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

[FW_Froggy]

BTW, for those who believe TT killed all three girls, but LE can't arrest/charge him for it-- is it because of
1. Missing evidence to directly tie him to the crime
2. No bodies
3. Individual(s) involved that LE can't touch

I can't see TT being involved without DA knowing something and I can't see DA being involved without TT knowing something. Without a body no one can prove anything.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Many seem to believe that if/when bodies are found, the identity of the killer(s) will immediately be known. Not necessarily. Depending on how and where they're found, the only certainty may be that they're dead.
The "transmission fluid barrels" theory seems to be pretty popular, but that's assuming the type of barrel, and method of disposal. In light of recent post on that topic, I'm not so sure.
Also, I'm hearing the idea that Rachel was killed at home, the other two at the transmission shop. Why would you transport two young girls  alive from your home to your place of work (half an hour away), and then kill them? That makes no sense to me.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I can't see TT being involved without DA knowing something and I can't see DA being involved without TT knowing something. Without a body no one can prove anything.

So either they're both in on it, or both innocent?

 

[Valiant]

Many seem to believe that if/when bodies are found, the identity of the killer(s) will immediately be known. Not necessarily. Depending on how and where they're found, the only certainty may be that they're dead.
The "transmission fluid barrels" theory seems to be pretty popular, but that's assuming the type of barrel, and method of disposal. In light of recent post on that topic, I'm not so sure.
Also, I'm hearing the idea that Rachel was killed at home, the other two at the transmission shop. Why would you transport two young girls  alive from your home to your place of work (half an hour away), and then kill them? That makes no sense to me.

I do t see anyone killed at the transmission shop. I doubt TT at CA were alone there to do that.

 

[beubeubeu]

I can't see TT being involved without DA knowing something and I can't see DA being involved without TT knowing something. Without a body no one can prove anything.

I can't see either of those working outside the assumption that it had to happen at the T's house and that the only reliable sighting comes from TT's ex.

This house is in 20 feet distance from neighbouring houses.
Small backyard.
With two people living in that backyard at the time.

And sorry, but how that even works with the timeline?
They'd have to go kinda out of their way to make that stop on the way to the SS, and they'd have no reason to still be together if that happened after shopping (cause much more convenient to drop them at Renee's grandma on the way back).
How it works even?
TT enters the house and finds Rachel there but somehow misses her car with girls inside? But he'd have to pass their car to enter the house.
TT's already inside, with DA and Rachel comes in, something happens but it's somehow surprising to them that somebody else is with Rachel, despite of them both (TT and DA) being aware of her plans to go shopping not alone?

 

[T rex]

The last couple days I've been reading up on whats known as Philately. I'd never heard of it but it seems like its much much easier to walk in a post office and have an envelope hand stamped with a postmark, cancelled and put right back in your hand than I ever thought it would be.
It's a service offered by USPS for stamp collectors, decorative envelopes and other such things and it's been around for a while. From what I'm seeing it's easy and anyone can do it just with a simple request. There has to be someone here that knows more about it than me. Is it just that easy?

 

[T rex]

You are exactly right. Their meeting at the mall was to be at noon. Some don’t believe Shana’s statement of meeting the girls at the house but I do believe she saw the girls that day. I have no proof other than her details statement. For persons story that day there’s another persons strty that contradicts that one. Sometimes it’s the same persons story that contradicts the story they told previously. As for locals thoughts on it, well, I’ll leave that to the locals to comment on. I would really like to speak with anyone at the bowling alley that night.

I'm still skeptical about it but I'm still intrigued by it. Why would she (shana) say this if it wasn't true? According to her own admission it would make her the last known person to see the girls.
Some have tried to debunk this claim because of her statement about the girls putting on sweaters and coats on an unseasonably warm day but couldn't the same logic be used when it comes to the eyewitness account of California Jacket Guy?

 

[Valiant]

The last couple days I've been reading up on whats known as Philately. I'd never heard of it but it seems like its much much easier to walk in a post office and have an envelope hand stamped with a postmark, cancelled and put right back in your hand than I ever thought it would be.
It's a service offered by USPS for stamp collectors, decorative envelopes and other such things and it's been around for a while. From what I'm seeing it's easy and anyone can do it just with a simple request. There has to be someone here that knows more about it than me. Is it just that easy?

Every hand stamped postmark I’ve seen is noticeably different than the automated machine postmark. To me the envelope looks like machine postmarked.

 

[T rex]

Every hand stamped postmark I’ve seen is noticeably different than the automated machine postmark. To me the envelope looks like machine postmarked.

I wasn't gonna go there just yet, about the envelope in question. I was trying to determine how possible, easy or hard, it would be.

Maybe I shouldn't have used the term hand stamped in my post because it doesn't neccesarily have to be. It's only hand stamped if requested.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

I can't see TT being involved without DA knowing something and I can't see DA being involved without TT knowing something. Without a body no one can prove anything.

I would totally agree with this.

I feel that even if they were not directly involved in the girls disappearance (I think they more than likely were), then at the very least they have knowledge of what happened that day. I just can't come up with a viable scenario that does not involve either of them.

 

[FW_Froggy]

I can't see either of those working outside the assumption that it had to happen at the T's house and that the only reliable sighting comes from TT's ex.

This house is in 20 feet distance from neighbouring houses.
Small backyard.
With two people living in that backyard at the time.

And sorry, but how that even works with the timeline?
They'd have to go kinda out of their way to make that stop on the way to the SS, and they'd have no reason to still be together if that happened after shopping (cause much more convenient to drop them at Renee's grandma on the way back).
How it works even?
TT enters the house and finds Rachel there but somehow misses her car with girls inside? But he'd have to pass their car to enter the house.
TT's already inside, with DA and Rachel comes in, something happens but it's somehow surprising to them that somebody else is with Rachel, despite of them both (TT and DA) being aware of her plans to go shopping not alone?

The two people in the back yard moved months before Dec. 1974.

 

[beubeubeu]

I'm still skeptical about it but I'm still intrigued by it. Why would she (shana) say this if it wasn't true? According to her own admission it would make her the last known person to see the girls.
Some have tried to debunk this claim because of her statement about the girls putting on sweaters and coats on an unseasonably warm day but couldn't the same logic be used when it comes to the eyewitness account of California Jacket Guy?

Why would she say that is one question and IF she actually said that is another.
It's not like she gave an interview (as far as I was able to find) and made any claim.

John Swaim who was doing whatever the hell he was doing with this case (including allegedly probably physically altering the case files, official case files, those that FWPD got - by removing some stuff and adding some other stuff in after being allowed to look through them) since the very beginning.
Dan James was collaborating with him at the time, in the late 70's even.
Yet he haven't conntacted the families, or anyone really till 1999? 2000? Till he miraculously, randomly got called by RA who was just looking for a PI in local newspaper. And the he started his own show.

Part of which was publishing on facebook group random screenshots.
One of those was part of email, allegedly from Shana.

Some have tried to debunk this claim because of her statement about the girls putting on sweaters and coats on an unseasonably warm day but couldn't the same logic be used when it comes to the eyewitness account of California Jacket Guy?

Same logic? IMO absolutely not.

1. Shana claimed that she got to the house on Minot (T's house) and stopped the girls from leaving with Shawn, who she got there to pick up (and who, according to other people's statements wasn't there on that day, and wasn't supposed to be there either).
2. CJG could move around on his own, without supervision or assistance. 2 years old child could not. Yet there was absolutely no explanation provided on how and why he was there, when he got there, why his presence wasn't mentioned by anyone else prior to that, and who was taking care of him while Rachel got to pick up Renee.
3. To believe Shawna's account we have to doubt Renee and Julie's parents ability to notice what items of clothing are missing, or assume that girls somehow got those clothes and put them on in the matter of about an hour.
4. IF that actually came from her.

 

[Ozoner]

BTW, for those who believe TT killed all three girls, but LE can't arrest/charge him for it-- is it because of
1. Missing evidence to directly tie him to the crime
2. No bodies
3. Individual(s) involved that LE can't touch

1 and 2. I know that you mentioned the Vicki Lynn Nisbett case, but no-body prosecutions seem to be pretty rare in Texas. LE messed up by not treating the case as a crime immediately. If the girls were killed in the Minot house, for instance, then the perps had plenty of time to clean up.

Also, that "Melvin" guy who was stalking Rachel was an über-creep, IMO. His existence might be enough to give a jury reasonable doubt. (I don't know whether his real identity has ever been released to the public.)

 

[Brightchaser47]

1 and 2. I know that you mentioned the Vicki Lynn Nisbett case, but no-body prosecutions seem to be pretty rare in Texas. LE messed up by not treating the case as a crime immediately. If the girls were killed in the Minot house, for instance, then the perps had plenty of time to clean up.

Also, that "Melvin" guy who was stalking Rachel was an über-creep, IMO. His existence might be enough to give a jury reasonable doubt. (I don't know whether his real identity has ever been released to the public.)

I'd forgotten about "Melvin". How thoroughly was  he investigated?

 

[Ozoner]

I'd forgotten about "Melvin". How thoroughly was  he investigated?

I have never seen any evidence that he was investigated, but one would hope that LE at least tried to establish an alibi for him.
LE has said that there are fewer than 5 suspects, and I would not be surprised if he's one of them. I also don't know whether he's dead or alive.

 

[beubeubeu]

I'd forgotten about "Melvin". How thoroughly was  he investigated?

From "The Texas oblivion: mysterious disappearances, escapes and cover-ups" by E.R. Bills, published in 2021:

 

[Brightchaser47]

Aside from the "psychopath" rhetoric, what evidence is there (circumstantial or otherwise) that TT was responsible for the Trio's disappearance? (I, too, would like to know more about the "bowling alley drama")?
If we eliminate the transmission shop as a crime scene, what else do we have to work with (besides the house at Minot)?
Also, no offense to LE, but I find it odd that they can label TT a "psychopath", but they can't agree on whether or not he wrote the letter.

 

[beubeubeu]

I'm not lying towards the theory of it the note being altered by someone else, or at least I wasn't before.

So... my last few sessions of staring at the zoomed note for hours ended up with me trying to divide it in two hypothetical styles (under assumption that there are, indeed, two, and the odd change of style isn't caused by emotions, unstable surface or anything like this).

Sadly I don't know about any samples of Rachel's handwriting available... but since I'm no writing analysis expert, it wouldn't make much a difference anyway.

I decided to go for pacing and childish and not so childish appearance of letters and words.

Writing clearly don't follow straight lines.



Which parts are off?
Those:



What about the distance between the words?
Blue - what seems to "average", red - small or significantly smaller.



What appears childish to me is:



Mostly same areas where writing doesn't follow straight line, and where distances between words are smaller, non existent or unreasonably weird - like in that "T he" that looks like it wanted to be "I..." at first.

Since it felt like I was the only one seeing vertical folding it may be just me overdosing the stare.
I apologise for lack of more advanced or smoother editing, but I have to keep things in MS Paint but removing all the weird looking stuff leaves (in my opinion) that:

"I know I'm going to catch it, but
go way we're going
See you
in Sears
Love
Rachel"​

 

[Brightchaser47]

From "The Texas oblivion: mysterious disappearances, escapes and cover-ups" by E.R. Bills, published in 2021:

View attachment 403805

Again with the polygraph....

 

[beubeubeu]

Also, no offense to LE, but I find it odd that they can label TT a "psychopath", but they can't agree on whether or not he wrote the letter.

LE didn't label him psychopath.
Informal opinion of one investigator with unknown bigger context of the conversation doesn't have much to do with the letter.
Could obviously hint at him being able to do bad stuff, could be just a way of pointing out that he doesn't react for polygraph like average person do, making it impossible to magically extract the truth out of him via polygraph.