TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #7

[FW_Froggy]

Agreed. What was the fight at the BA all about? the threesome TT, RT and DA or something else? Any VI ever comment on that?

Yep that story is from DJ's notes and has SM, ST, TT, RA, and DA all in attendance. The night of the 22nd and early morning of the 23rd at Pizza Inn right outside the bowling alley. That is an interesting story which puts SM there on the 22nd and at some points puts DA and SM as baby sitters of ST. DA says she worked the 22nd BUT she could of had the early shift.

 

[T rex]

Did we ever get settled whether DA spent that night at Minot?

I'm for certain that I've read she didn't although I can't remember what the source was.

It was the V.I. kettlecorn that stated DA was not there that night. Thread 5, pg 2, post 24.

 

[beubeubeu]

What park?

No idea. It wasn't ever specified I think.

Possible, but not likely. Some rapists start young...

Yes, but I just wandered what they could mean by "older".
Older than her then so more than 14? Significantly older than her so more than 40? Or really "older man" so 55 at least?
Anything more specific would make it possible to theorise if it may be a perp responsible for reported attacks but like that...

So shortly after an alleged rape (followed by pregnacy, followed by end of pregnancy)Rachel is theoretically "railroaded" into marrying a handsome, wealthy, young man with an already eventful past, who possibly  loves her, but definitely doesn't understand her.

No counseling at the time, no psychological support available really. And not to forget that - not sure about the timing of it, but DA also got pregnant young and gave birth to a daughter. That could be also... cause we don't know if Rachel wished to keep the pregnancy (if it was possible to not end up bullied cause of that) but was forced into abortion... or if DA wanted to get abortion but was forced to gave birth.
Pretty much anything apart from Rachel wanting abortion and DA wanting to keep the pregnancy and give the baby away would likely cause some terrible tension.

Who would make up something like that?

Plenty of people do and even more did back then.
I don't mean it like: nothing happened & such story was completely made up just for kicks. There are other reasons.
Like if it didn't happen in the park at all and the perp was known, but too influencial to accuse him of anything but some people learned about the pregnancy.
Or if the scenario was even more horrifying than stranger attacking in the park.
Or if it was done by family member or a family friend they didn't want to accuse.
Could be that it's the story they got from Rachel who was too afraid to identify the perp or too traumatised to tell how it really happened.

Even now SA survivors who willingly left with someone and got assaulted are often blamed for being responsible themselves for unexpected attack that happened afterwards - it was ten times stronger few decades back. That can often result with "made up" story about stranger attack - which can still bring some victim blaming, but at least takes away all the horrors of "how dare you to accuse such a decent person, he would never do such a thing!".

 

[beubeubeu]

It was the V.I. kettlecorn that stated DA was not there that night. Thread 5, pg 2, post 24.

I think "that night" reffers to the night after the disappearance, not before.

Thread 5, pg 1 post 18:

"Tommy had left Rachel their car to go shopping and rode to work with her Dad.
As for were they able to sleep that night. He was up all night waiting by the phone for his wife to call.
As for DH, according to her words on here (ws) she and her brother stayed up all night that night at their parents house worried.
He didn't notice anything out of the ordinary that day, He had went to work like any other day."

It's about the night from 23rd to 24th.
It leaves TT alone, waiting by the phone at Minot and DA with RA at A's.

And of course, as usual, it brings up yet another big question:
If it were RA & DA who waited by the phone then where were FA & CA?

 

[T rex]

I think "that night" reffers to the night after the disappearance, not before.

Thread 5, pg 1 post 18:

"Tommy had left Rachel their car to go shopping and rode to work with her Dad.
As for were they able to sleep that night. He was up all night waiting by the phone for his wife to call.
As for DH, according to her words on here (ws) she and her brother stayed up all night that night at their parents house worried.
He didn't notice anything out of the ordinary that day, He had went to work like any other day."

It's about the night from 23rd to 24th.
It leaves TT alone, waiting by the phone at Minot and DA with RA at A's.

And of course, as usual, it brings up yet another big question:
If it were RA & DA who waited by the phone then where were FA & CA?

Yea, the night the girls were reported missing. I never thought it was any other night.

So DA was at her parents house all night but was back at Minot in the early morning hours in time to turn back some guy she says she forgot was coming, is there just long enough to get the letter and is gone again? Right on cue if you ask me.

 

[beubeubeu]

Yep that story is from DJ's notes and has SM, ST, TT, RA, and DA all in attendance. The night of the 22nd and early morning of the 23rd at Pizza Inn right outside the bowling alley. That is an interesting story which puts SM there on the 22nd and at some points puts DA and SM as baby sitters of ST. DA says she worked the 22nd BUT she could of had the early shift.

But wasn't that alleged fight going between Rachel and DA, not between Rachel and TT?
So there were two public fighths - one few days before 23rd between Rachel and TT about going to the mall, and one the night before, between Rachel and DA?
Or it's just one fight with very different descriptions and people involved?

Oh God, it's such a mess. SOOO many more questions.
Were they having fights everytime they went bowling? Or just prior to the disappearance?
And how that happened:
- one day there is TT, Rachel and some of their friends able to provide info about their fight about shoppind,
- another day ST, TT & Rachel, DA & her DJ-SM and possibly some others whitnessing another fight...
- and there is 23rd when TT seems to be the only one going bowling, with his kid and he somehow manages to stay completely oblivious to the fact that girls didn't came back from bowling till 8:30, when DA calls him and shows up to pick him up, but they leave little ST behind despite of everyone being elsewhere?
What sense does that make? Are they all acting completely random all the time? Why literally nobody seems to think that it may be a good idea to ask the husband if he has any clue where Rachel may be? Why they aren't checking the bowling alley till 8:30 and not considering that girls may be suddenly bowling with TT?

Oh, maybe cause the car was located earlier.

And it was located... as I just recently learned - not by Renee's dad, not by her uncle or their neighbour but by the A's neighbour?!

And I'm not sure if I'm getting that correctly but it seems like this guy was:
- Mrs. W's longtime friend's husband,
- living at home where the birthday party Renee was planning to go,
- father of Renee's and Rachel's friend who last moment refused to go with them shopping to help her mom with setting up the party,
- the main source of the story with Rachel meeting with Melvin at school and accepting a diamond ring from him,
- husband of a woman who's account is placing A's car in their driveway for the "whole day" and the main reason why TT's story about that day seems so questionable, making her and DA the only two people in this whole case that aren't contradicting each other on everything (both are saying that CA was at home and wasn't driving anywhere, despite of not claiming to see him at all).

Okay, but why was Rachel talking about Melvin with adult male neighbour from all the people?

 

[beubeubeu]

Yea, the night the girls were reported missing. I never thought it was any other night.

So DA was at her parents house all night but was back at Minot in the early morning hours in time to turn back some guy she says she forgot was coming, is there just long enough to get the letter and is gone again? Right on cue if you ask me.

Yeah, she surely was there to get that line worth wattpad Korean romance drama, as she described TT coming back to the room with the letter while having "his face in disbelief".
I can find some mondain explanation for all of her weird actions, even that weird selective memory loss, but not for "his face in disbelief" even if his face was indeed in disbelief.

Also, there was some friend or neighbour who claimed to be around and said that she wasn't sitting at home contemplating and looking at disbelief in TT's face, but outside home when TT got the letter.

Drug use may be responsible for confusion, memory loss, false memories even, if all these stories are coming from 40+yo DA then than may be one explanation for why it sounds so ridiculous at times.

Is taking all her accounts out of the narrative leaving it somewhat consistent?

 

[snakefinger]

Could she have been trying to locate him because she thought he might know where the girls were? I cannot picture DA (or any reasonable human being) being romantically interested in a guy who was involved in trafficking her sister.

At one time, "the girls were trafficked" was my pet theory. But, at this point, it doesn't explain all the run-around of lies and alibis, and all-around  weirdness of this case. It doesn't explain TT's behavior, or the A family's behavior, or DJ's behavior. It doesn't explain the letter, or VB's changing statements. It just doesn't add up.

The runaround and "weirdness" make more sense if there were ANY family/friends involvement. Not making any accusations, just pointing out the possibility of such.

 

[snakefinger]

No idea. It wasn't ever specified I think.

Yes, but I just wandered what they could mean by "older".
Older than her then so more than 14? Significantly older than her so more than 40? Or really "older man" so 55 at least?
Anything more specific would make it possible to theorise if it may be a perp responsible for reported attacks but like that...

No counseling at the time, no psychological support available really. And not to forget that - not sure about the timing of it, but DA also got pregnant young and gave birth to a daughter. That could be also... cause we don't know if Rachel wished to keep the pregnancy (if it was possible to not end up bullied cause of that) but was forced into abortion... or if DA wanted to get abortion but was forced to gave birth.
Pretty much anything apart from Rachel wanting abortion and DA wanting to keep the pregnancy and give the baby away would likely cause some terrible tension.

Plenty of people do and even more did back then.
I don't mean it like: nothing happened & such story was completely made up just for kicks. There are other reasons.
Like if it didn't happen in the park at all and the perp was known, but too influencial to accuse him of anything but some people learned about the pregnancy.
Or if the scenario was even more horrifying than stranger attacking in the park.
Or if it was done by family member or a family friend they didn't want to accuse.
Could be that it's the story they got from Rachel who was too afraid to identify the perp or too traumatised to tell how it really happened.

Even now SA survivors who willingly left with someone and got assaulted are often blamed for being responsible themselves for unexpected attack that happened afterwards - it was ten times stronger few decades back. That can often result with "made up" story about stranger attack - which can still bring some victim blaming, but at least takes away all the horrors of "how dare you to accuse such a decent person, he would never do such a thing!".

If I remember correctly, it was an older man in a pickup. I think it was covered in one of the Gone Cold webcasts.

 

[FW_Froggy]

TT's VI said TT went home to Minot after work and took a shower and got ready for bowling. The VI said DA took him to bowling. DA says TT did not come to Minot after work and she did not see him till after bowling. ST said his father TT said he was with him all day. DA said ST was not at Minot on the 23rd. ST said his mother has always said that she picked him up at Minot on the 23rd. Hmmmmm.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Also, there was some friend or neighbour who claimed to be around and said that she wasn't sitting at home contemplating and looking at disbelief in TT's face, but outside home when TT got the letter.

Who would that have been?

Drug use may be responsible for confusion, memory loss, false memories even, if all these stories are coming from 40+yo DA then than may be one explanation for why it sounds so ridiculous at times.

I've wondered about that.

Is taking all her accounts out of the narrative leaving it somewhat consistent?

Does it?

 

[Brightchaser47]

the main source of the story with Rachel meeting with Melvin at school and accepting a diamond ring from him

So someone besides FA knew this guy existed?

Okay, but why was Rachel talking about Melvin with adult male neighbour from all the people?

Maybe she trusted him (he was the next-door neighbor and friend of W family), and it's something as innocent as he noticed the ring on her finger and commented on it/asked about it, and she told him--if he was the source.

 

[Brightchaser47]

If I remember correctly, it was an older man in a pickup. I think it was covered in one of the Gone Cold webcasts.

Did this happen  before or  after "Preacher Melvin"?

 

[Brightchaser47]

So DA was at her parents house all night but was back at Minot in the early morning hours in time to turn back some guy she says she forgot was coming, is there just long enough to get the letter and is gone again? Right on cue if you ask me.

If DA was at the mall parking lot from 11:30 pm til (?) and SM arrived at 5 something in the morning (which is what we've been told), DA would've only been at her parents' house for a few hours, which is a little different than all night.
As for the letter, what you're saying implies the A family was involved. Otherwise, TT could've "received" the letter and simply  called the A home (or LE) to report it.

 

[Brightchaser47]

TT's VI said TT went home to Minot after work and took a shower and got ready for bowling. The VI said DA took him to bowling. DA says TT did not come to Minot after work and she did not see him till after bowling. ST said his father TT said he was with him all day. DA said ST was not at Minot on the 23rd. ST said his mother has always said that she picked him up at Minot on the 23rd. Hmmmmm.

So, according to TT:
*Shawn rode to work with Daddy and CA,
* Stayed at the shop all day
* Came home with Daddy and CA
* Went bowling with Daddy
Which would mean Shawn had spent the night at Daddy's (or gotten dropped off at 7:30 am that morning)   and Mommy's lying
According to ST:
* Shawn spent the night of the 22nd with Daddy
* Mommy picked him up at Daddy's house at 12:30 pm on the 23rd
* He was with Mommy the rest of the day and Daddy's lying
 Both ST and DA  deny seeing TT during the day, on the 23rd, and  both claim to have seen Rachel alive at 12:30 pm, but not each other.

 

[tilomagnet]

Yep that story is from DJ's notes and has SM, ST, TT, RA, and DA all in attendance. The night of the 22nd and early morning of the 23rd at Pizza Inn right outside the bowling alley. That is an interesting story which puts SM there on the 22nd and at some points puts DA and SM as baby sitters of ST. DA says she worked the 22nd BUT she could of had the early shift.

Considering the source, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt

 

[Brightchaser47]

Yep that story is from DJ's notes and has SM, ST, TT, RA, and DA all in attendance. The night of the 22nd and early morning of the 23rd at Pizza Inn right outside the bowling alley. That is an interesting story which puts SM there on the 22nd and at some points puts DA and SM as baby sitters of ST. DA says she worked the 22nd BUT she could of had the early shift.

Agreed. What was the fight at the BA all about? the threesome TT, RT and DA or something else? Any VI ever comment on that?

Considering the source, this needs to be taken with a grain of salt

It  does need to be taken with a grain of salt. There's a who, what, when, and where, but still no  why.

 

[beubeubeu]

TT's VI said TT went home to Minot after work and took a shower and got ready for bowling. The VI said DA took him to bowling. DA says TT did not come to Minot after work and she did not see him till after bowling. ST said his father TT said he was with him all day. DA said ST was not at Minot on the 23rd. ST said his mother has always said that she picked him up at Minot on the 23rd. Hmmmmm.

Oh God...

CLAIM	TT says:	DA says:	ST says:	Other whitnesses?
ST was staying at Minot on the 22/23rd.	YES	NO	YES	-
TT got a lift to and back from work with CA.	YES	NO	-	-
ST showed up at Minot around noon no pick up little ST.	NO	NO	YES	-
Rachel was at Minot at 12:30PM	-	YES (?)	YES	-
With Renee, Julie and little ST	-	NO	YES	-
TT got back home from work to take a shower.	YES	Haven't seen him	-	-
DA stayed home all day	Haven't seen her	YES	Haven't seen her	-
TT went bowling, on foot (?) after dark, and with 2yo.	YES	YES (?)	-	VI says NO
Little ST was at the bowling alley with TT	YES	-	-	Whitness claims to babysit little ST while TT left.

Conclusion:
Most contradictions are coming from claims made by people who at the same time are claiming to not be at the location where they could whitness how it happened, they also not making claims of another person being there.

Possible explanations for contradictions:
Limited knowledge or awareness in most cases.
No explanation as to how VI learned that DA drove TT bowling - as both: TT & DA say that didn't happen.
Absolutely no explanation as to how DA could be sure that CA didn't drove TT to and back from work. Even more, she claims to not see him either leaving to work (cause asleep and insisting that ST wasn't at Minot, so clearly she haven't seen him there in the morning) or coming back (cause she claims she haven't seen him coming back, and he doesn't mention seeing her then either).
If she was like on the phone with CA at the time when TT got home, she could be pretty sure. But she doesn't make such claim and both DA and TT agree that they haven't seen each other. So the only remaining possibility of her knowing for sure would be for her to be with CA at the time when TT was going home. Huh?

Yet the biggest and unexplainable contradictions regards the crucial right-after-noon time and little ST's wherabouts.
DA could assume that he wasn't home that day and it doesn't contradict TT's claim of having him at work.
It's possible that DA saw Rachel at 12:30, but missed ST, Renee & Julie. It's possible that ST missed DA being at home.
But there is no way for ST's and TT's claims to be results of limited awareness or limited knowledge. They're contradicting itself.

 

[beubeubeu]

Who would that have been?

Should be possible to find somewhere but I don't have it at easy.
Not sure about the logistics of it but there was a claim that there were multiple other people in the morning of 24th.

Does it?

No.
There is at least one super sketchy person making bizarre claims at every important location.
And what makes her look the most suspicious are PI's notes, and those are suspicious as well.

 

[beubeubeu]

So someone besides FA knew this guy existed?

Not that easy, obviously.
Cause there is not a slightest hint on HOW they connected all these dots and merged it into one Melvin.
And this neighbour (FC I think) seems to be the source of story about the guy Rachel was meeting at school and about the ring.
No clear claim that Rachel told him that she was meeting same guy who showed up at their door, introduced himself as a preacher looking for a babysitter and was also fully blown creep who stalked DA and had access to licence plates database. Theoretically she could, but what girl on Earth would be into such guy and needed their parents intervention to stop dating him?

Maybe she trusted him (he was the next-door neighbor and friend of W family), and it's something as innocent as he noticed the ring on her finger and commented on it/asked about it, and she told him--if he was the source.

Maybe, but A's weren't nearly as close with W's as it's told, and they apparently weren't close enough to invite Rachel on that party so I doubt that.