TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #6

[T rex]

Mike Chambers is the name. I'll put it in a seperate post just in case it gets removed.

 

[Brightchaser47]

There was discussion on here earlier about the use of polygraphs as an intimidation tactic. There seems to be a lot of controversy surrounding their use/interpretation.
Incidently, how soon after the girls' disappearance did DA become suspect? She claimed she begged LE to consider it a Missing Persons Case, but they were convinced it was a case of runaways (unless I'm mistaken).

 

[beubeubeu]

I don't think so. TT's work was about a half-hour drive (distance from Minot Ave to Arlington). Like on any normal day,CA picked him up for work,at about 7:30 (TT's version of that day). Most schools start around 8:00. Unless the school was next door to the shop, she'd either have to take him to work  really early, or be  really late for school.
Also, given the fact that Rachel/TT only had one car between them (we're told), I'm having problems with the story that Rachel made stop(s), at some point in the girls' travels, to inquire about job application(s). How (and when) was she going to get to work?
I know I shared a few posts back that TT claimed Rachel liked to drive to school (most teenagers do), but working out the logistics of it, it doesn't seem feasible.

What's wrong with the logistics here?
Assumming that TT was driving to and back from work with CA, Rachel could drive to and back from school.
And work... I'd think that same as every other working teenager: after school.

 

[Brightchaser47]

What's wrong with the logistics here?
Assumming that TT was driving to and back from work with CA, Rachel could drive to and back from school.
And work... I'd think that same as every other working teenager: after school.

You're right, beubeubeu, but my post was in response to  Valiant's idea of Rachel driving TT to work...

 

[beubeubeu]

Incidently, how soon after the girls' disappearance did DA become suspect? She claimed she begged LE to consider it a Missing Persons Case, but they were convinced it was a case of runaways (unless I'm mistaken).

I'm not sure if she actually became suspect.
Her brother started suspecting her and pushing her away from all searching-related activities sometime after he got together with DJ, continued it for years, took it to extreme, then changed his mind.

After all this time, and with the info they're  bound to have (that we don't), I sometimes wonder if LE aren't protecting someone....

Or they may have some good reason to not see TT as the main/only suspect.

But the post I was referring to states he thinks she was there but not positive.
I understand that just because someone is a verified family member doesn't necessarily mean they have the right to speak for someone else but some of these people claim to be doing just that and that's fine with me. Maybe they have TT' s blessing on that. What way do we really have of knowing? My point is I can take these people serious or I can dismiss what they say but I can't do both at the same time. If I'm gonna take that particular post serious then that's my thoughts on it.

Ok, now I understand what did you meant.
But the post from VI I understand differently.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I'm not sure it was specified. I'll see if I can find it again, get more details.

Thread 6, pg 12, post 240
Wishyouknew(Verified Family Member of Mary Trlica):"There are morsels of truth in his work" (referring to DJ)"such as the reference to an issue with another cousin of mine being sexually assaulted by Tommy".
This was speaking to the question of whether there was a history of violence/ impropriety with TT.
I think there's another post somewhere, with similar language, but I haven't located it, yet.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I find it interesting that while RA (with DJ's help) and other family members suspected DA's involvement in the girls' disappearance (and some still do), FA never did. At least that's my understanding.

 

[FW_Froggy]

I find it interesting that while RA (with DJ's help) and other family members suspected DA's involvement in the girls' disappearance (and some still do), FA never did. At least that's my understanding.

I'm not sure FA never did I think it was more FA didn't want to lose another daughter.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Ok, so assuming (for a moment)
1. DA actually was home all day, and
2. CA was home all day, and
3. FA was home all day (except when she was next door at the neighbor's),
then the only person unaccounted for is TT-- right?
So where was the man, and how did he get there?
If he was at work, he'd have to either:
1. Have the use of a client's car, or
2. Catch a ride with someone.
If he didn't go to work that day, where was he?

 

[Brightchaser47]

Could CA or TT have had a "side hustle" going on in the shop to make more money (the IRS wasn't getting their cut)?

 

[Valiant]

Could CA or TT have had a "side hustle" going on in the shop to make more money (the IRS wasn't getting their cut)?

I doubt it was anything that elaborate. It was probably a combination of poor record keeping, underestimating income, overestimating expenses, and not making timely tax payments.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I doubt it was anything that elaborate. It was probably a combination of poor record keeping, underestimating income, overestimating expenses, and not making timely tax payments.

You could be right. In the absence of known fact, it's easy to let your imagination run wild...

 

[T rex]

Ok, so assuming (for a moment)
1. DA actually was home all day, and
2. CA was home all day, and
3. FA was home all day (except when she was next door at the neighbor's),
then the only person unaccounted for is TT-- right?
So where was the man, and how did he get there?
If he was at work, he'd have to either:
1. Have the use of a client's car, or
2. Catch a ride with someone.
If he didn't go to work that day, where was he?

I think it would be a mistake to assume some of these things.
TT's alibi is shaky at best and DA has no alibi. There's no one else to confirm where she was at and we know she had a means of transportation.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I think it would be a mistake to assume some of these things.
TT's alibi is shaky at best and DA has no alibi. There's no one else to confirm where she was at and we know she had a means of transportation.

That's all true, but I was trying to see what it would look like, if we assumed (just for argument's sake) that DA was innocent (or at least where she said she was).
Actually, for those who believe at least  one of the girls met her end in that house, DA couldn't have given herself a worse alibi.

 

[T rex]

Actually, for those who believe at least  one of the girls met her end in that house, DA couldn't have given herself a worse alibi

That's why they would need to keep it at the mall.

That's all true, but I was trying to see what it would look like, if we assumed (just for argument's sake) that DA was innocent (or at least where she said she was).

I see where you're coming from. That's why I was arguing, just for the sake of it.
Its just that I feel like TT and DA are either directly responsible or that they feel like they are indirectly responsible and they're holding back regardless of who and where or if Rachel was the target or it was Renee.
And all poor little Julie wanted was someone to play with. That's the one that really gets to me. She was just a little girl going to the mall without any money to look at all sorts of things she probably wanted but could not have. Damn the people that did this. Their days coming.

 

[Valiant]

Ok, so assuming (for a moment)
1. DA actually was home all day, and
2. CA was home all day, and
3. FA was home all day (except when she was next door at the neighbor's),
then the only person unaccounted for is TT-- right?
So where was the man, and how did he get there?
If he was at work, he'd have to either:
1. Have the use of a client's car, or
2. Catch a ride with someone.
If he didn't go to work that day, where was he?

But yet you have to think there are other employees at the shop. It’s not easy work, even with proper equipment, for a single person to greet customers, answer the phone, remove transmissions, rebuild them, and reinstall.
Had TT left (or the girls showed up at the shop) someone else probably would have noticed, assuming they were interviewed and not covering for TT for some reason.

 

[beubeubeu]

Ok, so assuming (for a moment)
1. DA actually was home all day, and
2. CA was home all day, and
3. FA was home all day (except when she was next door at the neighbor's),
then the only person unaccounted for is TT-- right?
So where was the man, and how did he get there?
If he was at work, he'd have to either:
1. Have the use of a client's car, or
2. Catch a ride with someone.
If he didn't go to work that day, where was he?

At times it feels like it's turning into this weird cluedo game with very limited list of suspects and full confidence that surely either one of them did it or some of them (or even all of them) conspired, as there is actually no physical way for anyone else to commit the crime.

One of VI said that Cotton wasn't that nice of a man to give his SIL rides just for the sake of Rachel going shopping.
But in the same time - he could be unaware that's the reason behind it, and do that just out of habit or cause he liked to see how the work is going, just look around or pick up something on the way. We know nothing about his habits.

It's not like the whole ordeal can't be explained in a stupid and mondain way. Let's say:
1. DA was home all day, before she went to pick TT up from bowling alley.
2. CA actually gave TT ride to and back from work cause at the time he hasn't take his treatment YET... or at all. Cause again, we don't know what kind of person he was when it came to healthcare. We know that he didn't have insurance (at all or good enough to cover all the medical bills) so we don't know if he was like "oh, I'm supposed to take it today, so 100% I have to take it today" or more of the type "oh, I'm supposed to take it today, but I don't want to be all sick on Christmas, so we will actually do that on 26th".
3. If the neighbour actually, physically lived NEXT DOOR from A's it'd be pretty hard for her to watch A's driveway.
23rd is not the time to set outdoor decorations. And doing stuff at home would likely require getting pretty close to the window to look outside and check what's going on in the street.
Possible, some people do that - but we don't know if she really claimed that or not. Could be that she only compared usual workdays when FA wasn't around and car wasn't in their driveway most of the day and just missed Fran's brief visit in the workshop in the morning as well as 1,5h long absence later.

At the time when they made all those statements, if innocent, they could have no real clue of how serious it is and that they won't ever see the girls again. There could be some dumb motive behind all this mess - like sudden fear that now it could be all over the newspapers that they say that CA was givin people rides and kinda going to work on the day when he was supposed to be taking treatment. They were likely way less scared than other families cause:
1. Rachel was 17
2. They had experience with DA running away previously, multiple times, and she was coming back safe
so unlike Julie's mom or Wilson's - they had reasons to think/hope that it may be not that serious.

It's all so weird, it all feels so stretched.
But in the same time. Scenario like:

1. Guy is angry and jealous about his teenage wife.
2. He snaps on the day and at the time when he's 100% sure that she's not alone.
3. Finds her
a) in company of two younger girls at the Mall and forces them to go with him... but where?
b) at home, where her sister temporarily lives, with two other people living in their backyard and also with ex and in-laws possibly showing up at random times.
4. Murders her.
5. Murders them too.
6. But he's so lucky that her sister is just there, ready to jump in and help him dispose of the bodies cause they went to highschool together and dated briefly, while he was still married to his ex.
7. They figure that in order to stop LE from investigating anything too soon they need to fake a letter that will explain the sudden disappearance, but they fail to make anything right.
8. His inlaws realize what he did and also jump in to help cover for this triple murder of their daughter, their friends only daughter and one other little girl.

I know that things point at that being completely or partially accurate, but it's too stretched to last 50 years. It sounds like lousy Borgias and so unlike any other crime I ever heard about. Scenarios like that usually make sense just because some important factors are missing.

 

[beubeubeu]

But yet you have to think there are other employees at the shop. It’s not easy work, even with proper equipment, for a single person to greet customers, answer the phone, remove transmissions, rebuild them, and reinstall.
Had TT left (or the girls showed up at the shop) someone else probably would have noticed, assuming they were interviewed and not covering for TT for some reason.

That ad clearly says: factory trained TECHNICIANS. So multiple people.

And we know for sure that there were other guys working at their business at least at some point, cause one of them allegedly pointed out oddity of those 10 or 20k TT gave to CA before he started working.

No easy to find (either cause it's hard or cause it's simply not there) any mention of coworker confirming that TT was at work and left well past 4:00 PM.
But is that cause there was no one there on the 23rd... or cause they were and confirmed so it seemed completely irrelevant to mention, and only sometime later it started to appear crucial?

It's odd. Cause TT's whereabouts are one thing.
But about a week later girls not there. Even if at the time TT was not suspected at all, wouldn't it be kinda obvious to check on the employees wherabouts that day? Not at the angle of being or not being TT's alibi, but in case that one of them could see something or meet the girls?
It's not a next level theory to consider that wife could call husband at work or even show up there. They had to check that.

 

[Brightchaser47]

This case is like the game of "Clue" from (you know where)...

 

[Brightchaser47]

Ok, so assuming (for a moment)
1. DA actually was home all day, and
2. CA was home all day, and
3. FA was home all day (except when she was next door at the neighbor's),
then the only person unaccounted for is TT-- right?
So where was the man, and how did he get there?
If he was at work, he'd have to either:
1. Have the use of a client's car, or
2. Catch a ride with someone.
If he didn't go to work that day, where was he?

Thread 5, Pg 37, Post 734
Wishyouknew (Verified Family Member of Mary Trlica):"That is not what Richard told me first hand. Cotton has cancer treatment that morning and they didn't leave the house. Fran went next door around noon to see if they needed help setting up for the party. That came from his lips directly to my ears."