TX TX - Julie Moseley, 9, Mary Trlica, 17, Lisa Wilson, 14, Fort Worth, 23 Dec 1974 #8

[Florent B]

In relation to my previous message, I rediscovered in the forum that the town of Rachel's grandparents is Marshall, a town close to the border with Louisiana.

Also, I read somewhere that Mary Rachel Trlica wanted to become a PE teacher. But to be a physical education teacher, don't you have to practice a sport?
Did Rachel practice a sport, and if so, which one?

note that this implies good physical condition and many hours of work (with team?).

Otherwise, what did she want to be?

Because at first, I had read that Rachel wanted to find a job in the Mall. Is this true? What kind of job? If it's true, she must have contacted some of the mall's shopkeepers to apply for jobs - especially before the holiday/Chrismas season. Meeting people in SS.

Apparently she hasn't found any work for those few days.

 

[Valiant]

You don’t have to practice a sport to be a PE teacher. Some schools have a PE teacher who is also a coach for a sports team.

 

[Hearttriobroken]

Hello everyone
On this Christmas Day, I'd like to come back to the letter, which was discussed at length in a previous thread, because when I started researching this case, I confess, as a French, I didn't understand what "I'm going to catch it" meant. Was it about a person? If so, why not "him" or "her", or was it a disease, like "to catch a cold"? After many months, and after discovering that Rachel's family came from a town in north-east Texas (now I don't know which), I realized that it could be a meaning that is still used in my region of Normandy. "Je vais me faire attraper" "(I'm going to get caught) "Mon père va m'attraper" (My father is going to catch me).
This linguistic meaning "to get an argument" could have circulated along the Louisiana and Mississippi rivers to the west.
It doesn't really matter who wrote it, just what the author meant. And, on rereading this letter (well, this note), it's obvious that the phrase "The car is in Sears upper lot" was added later (a posteriori). The handwriting is different and the declination (inclination) on the paper is different.
A word about the envelope. My personal conviction, i.e. no facts. Is that the envelope was sent previously by an administration, which does not put a postage stamp, or better, that it was ready and already stamped to send to an administration or company (to get an answer). In France it was usual at the time, in the USA I don't know.

I totally agree. I posted earlier that the mail could have traveled overnight, but IMO the letter was produced by a guilty party. If I’m remembering correctly, the letter was ‘found’ and taken to RT’s parents and police. The police wanted the envelope. So an envelope was found either before or after the letter was ‘found’ and turned in later. Explaining the reason the script was written with different writing tools and why just ‘Rachel’ is written in the return address. TT had done business in Weatherford and Throckmorton. So having the envelope around the house so formally addressed with the mystery zip code is not so far fetched to be available.

 

[Florent B]

23 dec 1974 - The question is: Why that day?

 

[Brightchaser47]

23 dec 1974 - The question is: Why that day?

One very popular theory is that on that particular day, Rachel (accompanied by Renee and Julie) was at Seminary South Shopping Center, in the company of a young man (VB) with whom she had recently been (allegedly) inappropriate, causing her husband to fly into a jealous rage and kill her (the location varies).
Although the claim has been made (by a private investigator) that Rachel was having "multiple affairs", we're asked to believe it was her being in VB's company at the mall on this particular day that her husband had a problem with.
I do believe Rachel, Renee, and Julie  were briefly in VB's company, but not at the mall. I believe the A family (and others) have gone to great lengths (including staging the car) to create 'sightings' that place the Trio at the mall with VB, because that's where they were headed (according to witnesses at Gordon), and to divert suspicion.
I'm inclined to believe the A family was involved in some illegal activity at the Fort Worth shop location (after it allegedly closed down) and on Dec 23, 1974, the Trio and VB stopped off there (after the Army/Navy store) and that is where the girls disappeared. I believe something (drug deal, bust, etc) was to occur that day, and the girls weren't supposed to be there. VB actually put them in harm's way by having them take him there. Both Rachel's husband and brother deny knowing anything about that location of the business (which is highly suspicious, and makes no sense).
While I believe Rachel's husband and sister have knowledge of what transpired that day (and are responsible for the 'letter' and envelope), I do not believe they murdered anyone. I think the narrative that the girls were "last seen at Seminary South", and killed by a jealous husband has been cleverly employed for years, to divert attention from a shady family enterprise (possible drug deal/sting gone wrong) that claimed three girls' lives, and prompted others to either leave town rather suddenly, or to tell lies on top of lies to cover it all up.
I believe some members of FWPD have earnestly worked this case through the years, and some know d--n well what happened, have thwarted investigation, and are patiently waiting for people to die off, as members of LE could/would be implicated. All JMO.

 

[Toniab329]

I'm inclined to believe the A family was involved in some illegal activity at the Fort Worth shop location (after it allegedly closed down) and on Dec 23, 1974, the Trio and VB stopped off there (after the Army/Navy store) and that is where the girls disappeared. I believe something (drug deal, bust, etc) was to occur that day, and the girls weren't supposed to be there. VB actually put them in harm's way by having them take him there. Both Rachel's husband and brother deny knowing anything about that location of the business (which is highly suspicious, and makes no sense).
While I believe Rachel's husband and sister have knowledge of what transpired that day (and are responsible for the 'letter' and envelope), I do not believe they murdered anyone. I think the narrative that the girls were "last seen at Seminary South", and killed by a jealous husband has been cleverly employed for years, to divert attention from a shady family enterprise (possible drug deal/sting gone wrong) that claimed three girls' lives, and prompted others to either leave town rather suddenly, or to tell lies on top of lies to cover it all up.

I'm the worst "sleuth" ever, because every time I read someone's theory, I think it makes the most sense--until the next one!

The only thing about this, if TT has knowledge of what happened, but wasn't involved with the deaths, why would he allow the "jealous rage due to VB" rumors to be perpetuated? Even if he was never in real danger of being arrested, he's had this hanging over him his entire life. Why would he never have said "This is what happened"? Fear of being charged with being an accessory?

 

[Brightchaser47]

I'm the worst "sleuth" ever, because every time I read someone's theory, I think it makes the most sense--until the next one!

Don't feel bad- this case tends to have that effect!

The only thing about this, if TT has knowledge of what happened, but wasn't involved with the deaths, why would he allow the "jealous rage due to VB" rumors to be perpetuated? Even if he was never in real danger of being arrested, he's had this hanging over him his entire life. Why would he never have said "This is what happened"? Fear of being charged with being an accessory?

That would be my guess. I think (for him) being accused of being jealous (with no evidence he's a killer) is preferrable to being held liable for something tragic happening at a business he was co-owner of. Also, if there are LE complicit in this (which I believe is a strong possibility), it could be a bit of a stand-off. Both TT and those LE know what  really happened that day at 110 N Sylvania Ave (the Fort Worth shop location) , and neither party wants that to get out. JMO

 

[Chypre]

Although the claim has been made (by a private investigator) that Rachel was having "multiple affairs", we're asked to believe it was her being in VB's company at the mall on this particular day that her husband had a problem with.
I do believe Rachel, Renee, and Julie  were briefly in VB's company, but not at the mall. I believe the A family (and others) have gone to great lengths (including staging the car) to create 'sightings' that place the Trio at the mall with VB, because that's where they were headed (according to witnesses at Gordon), and to divert suspicion.
I'm inclined to believe the A family was involved in some illegal activity at the Fort Worth shop location (after it allegedly closed down) and on Dec 23, 1974, the Trio and VB stopped off there (after the Army/Navy store) and that is where the girls disappeared. I believe something (drug deal, bust, etc) was to occur that day, and the girls weren't supposed to be there. VB actually put them in harm's way by having them take him there. Both Rachel's husband and brother deny knowing anything about that location of the business (which is highly suspicious, and makes no sense).

I see it. What do you think about VB's intentions that day?

 

[Brightchaser47]

I see it. What do you think about VB's intentions that day?

I think he knew what was going on at the shop, but I don't believe he meant for the girls to get hurt. In my opinion, something went wrong, and the girls were caught in the crossfire, so to speak. I think VB left town out of fear, but not fear of a jealous husband. If anything, I feel he might've been afraid to face TT, when TT was informed the girls were a casualty of the dealings at the shop, and VB was responsible for them being there, in the first place. JMO

 

[tilomagnet]

Why would VB have Rachel drive them all to the shop though?

 

[Brightchaser47]

Why would VB have Rachel drive them all to the shop though?

We're told VB was a hitchhiker at that time, so it's plausible he caught a ride with the girls (somewhere between Gordon and A/N store), asked them to run to the shop before heading to the mall (it wasn't that far). It's also possible (imo), that VB was driving the car, once they picked him up, and he wanted to run by the shop, before the mall. Either way, I think he had an appointment to pick up/drop off something at the shop, but also wanted to see Renee away from TM (who'd been invited, but begged off). Renee had received a promise ring that morning from TM, but that didn't mean that VB had lost interest. However, I don't believe he would have taken the girls to the shop, had he known there would be trouble. JMO

 

[tilomagnet]

But wouldnt trouble be gueranteed anyway if VB did have something going on with Rachel and they show up together at TTs workplace?

 

[Brightchaser47]

But wouldnt trouble be gueranteed anyway if VB did have something going on with Rachel and they show up together at TTs workplace?

I don't believe VB and Rachel had something going on, tbh. I think the alleged "Birthday party" incident involving Rachel, Renee, and VB was embellished and misconstrued after the girls' disappearance. Also, TT worked at the Arlington location. He would've been nowhere near the Fort Worth shop (which he claimed to know nothing about) when the girls and VB were, imo.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Police Det. Tom Boetcher stated in 2001, "We can say they were seen at one point with one individual". Many people believe that meant the girls were seen with VB (aka CJG) at the mall, but I think the girls  were seen with VB at Gordon-- possibly between Gordon and A/N store. I don't believe they made it to the mall. But there was one family who (imo) went to a great deal of effort to create the illusion that they had. That was preferrable to the public (and the other families) knowing the girls had met with foul play at their place of business (which had supposedly shut down)..jmo

 

[Florent B]

One very popular theory is that on that particular day, Rachel (accompanied by Renee and Julie) was at Seminary South Shopping Center, in the company of a young man (VB) with whom she had recently been (allegedly) inappropriate, causing her husband to fly into a jealous rage and kill her (the location varies).
Although the claim has been made (by a private investigator) that Rachel was having "multiple affairs", we're asked to believe it was her being in VB's company at the mall on this particular day that her husband had a problem with.
I do believe Rachel, Renee, and Julie  were briefly in VB's company, but not at the mall. I believe the A family (and others) have gone to great lengths (including staging the car) to create 'sightings' that place the Trio at the mall with VB, because that's where they were headed (according to witnesses at Gordon), and to divert suspicion.
I'm inclined to believe the A family was involved in some illegal activity at the Fort Worth shop location (after it allegedly closed down) and on Dec 23, 1974, the Trio and VB stopped off there (after the Army/Navy store) and that is where the girls disappeared. I believe something (drug deal, bust, etc) was to occur that day, and the girls weren't supposed to be there. VB actually put them in harm's way by having them take him there. Both Rachel's husband and brother deny knowing anything about that location of the business (which is highly suspicious, and makes no sense).
While I believe Rachel's husband and sister have knowledge of what transpired that day (and are responsible for the 'letter' and envelope), I do not believe they murdered anyone. I think the narrative that the girls were "last seen at Seminary South", and killed by a jealous husband has been cleverly employed for years, to divert attention from a shady family enterprise (possible drug deal/sting gone wrong) that claimed three girls' lives, and prompted others to either leave town rather suddenly, or to tell lies on top of lies to cover it all up.
I believe some members of FWPD have earnestly worked this case through the years, and some know d--n well what happened, have thwarted investigation, and are patiently waiting for people to die off, as members of LE could/would be implicated. All JMO.

There are two questions that are asked through the forum, the first is about the freedom Rachel had to go to the mall and the second would concern meeting or being accompanied by a man to go there. I must confess that I had to go back and reread what I wrote a year ago (I'm not allowed to post the link here). Simply, I saw, somewhere on a forum "a woman (who) says that she and another girl were supposed to meet Rachel and Renee at Murphy’s for lunch. She adds that the trio never showed up, but also admits that she and her friend didn’t wait very long and went shopping on their own. The woman even claims that they never saw the trio that day in the mall."
And that's important for me because :
If this is true, it means that the trip to Lay-Away and the lunch break were planned. This is important.
And that answers the first question I asked myself about this case: When do the girls eat in this story, when do they go to the bathroom?
And that explains the reluctance for Rachel and Renee to let a little girl accompany them - the question of money for the meal!
There are some must-haves.
What's more, girls store without the boys, unless men can pay. Plan to be accompanied by VB (I'm sorry I don't know who VB is, I'm re-reading the forum since 2018 to find out). In any case there's a path that doesn't fit in this puzzle, since they didn't go to the Rendezvous with the girlfriends BUT they were seen in the record department in the company of a man (I'm writing a few lines about records by the way).
Which means that for the past two years I've been wondering about the credibility of the witness. Who would be the last person to have seen the girls. The famous last person.

 

[T rex]

Police Det. Tom Boetcher stated in 2001, "We can say they were seen at one point with one individual". Many people believe that meant the girls were seen with VB (aka CJG) at the mall, but I think the girls  were seen with VB at Gordon-- possibly between Gordon and A/N store. I don't believe they made it to the mall. But there was one family who (imo) went to a great deal of effort to create the illusion that they had. That was preferrable to the public (and the other families) knowing the girls had met with foul play at their place of business (which had supposedly shut down)..jmo

I tend to believe that the girls did make it to the mall but then left and the Oldsmobile was later returned and staged. The question for me is what is the real reason for them having went to the mall because I believe the shopping trip ended at the Army Navy. In my opinion if we knew the real reasons for things leading up to the girls disapperance we would have most of the answers. What is the real reason for the girls going to SS that day and what is the real reason for DA staying at Minot? I don't buy the spat with a boyfriend over some rent excuse.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I tend to believe that the girls did make it to the mall but then left and the Oldsmobile was later returned and staged. The question for me is what is the real reason for them having went to the mall because I believe the shopping trip ended at the Army Navy.

I agree the car was staged, and that the stop at Army Navy was the only shopping done that day.

In my opinion if we knew the real reasons for things leading up to the girls disapperance we would have most of the answers.

Agreed. With all the lies and drama, we're not likely to get them. I think there are members of FWPD (like Det. Wilbanks) who could shed light on this...

What is the real reason for the girls going to SS that day

It theoretically gave VB opportunity to be with Renee, without TM present. I'm not convinced Renee was off-limits to VB, even with that ring. VB was a legal adult, who wanted to date a 14 yr old (according to her father).
The problem with them meeting at the mall, however, is why in the world meet someone you've been forbidden to date in the busiest place in town? That certainly isn't very discreet. The same goes for the idea that Rachel was meeting VB on the sly at the mall. Makes no sense.

and what is the real reason for DA staying at Minot? I don't buy the spat with a boyfriend over some rent excuse.

Neither do I. That one's just ridiculous.

 

[Brightchaser47]

They really need to check the three sets of bones found in 1976. The ages were correct, just that the largest set was ruled as being from a male. They also believed that they were buried there approximately 18 months beforehand, which would tie in with when the girls disappeared.

If they aren't the girls, then who are they ??? Three sets of bones and no one know who they are !!!

Where exactly in Alvord were those remains found? I wonder if a local paper mentioned the exact location.

 

[Tex Willer]

Good morning, I'm writing from Italy and I'm a big fan of the Fort Worth Missing Trio case and this is my first post. I read that Robbie Ramsel saw the girls in the record store at the mall, and maybe even talked to Rachel. Was it ever known if Robbie Ramsel gave a precise time when he saw the girls?

 

[Florent B]

In criminal cases, there are sometimes troubling coincidences. For the record, in the two best-known trio disappearances, those of Fort Worth and Springfield MO, it's worth noting that in both cases the older of the young women was driving a two-year-old car. Both cases also involve indecent phone calls. Although it's possible that the latter never happened (and it seems to have been common practice at the time).

Then, there are the special facts that make certain cases special: Vanished into thin air.

I could be wrong, but as far as I know, no one has ever disappeared inside a shopping mall. However, in the case of Seminary South, I read that there were a number of corridors/passages under the mall, and even a radio station where young people went to see the DJ through the glass. But maybe not late 1974 (?)

Anyway, I have some questions: the first: Do we know where Julie's older sister (name J too) was this afternoon? I read something that caught my eye (in link with >
Second: Do we know who are the two girl-friends with whom the girls were meeting at SS? (I think one of them, if it's really one of them, posted some words on WS a long time ago).
Third: Do we know the name of the friend TM was going to see at the hospital that afternoon? (I don't need anything in particular, unless >
Four: Was it VB ?
Thanks.