beubeubeu
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2019
- Messages
- 903
- Reaction score
- 1,933
To be fair, LE enforcement's actions seem to be pretty unusual as well. But "ridiculous" may be more appropriate description there.
And I don't even mean it as being neglectful or just the fact that they classified girls as runways. I mean that it doesn't make any logical sense either - considering what we know (since I obviously can't consider things that aren't publicly available).
So okay, it's 1974. Likely not that many resources, not so many tools to use and the general attitude of "well, they're probably just runaways". Everyone who follows missing person's stories knows that there is no shortage of cases where police kept refusing to even make a report for a missing person, lying that they have to wait 24 hours, 48, 72, a week, even a month (in Misty Copsey's case for example), but all of those that I can recall either had at least:
a) SOME tiny hint that they may be dealing with runaway case,
b) some possible to point out reasoning for the type or lack of action taken on the LE's part (at times being absolutely outrageous, but outrageous and consistent - meaning that you can see how lack of experience, prejudice, laziness, neglect appeared at point A and how it led to point B).
As for the point "a". Handsight is 20/20 and cops being cops - they had to deal with many false kidnapping or even runaway claims that turned out to be nothing serious and missing person either came back home or was found safe and sound. Even in 70's big majority of reported missing persons cases had quick and happy resolution and LE had to consider that someone could just make a decision to start a new life or had some temporary issues with conntacting family. They simply couldn't put all their resources into searching and investigating any MP report - understandable.
Working the job that they did and listening to family member's story they probably were able to name a few cases where it looked kinda similar, and some time later missing person came back, made a conntact or was found safe. Sometimes it saved their time and effort, sometimes they made terrible mistake.
But how it applies here?
If it was "just" Rachel going missing, okay, 70's, maybe they could assume that she was unhappy in her marriage and went away to start fresh leaving car behind cause it wasn't her car. Doing that on a day when she had a planned shopping trip would be not the worst idea: she could by herself some time to get away before anyone got suspicious.
I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, but it would be - to a degree - understandable. Especially adding the fact that she left a note behind.
Maybe maybe the same, stretched theory could apply to Renee running away with her. Cause 14 yo could say that she's older and get some kind of job somewhere. So maybe they planned it together. A note that kinda explains what they're doing and where they're going... okay - possibly a cop could tell a few examples of cases with teenagers that looked kinda similar. Also - but to a lesser degree - understandable.
But THREE girls, including one kid who don't even know one of the older girls that well?
What savings could they have?
No clothes taken from their homes, no personal belongings, not even a bit of money in Julie's case. Even some pants left behind.
Car dropped far from the bus stop.
No history of running away.
Terrified families.
Where could they go right before Christmas? With no change of clothes? Even leaving some clothes behind?
No freaking way that any of these cops knew similar cases that turned out to be nothing serious with everyone coming back home safe. No freaking way.
Some running away 9 year olds maybe, but I bet that none in similar circumstances.
Then, there is a note clearly saying that they'll be back in a week or so. Then "week or so" passes and GIRLS ARE NOT BACK HOME.
No more letters, no calls, nothing.
Why none of them called from that "Houston" trip?
When something like that happens? When two teenage girls are going with their life like nothing bad is going on, just to ask few people to join them on a shopping trip to end up running away for some time with neighbourhood kid, leave a note or maybe even a call to say when they will be back, but they're not back at that time... and it somehow ends up like nothing scary, found/back safe. Ever?
How they figured two teenagers being able to support not only themselves but a kid as well? What about school? Wasn't Julie supposed to go to school?
What was going on with their minds?
Why they didn't acted like at least in Julie's case they're dealing with kidnapping?
Not one but three families swearing that it's not like them to disappear without a word.
Two closest Rachel's family members saying that it doesn't look like her handwriting.
Anyone could go on and on with these questions, and these are all valid, but their actions don't make sense.
We're not talking cops from some small town in the middle of nowhere, where last missing person case happened in 1942. It's a pretty big city with wide range of crimes happening.
We're also (as far as I know) not dealing with cops reluctant to do their job. They showed up at the mall relatively quickly. They checked out girls car, asked some questions and left. They could do more, now we know that they should do more for the girls sake, but they did something. They didn't refuse to do anything like many others.
And on the next day they showed up at the A's home, notified about the letter. Some form of engagement and dedication it was. They certainly didn't have to show up there in person, could just demand to deliver them the note, but they showed up. At least one was clever enough to ask for the envelope - even if it was just their drill, they done that and that was a good job on their part.
But what caused that sudden change then?
Maybe they could calm down for "about a week", believing that note is genuine.
But what then?
First week on January. Girls didn't came back. Never called, never wrote another letter, never send a postcard from Houston.
They have at least two people claiming that Rachel didn't wrote that note.
They have a kid who should be going to school but no one knows where she is.
They have a note written in pen and envelope addressed in pencil.
This is not the point where any person with half of a brain would figure that the likelyness of them being runaways just increased.
Public interest is high, media coverage is there. It's not only unreasonable to put more money on the runaway theory but also not so great for LE's image to decrease their interest in this case.
But that's exactly what they did. Case became ten times more suspicious as "about a week" passed and they weren't even consistently reluctant to investigate, they decreased their involvement... as claims in the note revealed themselves to be false.
What sense does that make? It's ridiculous and inconsistent... unless in the mean time they somehow got more reasons to believe that they indeed were runaways.
They didn't get them from reality, cause reality screamed otherwise.
They didn't get them from experience, cause they couldn't possibly have similar cases in mind to make an assumption that under circumstances like that, girls are more likely than not safe and staying away on their own will.
And we're not talking some lone, miserable cop who in 20 years on the job dealed only with petty theft, noise complaints and fights in local bar at his town of 800 people and has no idea what to do about missing people.
They were either crazy, or got some more reasons to believe that girls are runaways. And not some little things cause Julie was nine. NINE. Nine and no school, not healthcare, no adult supervision, no legal guardian with her, no family member with her, no change of clothes, no money, no reason to run away and nowhere to go, not even a car to sleep in, no toothbrush, no pajamas, no nothing.
And, more importantly - no reason, absolutely NO REASON for any of the girls to NOT pack at least small bag or a backpack with them, if that "Houston" trip or running away action was planned. Rachel could easily pack a small bag and put it in the trunk when nobody was watching. Renee was staying overnight at her grandmas - so great excuse to pack fill at least her school backpack with clothes, take a toothbrush, hairbrush, change of shoes, maybe a blanket. She could take it with her easily, causing no suspicion in the morning.
- What are you carrying there?
- Oh, I'm hiding christmas gift for you/parents/Rachel/anyone.
End of story. Same with Julie. Her mom at work, she could take a few clothes with her.
Yet, she didn't. None of them did. How many runaways do that? Not many. Would be possible with spontaneous act, but no three underage girls, two teens and one kid are "spontaneously" running away and staying away for "about a week".
If TT's story about what he did on that day have zero sense, then this makes negative thousand sense. It's unbelieveable - and by "unbelieveable" I don't mean outrageous, I mean impossible.
That "assumption" lasted for months, long months, in span of which families went crazy, repeatedly spoke to newspapers, repeatedly expressed their disappointment in LE, hired a PI. LE couldn't just stay oblivious to all of that without any - with lack of a better description - "strong force", reassuring them that they're doing the right thing.
What was it? What could it be? Some claims that later appeared to be false but then somehow made running away theory seem likely?
Some sort of inside pressure to not investigate? Overwhelming amount of more urgent cases just flooding local LE and exhausting all their human resources isn't a reason to keep something like that classified as runaways. What else? Severe multiple case of stupidity? That wouldn't magically appear in late December just to heal after few months. So either first or second possibility, nothing else makes even the slightest bit of sense.
And I don't even mean it as being neglectful or just the fact that they classified girls as runways. I mean that it doesn't make any logical sense either - considering what we know (since I obviously can't consider things that aren't publicly available).
So okay, it's 1974. Likely not that many resources, not so many tools to use and the general attitude of "well, they're probably just runaways". Everyone who follows missing person's stories knows that there is no shortage of cases where police kept refusing to even make a report for a missing person, lying that they have to wait 24 hours, 48, 72, a week, even a month (in Misty Copsey's case for example), but all of those that I can recall either had at least:
a) SOME tiny hint that they may be dealing with runaway case,
b) some possible to point out reasoning for the type or lack of action taken on the LE's part (at times being absolutely outrageous, but outrageous and consistent - meaning that you can see how lack of experience, prejudice, laziness, neglect appeared at point A and how it led to point B).
As for the point "a". Handsight is 20/20 and cops being cops - they had to deal with many false kidnapping or even runaway claims that turned out to be nothing serious and missing person either came back home or was found safe and sound. Even in 70's big majority of reported missing persons cases had quick and happy resolution and LE had to consider that someone could just make a decision to start a new life or had some temporary issues with conntacting family. They simply couldn't put all their resources into searching and investigating any MP report - understandable.
Working the job that they did and listening to family member's story they probably were able to name a few cases where it looked kinda similar, and some time later missing person came back, made a conntact or was found safe. Sometimes it saved their time and effort, sometimes they made terrible mistake.
But how it applies here?
If it was "just" Rachel going missing, okay, 70's, maybe they could assume that she was unhappy in her marriage and went away to start fresh leaving car behind cause it wasn't her car. Doing that on a day when she had a planned shopping trip would be not the worst idea: she could by herself some time to get away before anyone got suspicious.
I wouldn't agree with that reasoning, but it would be - to a degree - understandable. Especially adding the fact that she left a note behind.
Maybe maybe the same, stretched theory could apply to Renee running away with her. Cause 14 yo could say that she's older and get some kind of job somewhere. So maybe they planned it together. A note that kinda explains what they're doing and where they're going... okay - possibly a cop could tell a few examples of cases with teenagers that looked kinda similar. Also - but to a lesser degree - understandable.
But THREE girls, including one kid who don't even know one of the older girls that well?
What savings could they have?
No clothes taken from their homes, no personal belongings, not even a bit of money in Julie's case. Even some pants left behind.
Car dropped far from the bus stop.
No history of running away.
Terrified families.
Where could they go right before Christmas? With no change of clothes? Even leaving some clothes behind?
No freaking way that any of these cops knew similar cases that turned out to be nothing serious with everyone coming back home safe. No freaking way.
Some running away 9 year olds maybe, but I bet that none in similar circumstances.
Then, there is a note clearly saying that they'll be back in a week or so. Then "week or so" passes and GIRLS ARE NOT BACK HOME.
No more letters, no calls, nothing.
Why none of them called from that "Houston" trip?
When something like that happens? When two teenage girls are going with their life like nothing bad is going on, just to ask few people to join them on a shopping trip to end up running away for some time with neighbourhood kid, leave a note or maybe even a call to say when they will be back, but they're not back at that time... and it somehow ends up like nothing scary, found/back safe. Ever?
How they figured two teenagers being able to support not only themselves but a kid as well? What about school? Wasn't Julie supposed to go to school?
What was going on with their minds?
Why they didn't acted like at least in Julie's case they're dealing with kidnapping?
Not one but three families swearing that it's not like them to disappear without a word.
Two closest Rachel's family members saying that it doesn't look like her handwriting.
Anyone could go on and on with these questions, and these are all valid, but their actions don't make sense.
We're not talking cops from some small town in the middle of nowhere, where last missing person case happened in 1942. It's a pretty big city with wide range of crimes happening.
We're also (as far as I know) not dealing with cops reluctant to do their job. They showed up at the mall relatively quickly. They checked out girls car, asked some questions and left. They could do more, now we know that they should do more for the girls sake, but they did something. They didn't refuse to do anything like many others.
And on the next day they showed up at the A's home, notified about the letter. Some form of engagement and dedication it was. They certainly didn't have to show up there in person, could just demand to deliver them the note, but they showed up. At least one was clever enough to ask for the envelope - even if it was just their drill, they done that and that was a good job on their part.
But what caused that sudden change then?
Maybe they could calm down for "about a week", believing that note is genuine.
But what then?
First week on January. Girls didn't came back. Never called, never wrote another letter, never send a postcard from Houston.
They have at least two people claiming that Rachel didn't wrote that note.
They have a kid who should be going to school but no one knows where she is.
They have a note written in pen and envelope addressed in pencil.
This is not the point where any person with half of a brain would figure that the likelyness of them being runaways just increased.
Public interest is high, media coverage is there. It's not only unreasonable to put more money on the runaway theory but also not so great for LE's image to decrease their interest in this case.
But that's exactly what they did. Case became ten times more suspicious as "about a week" passed and they weren't even consistently reluctant to investigate, they decreased their involvement... as claims in the note revealed themselves to be false.
What sense does that make? It's ridiculous and inconsistent... unless in the mean time they somehow got more reasons to believe that they indeed were runaways.
They didn't get them from reality, cause reality screamed otherwise.
They didn't get them from experience, cause they couldn't possibly have similar cases in mind to make an assumption that under circumstances like that, girls are more likely than not safe and staying away on their own will.
And we're not talking some lone, miserable cop who in 20 years on the job dealed only with petty theft, noise complaints and fights in local bar at his town of 800 people and has no idea what to do about missing people.
They were either crazy, or got some more reasons to believe that girls are runaways. And not some little things cause Julie was nine. NINE. Nine and no school, not healthcare, no adult supervision, no legal guardian with her, no family member with her, no change of clothes, no money, no reason to run away and nowhere to go, not even a car to sleep in, no toothbrush, no pajamas, no nothing.
And, more importantly - no reason, absolutely NO REASON for any of the girls to NOT pack at least small bag or a backpack with them, if that "Houston" trip or running away action was planned. Rachel could easily pack a small bag and put it in the trunk when nobody was watching. Renee was staying overnight at her grandmas - so great excuse to pack fill at least her school backpack with clothes, take a toothbrush, hairbrush, change of shoes, maybe a blanket. She could take it with her easily, causing no suspicion in the morning.
- What are you carrying there?
- Oh, I'm hiding christmas gift for you/parents/Rachel/anyone.
End of story. Same with Julie. Her mom at work, she could take a few clothes with her.
Yet, she didn't. None of them did. How many runaways do that? Not many. Would be possible with spontaneous act, but no three underage girls, two teens and one kid are "spontaneously" running away and staying away for "about a week".
If TT's story about what he did on that day have zero sense, then this makes negative thousand sense. It's unbelieveable - and by "unbelieveable" I don't mean outrageous, I mean impossible.
That "assumption" lasted for months, long months, in span of which families went crazy, repeatedly spoke to newspapers, repeatedly expressed their disappointment in LE, hired a PI. LE couldn't just stay oblivious to all of that without any - with lack of a better description - "strong force", reassuring them that they're doing the right thing.
What was it? What could it be? Some claims that later appeared to be false but then somehow made running away theory seem likely?
Some sort of inside pressure to not investigate? Overwhelming amount of more urgent cases just flooding local LE and exhausting all their human resources isn't a reason to keep something like that classified as runaways. What else? Severe multiple case of stupidity? That wouldn't magically appear in late December just to heal after few months. So either first or second possibility, nothing else makes even the slightest bit of sense.