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

[jetsfanjohn]

If TT (or even DA) were responsible for the demise of one or all three girls, how would they secure the silence of everyone else on the matter for all these years? None of these people were wealthy enough for blackmail to come into play, really.
And how do we explain the fact that  nobody in this case who claimed to have seen the girls or been at Minot can give a straight answer (that makes sense), as to their whereabouts, if they weren't somehow involved?

I'd suggest that is possible that only TT and DA were there at the time (assuming that the girls were not abducted from the Mall), with the scenario presented by Ozoner in a previous thread, where two of the girls were waiting in the car. Removal done that evening by the guy with the van.

 

[beubeubeu]

If that trip was indeed NOT planned ahead, then it's IMO safe to assume that we literally know nothing about this case.
If it was unplanned then... how Renee's mom "managed" to NOT call A's and NOT ask them for T's house phone number - resulting with her NOT calling house at Minot? IF she didn't.

I don't know, but it seems like pretty obvious thing to do.
If I'd learn that my daughter went somewhere with my acquaintances daughter -> I'd call THEM to ask if they know where are the girls.
If I'd learn that my daughter went somewhere with a friend -> I'd try to get this person's number, house phone number, her parents number or her spouses number. And kept calling till I'd learn where she is.

And I'm not talking about things that Mrs. Wilson "should" do, cause in handsight it makes sense.
It's like what else could a person do in this scenario? Either THAT or... nothing - so end up not worried and figure out that Renee will show up back in time.
But what to do when she wasn't there in time to be picked up as she should? Either the above or still nothing - but "nothing" doesn't sound very likely.

I mean that... IF she was calling for Renee early on that day then how the rest of this whole story makes any sense?
How?
To the very least FA was on call with TT several times that day. She was allegedly with CA. Either taking care of him or driving to Arlington. Then how TT managed to stay oblivious to the disappearance till late evening? She could not mention it to him but why wouldn't she? And if Mrs. Wilson called house at Minot, then it should be clear if DA was there to pick up the phone. Was she? Nobody picked up the phone? Then HOW it didn't ended up with someone from W's family showing up there to check and ask in person? It's not even far, so why not?

It doesn't make sense.
And it won't make any sense, cause IMO it's completely beyond common sense.
And that tells me that it either didn't happen like that at all.
OR possibly Mrs. Wilson didn't knew yet that Renee left with Rachel and kept calling other people.
OR she was misled by someone and that caused her to not call A's or T's home.
My bet would be still on the details in here being very inaccurate.

[I thought I posted that yesterday but apparently I forgot to hit the "post reply" button.]

 

[beubeubeu]

There seem to be elements of truth to all the alibis and statements given in this case, and yet, those same alibis and statements are all over the place. Sooo, here's what I think happened:
Sunday night:
*Renee gets permission to go to A/N with Rachel the next day
 Monday  morning:
*CA is at home, getting a cancer treatment and resting
* TT goes to work, DA and SM are at Minot, Rachel goes to pick up Renee at Gordon
*Renee decides she wants to go on to the mall after A/N, Julie gets permission to go along
Monday, shortly after noon:
*ST shows up at Minot
*the girls hit A/N, go on to the mall
*the girls are seen with VB at the mall (whether he rode with them or met them is irrelevant)
A bit later:
*the girls and VB head back to Minot, where DA, SM, ST are involved with drugs
*a drug-related fatality occurs, involving the girls-- SM,DA,ST,VB are all witnesses (or at least present when it occurs)
*JW starts calling around, looking for Renee
Monday evening:
*an initial search is made for the car, but car is not located
*ST and DA stage the car
*CA is called, drives to Minot, picks up the girls' bodies, drives to Hatley Road in Marshall, where girls are buried
*TT comes home from work, goes bowling
*car located, LE called
Later that night:
*DA picks up TT from bowling alley, takes him on wild goose chase of "looking for the girls", but not finding them
*DA and TT appear at mall parking lot
*Missing Persons reports taken
*families disperse, to wait by the phone, RW and companion set up watch over car
*CA returns home from disposing of the girls' bodies
Tuesday morning:
*"letter" is taken to A residence, LE called
Sometime later:
envelope produced
Note: Many of these events overlap and I may be off a bit on the timeline, but the general idea is there. It isn't foolproof,  but it does explain:
*where people were, and when (roughly)
*why all these people claimed to have seen the girls that day, but  none of them admit to seeing each other
*how so many people could have knowledge of the girls' fate, but bodies still not found (the only people who knew exactly where the girls ended up are dead)
*how Organized Crime involvement is not necessary for this to have remained the puzzle it has been
Again, this is all just speculation...

It's a good scenario BUT - that would make this case unique and unlike basically any other.
Cause that would mean that not one, not two, but multiple people without close family, gang or emotional ties that lasted over decades managed to not only keep their mouth shut but also stay relatively calm and sure that others won't say anything about that.. and those things aren't really happening that often.
One person of course, few family members, a couple, even people connected by common illegal activities are managing to cover up for each other for long, long years - or to not speak up, for many, many years.

But to have ST, VB, DA, SM, CA and possibly even his brother or even more A's family members sounds higely unlikely. Not impossible of course (some factors could increase the likelyhood of such scenario), but highly improbable.

 

[beubeubeu]

I was going to write something completely different but before I actually managed to get some time to do so I got completely different thought.
Back to the kid's gift once again.

We are certain that Renee's grandma got it for Rachel's stepson, right?
And it wasn't in the trunk, but on the floor, behind passenger seat.
And we also know for certain that Renee picked up her layway from Army Navy.
And that she and Rachel were seen there.
AND that Renee changed her pants to the new ones - despite of having a party to get ready for in few hours.
So - she either was:
- very excited about these pants and wanted to wear them asap no matter what,
- planning to GO SOMEWHERE where it would matter that she has them on (possible that to get matching top in SS, possibly to just meet with some friends there or somewhere else).

But I just recalled a thing that may be a complete rumour, but if it's accurrate, it makes things pretty interesting IMO - that girls HAD not just that one gift for little ST, but MORE Christmas gifts to deliver and more that were succesfully delivered by them to neighbourhood kids.
It'd make some sense that they were visiting multiple locations, making multiple stops to possibly purchase few more small items to gift to their friends (so SS's visit would be a good idea to shop for them).

I have some thoughts about it, nothing special but I just never thought about it before so I want to share that now.

Scenario ONE: nobody saw Julie at Army Navy not cause she was left in the car, or possibly picked up bit later BUT cause she was left at somebodys house to play, somewhere Renee and Rachel expected her to be safe, but she wasn't, she ended up dead and whoever was responsible murdered the other two girls as they showed up back to pick her up.
BUT how would that person or persons knew that Renee and Rachel never told anyone about Julie's whereabouts?

Scenario ONE-B: same, just that she was left at Minot with the toddler, while Rachel and Renee went to Army Navy. While they were away something horrible happened to Julie and when the girls came back they weren't willing to join the coverup lies and eventually both ended up dead as well.
BUT as above - how could these murderers be sure that nobody knows Julie was left at Minot?

Scenario TWO: nothing happened at Minot, they stopped there or not but nothing bad happened there - just as they went through the neighbourhood to deliver one of these gifts and accidentally whitnessed a crime, got murdered, and car was staged at the mall cause it was no brainer that young kids are heading there. Perps may or may not get creative enough to forge some well known or different note and mail it from the Mall kiosk to the only person that had their address data available in the car (TT).

 

[beubeubeu]

But what are the chances that the three people that got into a car that morning to go to SS just happened to be the same ones that OD in a house full of people?
I think it would more have to fall in line with one of RA and DJ's theories, that is something happened to one of the girls and the others were compelled to leave but I'm not really big on that either.

Statistics doesn't seem very helpful in this case.

Multiple people going missing at the same time to not be heard for almost 50 years - that usually means they're dead and that they died close in time to the time they were last seen.
Bodies not found for decades - that usually means that perp was close or somehow connected to the victim.
Coverup lasting decades - usually means that there is no more than one person who knows what happened.
Accidental death, even a death of a child - usually doesn't lead to to multiple murder right away. Cause usually people who whitness that or even are directly responsible are irresponsible, dumb or unlucky, but not murderers.
Whitness or whitnesses of a crime or accident being murdered - usually means organised crime OR someone with no conscious but:
- with A LOT to lose,
- able or forced to act and think very fast,
- having convenient circumstances and location to commit such execution,
- very violent OR in extreme tension OR under influence of drugs.
Yet successful coverup of a murder, especially multiple murder usually means that drug addicts weren't responsible for doing that.
Multiple murders commited on same day: usually not done by teenagers, at least as far as 70's went, and outside of school shooting or mass shooting scenarios.
Multiple people involved in coverup on a crime usually means that coverup doesn't last long.
Also people on the verge of death, aware that their time is coming are more often than not, willing to speak up, especially if decades passed since some mystery began (that they were part of).
Staging: usually means that no-staging would clearly point at the person responsible. But we're not 100% sure if that car was staged or just parked there by Rachel.

And that implies... I don't know what, but it keeps adding big BUT to any theory that seems to be having some sense.

Speaking about RA... I would not rule out the possiblity that he now KNOWS what happened, possibly he and DA.
And that he/they figured it out only in recent years, yet decided to not say anything out of fear that truth may kill FA.
Does that mean that DA, TT, CA or her second husband were involved? Maybe. But with 80+ person I'd fear that even learning something like "it was a neighbour, who you trusted so much for all these years" could be lethal too.
So for even within that theory it doesn't really point at anything specific.

 

[beubeubeu]

Remember that the 'adults' who were at that house that day were just that-- adults. We don't know really, what substances were available, being used, in the air, etc. Merely being in the presence of a "cloud" of something being smoked could make a child or young teen (or even an adult who didn't use drugs) very sick (voice of experience).

Very sick yes, poisoned - absolutely, faint or puke - yes. But 9yo child dying cause inhaling something that was just in the air seems pretty unlikely. Never heard of such a thing. Does that happen?
That shouldn't trigger double murder.

If TT (or even DA) were responsible for the demise of one or all three girls, how would they secure the silence of everyone else on the matter for all these years? None of these people were wealthy enough for blackmail to come into play, really.
And how do we explain the fact that  nobody in this case who claimed to have seen the girls or been at Minot can give a straight answer (that makes sense), as to their whereabouts, if they weren't somehow involved?

Don't forget that EVERYONE in this case can't give straight answer (that makes sense) about their wherabouts on that day.
Who, where, when, in company of who, why, how long, what happened next, who called, who did you called and when - if half of these people were able to tell...

 

[Valiant]

If that trip was indeed NOT planned ahead, then it's IMO safe to assume that we literally know nothing about this case.
If it was unplanned then... how Renee's mom "managed" to NOT call A's and NOT ask them for T's house phone number - resulting with her NOT calling house at Minot? IF she didn't.

I don't know, but it seems like pretty obvious thing to do.
If I'd learn that my daughter went somewhere with my acquaintances daughter -> I'd call THEM to ask if they know where are the girls.
If I'd learn that my daughter went somewhere with a friend -> I'd try to get this person's number, house phone number, her parents number or her spouses number. And kept calling till I'd learn where she is.

And I'm not talking about things that Mrs. Wilson "should" do, cause in handsight it makes sense.
It's like what else could a person do in this scenario? Either THAT or... nothing - so end up not worried and figure out that Renee will show up back in time.
But what to do when she wasn't there in time to be picked up as she should? Either the above or still nothing - but "nothing" doesn't sound very likely.

I mean that... IF she was calling for Renee early on that day then how the rest of this whole story makes any sense?
How?
To the very least FA was on call with TT several times that day. She was allegedly with CA. Either taking care of him or driving to Arlington. Then how TT managed to stay oblivious to the disappearance till late evening? She could not mention it to him but why wouldn't she? And if Mrs. Wilson called house at Minot, then it should be clear if DA was there to pick up the phone. Was she? Nobody picked up the phone? Then HOW it didn't ended up with someone from W's family showing up there to check and ask in person? It's not even far, so why not?

It doesn't make sense.
And it won't make any sense, cause IMO it's completely beyond common sense.
And that tells me that it either didn't happen like that at all.
OR possibly Mrs. Wilson didn't knew yet that Renee left with Rachel and kept calling other people.
OR she was misled by someone and that caused her to not call A's or T's home.
My bet would be still on the details in here being very inaccurate.

[I thought I posted that yesterday but apparently I forgot to hit the "post reply" button.]

I think we don't know anything about Mrs. Wilson's actions that day because the A family sucked out all the publicity with their narratives. Their accounts were all very self=centered and explaining the fact that any others were also looking for the girls didn't seem like something the As felt worth repeating.
Just because no one talked about Mrs W making calls didn't mean she made no calls.

 

[beubeubeu]

I think we don't know anything about Mrs. Wilson's actions that day because the A family sucked out all the publicity with their narratives. Their accounts were all very self=centered and explaining the fact that any others were also looking for the girls didn't seem like something the As felt worth repeating.
Just because no one talked about Mrs W making calls didn't mean she made no calls.

I wasn't talking that much about what we know, but what would be the most likely consequences if some of the most basics assumptions would work.
Cause unless at the time she had no clue who Renee was with, the most obvious course of action seems to be calling the other girl's parents and/or home. If she did that she - to the very least knew who picked up phones there, and who was there.
Nobody - that'd be extra suspicious.
FA - then she couldn't be in Arlington at their workshop.
CA - so he was staying home at least part of that day for sure.
DA - that'd confirm she was home.

And although that may not influence what we know now in any way, but it should bring valuable info to the investigators and help a lot with possibly even narrowing down their suspect list. Yet it's still unsolved... so maybe despite of all what grew around this case, they're not the ones who ended up looking truly suspicious?

I don't know, I was just typing my thoughts "out loud" to not lose them.

 

[beubeubeu]

And BTW, I did my best summarizing the info about this case to my friend who never heard of it to ask her what she thinks could happen here. I hoped she will lean towards one of my theories... yet she didn't.

She said that person/s responsible were after at least two, or all three of the girls and attacked as the convenient time came. So either someone who stalked them, waited on the day when they will go somewhere together or learned that they went together on that day.

Which isn't helping me to stop thinking about this case at all.

 

[Brightchaser47]

It's a good scenario BUT - that would make this case unique and unlike basically any other.

With all due respect, in many ways this case  is "unique and unlike basically any other".

Cause that would mean that not one, not two, but multiple people without close family, gang or emotional ties that lasted over decades managed to not only keep their mouth shut but also stay relatively calm and sure that others won't say anything about that.. and those things aren't really happening that often.
One person of course, few family members, a couple, even people connected by common illegal activities are managing to cover up for each other for long, long years - or to not speak up, for many, many years.

If drugs and/or alcohol were involved, people may not have been thinking too clearly when events unfolded and, would've been hesitant to volunteer information, when they sobered up. Then, it would've been a mad scramble to cover up.
At some point, I believe the characters involved realized it was "all or nothing" ("if one of us goes to prison, we  all go to prison"), and chose to go 'all in' on secrecy, for self-preservation.

But to have ST, VB, DA, SM, CA and possibly even his brother or even more A's family members sounds higely unlikely.

SM, DA, and VB scattered a few short days after this (ST I'm not sure about). CA died a mere four months later, and KA (or his property) was never looked at. All these people had to do was tell just enough truth to confuse the issue. If you tell the whole truth, you're caught. If you tell all lies, eventually you back yourself into a corner. If you tell  some truth, but pepper it good with lies, it's harder to nail down the whole truth.
JMO

 

[Brightchaser47]

Very sick yes, poisoned - absolutely, faint or puke - yes. But 9yo child dying cause inhaling something that was just in the air seems pretty unlikely.

Point taken. It  is unlikely.

That shouldn't trigger double murder.

You're right. I was inferring all three ingested something (drug or alcohol).

 

[beubeubeu]

With all due respect, in many ways this case  is "unique and unlike basically any other".

Can you name these differences?
And don't get me wrong, most of the time it's exactly what I'm thinking. Then I doubt and it all waters down into the fact that three not related girls with wehicle disappeared leaving wehicle behind.

If drugs and/or alcohol were involved, people may not have been thinking too clearly when events unfolded and, would've been hesitant to volunteer information, when they sobered up. Then, it would've been a mad scramble to cover up.
At some point, I believe the characters involved realized it was "all or nothing" ("if one of us goes to prison, we  all go to prison"), and chose to go 'all in' on secrecy, for self-preservation.

Of course BUT up to that point there is nothing that would imply that anyone from this crowd was irresponsible enough to get heavily drunk or drugged in presence of little kids. To the very least TT, ST and Rachel were well aware that little boy is, was, will or may end up in their care on that day. That's terrible time to use anything.
Obviously it's possible that somebodys extremely poor judgement led to something unbelievably tragic, but I'd have to take a big stretch to see that as likely.
UNLESS of course there are things, hints, informations that are not available to the public and are making some scenarios appear much more likely.

SM, DA, and VB scattered a few short days after this (ST I'm not sure about). CA died a mere four months later, and KA (or his property) was never looked at. All these people had to do was tell just enough truth to confuse the issue. If you tell the whole truth, you're caught. If you tell all lies, eventually you back yourself into a corner. If you tell  some truth, but pepper it good with lies, it's harder to nail down the whole truth.
JMO

Could be triggered by something that led to girls disappearance, could be triggered by the disappearance itself.
You're right with the truths and lies, but I'm hesitant to doubt in people's ability to lie, scheme, and cause confusion even as they know nothing and did nothing in the first place.

You're right. I was inferring all three ingested something (drug or alcohol).

Yeah, if they did and led to death of one of all of the girls then it's easy to see the one's responsible acting fast to avoid consequences... but how could that happen?

I don't see how Renee would dare to drink alcohol or try any sort of drug willingly as she was going to see her parents in the matter of hours and had that party in the evening.
I don't see older girls doing anything like that or even showing up anywhere close to something like that while having Julie with them.
I don't even see how Rachel would dare to drink while she had to drive girls back to Gordon Ave.
And if we're talking something completely unforeseen for the girls, like accidentally drinking juice that had lots of vodka in it or injesting bunch of something... I can't even picture any scenario like that. UNLESS someone tricked them into drinking spiked beverages or forced them to take drugs, but that wouldn't count as accidental.
And it doesn't add up for me.

All these scraps of info. TM and VB drinking some whiskey in somebodys backyard. TT and Rachel doing bowling league, taking care of his little kid. Some possible extramarital kissing. Some possible "rebelious" act smoking a cigarette.
This is like regular teenage stuff. I mean well within a range of mondain.
Accidental overdoses or lethal alcohol poisonings are FAR from that.

Currently I think that it's either none of the usual suspects responsibility or that some big clues are missing from the picture.

 

[beubeubeu]

One more stupid question: is it possible that Rachel was NOT driving the Olds that day but ended up with some other car instead?

 

[Brightchaser47]

This case has gone quiet. ALL the verified members have gone quiet. RA,DA.and FA have gone quiet. RW died so he's quiet. ALL the investigators the security guards and VB have died so their all quiet. LE has gone quiet. Nothing But Crickets Now.

BTW, someone posted awhile back that SM was deceased, but is that certain?

 

[FW_Froggy]

BTW, someone posted awhile back that SM was deceased, but is that certain?

I don't think people know that much about SM or the other boyfriend EC.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I don't think people know that much about SM or the other boyfriend EC.

We seem to have two different "EC"s. One was a musician (actually existed), and one (supposedly) a biker. Hmmm.

 

[Pricklykitty]

BTW, someone posted awhile back that SM was deceased, but is that certain?

I don't think people know that much about SM or the other boyfriend EC.

I'm not sure I can post it here, but according to an obituary for SM's sister in Feb of 2023, SM was still alive then

 

[Brightchaser47]

Wilbanks commented about the letter being written by Rachel, possibly under duress. One school of thought is that he said that because initially Rachel's family stated it  was her handwriting. Then the other families saw the letter, and the story changed.
Houston serial killer Dean Corll operated in the early 1970s (killed by an accomplice in Aug '73), and made some of his victims call/ write letters to their families prior to killing them. The "voice" of the letters is very similar (IMO) to the letter in this case (regret for leaving, had to do it, will return in given timeframe, love you) . I'm not saying Corll took the girls-- he stayed in Houston, and targeted boys exclusively. I'm saying someone involved in the Trio's case may have known about the Corll case, and the author(s) of our letter may've been "inspired", and/or Wilbanks might've thought something similar happened...JMO

 

[Brightchaser47]

Can you name these differences?

*We have two individuals (TT, DA) who have remained at the center of this case, whose statements do not agree (and have even  changed), yet both have (allegedly) passed  multiple polygraphs
(Just that much right there I have problems with)
*We have a Private Investigator who volunteered his services, then proceeded to stir the pot, muddy the water. It is he who claimed that SM and VB changed their statements. Did that actually happen? Or was he casting doubt on their statements?
There have been cases where the PI was hired, took the money and ran, or was actually hindered from interviewing people. But to volunteer services and then seemingly confuse the case (as if it needed confusion...)?

Of course BUT up to that point there is nothing that would imply that anyone from this crowd was irresponsible enough to get heavily drunk or drugged in presence of little kids. To the very least TT, ST and Rachel were well aware that little boy is, was, will or may end up in their care on that day.

That depends on who was supposed to have him, IMO. We have no reason to believe that TT or Rachel intended to get high or drunk, as they had scheduled plans for the day (work and shopping). ST and DA, however are another story. We have no indication they had to be anywhere. ST claimed to be picking up her son, but we don't really know that that was the plan, or that actually happened. SM was presumably off-duty, to be able to be at Minot for any length of time.
We have no indication that little ST was definitely to be left in the care of DA, ST, or SM --the three adults who could have been doing  anything at Minot that day, IMO.

UNLESS of course there are things, hints, informations that are not available to the public and are making some scenarios appear much more likely.

Which is quite possible.

Could be triggered by something that led to girls disappearance, could be triggered by the disappearance itself.

I'm reluctant to think that adults would be frightened off by a murderer of children and remain silent, especially since these three particular adults were all parents themselves. If these adults witnessed something, that  should send them to the police (anonymously if they don't wish to be questioned about  their activities), not hightailing it out of town-- unless they distrust LE. The only reason for them to leave like that (IMO), is if somehow they were complicit in what happened...

Yeah, if they did and led to death of one of all of the girls then it's easy to see the one's responsible acting fast to avoid consequences... but how could that happen?

I don't see how Renee would dare to drink alcohol or try any sort of drug willingly as she was going to see her parents in the matter of hours and had that party in the evening.
I don't see older girls doing anything like that or even showing up anywhere close to something like that while having Julie with them.
I don't even see how Rachel would dare to drink while she had to drive girls back to Gordon Ave.

And if we're talking something completely unforeseen for the girls, like accidentally drinking juice that had lots of vodka in it or injesting bunch of something... I can't even picture any scenario like that. UNLESS someone tricked them into drinking spiked beverages or forced them to take drugs, but that wouldn't count as accidental.
And it doesn't add up for me.

It could be as simple as the girls sampling something (just a sip or snort). We don't know what substances were actually present and in use (assuming they were). Renee has been portrayed as daring, adventurous. She wouldn't have been going for an all-out, day-long high. Julie wanted to be like the "big kids". Her older brother was no stranger to drugs and alcohol. We honestly don't know whether she'd ever been offered or tried something "mild" before. She may've decided to try something, before anyone could stop her.
Rather than Rachel being killed in jealousy by her husband, and the other two killed for witnessing it, I propose that perhaps the other two succumbed to something, and Rachel raised a fuss. She may've gotten into a fight with one of the adults ("you let her/them do that"?!), threatened to call someone, or started to. At any rate, the others couldn't let that happen. So either in a struggle or fight, Rachel was killed. Depending on what was being consumed, reflexes, judgement, memory could've all been impaired. Just a thought.

Currently I think that it's either none of the usual suspects responsibility or that some big clues are missing from the picture.

And that's a possibility.

 

[Chypre]

I don't know if this has been discussed on websleuths. Ocurred May 1974.