way without attracting attention to himself?
-
You've speculated that the army corps of engineers might already have pulled the murder car out of Benbrook Lake; perhaps a FOIA request could get you their records (probably not free of charge).
-
Are there other bodies of water that might be possible grave sites? A much smaller lake or pond would work; many farms have artificial irrigation ponds deep enough to hide a submerged car.

I was a teenager in 1974, frequented SS, wore those popular bright colored hip huggers from AN, and was singing Christmas carols at SS around the time the girls went missing. I was also very familiar with Wedgwood, the bowling alley, spent summers at Benbrook Lake, and knew just about every backroad to get there.
I have no true experience in these matters other than watching a lot of crime documentaries. My family calls them murder-death-kill shows. Even though odd things do occur, such as stranger abductions, rapes, murders, etc., I find that many times the responsible party is the one closest to home...the most obvious...the shortest most direct path to the conclusion. I also think caution is thrown to the wind when someone is in a fit of anger...only to look back at what has occurred and to try in some way to deflect attention...usually leading to their own demise. I think many of the theories out there could have been possible had it not been for the letter followed by the envelope (the deflection and the demise).
Having said that, I think it's a cat and mouse game. I think there are a lot of us cats without access to all the info, looking for the answer, and the mouse has become relaxed and complacent. Hopefully, the lake will reveal the one thing that will close the files for good. Looking forward to the spring, but as a dive master, I don't think the lake will warm up until early summer.

The lake hasn't "turned over" yet. If those guys weren't exhausted and resources depleted, they could still go down there and accomplish the most important thing. ID the car. They have those fancy new expensive wet-suits. Leave it there; just figure out what it is. I've said that all along, but nobody listens to me, LOL.

 

[Deleted member 165916]

..what adults were there.?
The ones according to you that has lied ,the one on his death bed,the one at work ?

Specifically, the adults that interacted with one another, and LE, as events unfolded in the hours before and after. It isn't a long list, but I won't name them. They are known to one another and LE.