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

[DD Byrd]

So frustrating in this case is who (actually) saw what, and wasn't just an alibi, mistaken or flat out lying.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

I always assumed they hit the Army/Navy store on the way to the mall. That's what most timelines seemed to imply.

Yes, that is correct, but there is no 100% firm evidence that they did go to the Mall. The trail of certainty runs cold after the trip to the Army/Navy store. I am of the opinion that the girls where at Rachel's house sometime around 12.00/12.30pm. There are witnesses that put them there. This would have been after they visited the Army/Navy store, IMO.

If they were abducted from the parking lot of the Mall, it would have had to have been after these 12.00/12.30pm sightings.

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

Yes, that is correct, but there is no 100% firm evidence that they did go to the Mall. The trail of certainty runs cold after the trip to the Army/Navy store. I am of the opinion that the girls where at Rachel's house sometime around 12.00/12.30pm. There are witnesses that put them there. This would have been after they visited the Army/Navy store, IMO.

If they were abducted from the parking lot of the Mall, it would have had to have been after these 12.00/12.30pm sightings.

Do you have a link to these sightings at Rachel's cuz I am not sure I have seen this before. I have seen the where they were witnessed at the mall.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

Do you have a link to these sightings at Rachel's cuz I am not sure I have seen this before. I have seen the where they were witnessed at the mall.

I don't have any direct links to hand, unfortunately. In an earlier thread someone posted up the Missing Persons reports. With regards to Rachel, going from memory, it states she was last seen at the house at 12.00pm. I believe Tommy's first wife stated that she saw all three of them at the house around this time, also. She was picking up her child at the
at house. The Gone Cold podcast also mentions a 'credible' witness seeing all three at the house around this time.

I just don't know whether they had visited the Mall as this stage. Is it possible they already been to the Mall, or where they going to meet their friends there as arranged at 1.00pm ?

 

[Valiant]

True. And if the car was planted there, it was by someone who knew they had plans for the mall. If it was planted, it also wasn't by someone who was concerned about any hair or prints left behind. So either someone not yet in the system, a pro at a wipe down, or a person whose hair or prints in Rachel's car wouldn't be suspicious in the first place.

It's interesting that the car was likely never processed, or if it was that was only after the car was removed form the scene and much potential evidence contaminated. That unintentional (or was it intentional) contamination reminds me of the same in the Springfield missing trio case. So much evidence contamination before the police investigated.

 

[DD Byrd]

She was picking up her child at the
at house

I'd forgotten this detail. Do we know the age of the child? Because if Tommy had supposedly been dropped off by Rachel at work and was w/o a car, and Rachel was en route to get Renee, or Julie, or had both and was on the way to the A/N store...who was watching the child? If no one was, I can see that triggering a dust up initially directed at Rachel. Is it certain who lived with who? I also wonder if that child was old enough to talk, and if alive, to remember anything now.

I'm 70/30 they went to the mall, due to the sightings. But I suppose if it was a common t-shirt, another girl could have been seen that was misidentified as Renee. Harder to explain is Rachel's 'sighting' as my impression was the witness knew her, not just based on a description. But Julie might be overlooked, and if Rachel had gone to the mall the same week (is that known?) a witness after the fact could've gotten the day wrong.

Anyway, a witness at Rachel's house suggests they stopped there heading back out to the mall. To have lunch? To make phone calls re the party? Put away shopping bags to make room for more? Now I'm trying to find the map to see if that makes sense or would be doubling back in the wrong direction and/or wouldn't fit all of these excursions in the planned timeline of Renee being back by 4pm.

I realize this is Texas in the 70s, but is it thought these particular families were packing 24/7? I know the fathers staked out the car overnight with shotguns so they certainly knew their way around guns. I'm just thinking, if they were so accessible and part of an "at the ready" lifestyle, could this whole thing have started with an accident (fatal or not) that was then covered up?

 

[SweetDreamsAreMadeOfCheez]

I'd forgotten this detail. Do we know the age of the child? Because if Tommy had supposedly been dropped off by Rachel at work and was w/o a car, and Rachel was en route to get Renee, or Julie, or had both and was on the way to the A/N store...who was watching the child? If no one was, I can see that triggering a dust up initially directed at Rachel. Is it certain who lived with who? I also wonder if that child was old enough to talk, and if alive, to remember anything now.

I'm 70/30 they went to the mall, due to the sightings. But I suppose if it was a common t-shirt, another girl could have been seen that was misidentified as Renee. Harder to explain is Rachel's 'sighting' as my impression was the witness knew her, not just based on a description. But Julie might be overlooked, and if Rachel had gone to the mall the same week (is that known?) a witness after the fact could've gotten the day wrong.

Anyway, a witness at Rachel's house suggests they stopped there heading back out to the mall. To have lunch? To make phone calls re the party? Put away shopping bags to make room for more? Now I'm trying to find the map to see if that makes sense or would be doubling back in the wrong direction and/or wouldn't fit all of these excursions in the planned timeline of Renee being back by 4pm.

I realize this is Texas in the 70s, but is it thought these particular families were packing 24/7? I know the fathers staked out the car overnight with shotguns so they certainly knew their way around guns. I'm just thinking, if they were so accessible and part of an "at the ready" lifestyle, could this whole thing have started with an accident (fatal or not) that was then covered up?

I thought the first journey before the Army/Navy store was dropping off the stepson with his Mom?...It seems my recollections of the case may be off.

 

[Brightchaser47]

So if you remove Julie's presence, and look at that day unfold from the beginning, we really can't be certain who the intended target was, Rachel, Renee or both. I'm not convinced the intended target was supposed to die. I can see a threat escalating to violence if everyone is already on edge and/or on drugs. Especially if there were very high stakes such as money or knowledge of something, and definitely if one/both of the targets then threatened to "tell."

RSBM
I rather doubt there was an intended target, and agree that very likely no one was supposed to die. Quite possibly the girls  were lured from mall property by someone Rachel and/or Renee trusted, or followed someone from A/N for a brief escapade, intending to catch up to the mall after. Once they reached "elsewhere", perhaps some individuals decided to "have some fun" with the girls (drugs/alcohol and sexual assault), which didn't end well. If any of these individuals were local LE or had close relatives who were, it would explain FWPD's behavior in this case. jmo

 

[DD Byrd]

If members of LE were involved, IMO it was after the fact - in either a cover up or muddling of facts. I don't think the 'drugs gone wrong' would happen if Julie was there. Of course, it's possible as I've mentioned that Julie was in the car waiting outside at a location that Rachel and Julie went into. Perhaps her presence wasn't even known until after something happened. But whatever started the whole tragedy was much closer to home.

 

[Pricklykitty]

I'd forgotten this detail. Do we know the age of the child? Because if Tommy had supposedly been dropped off by Rachel at work and was w/o a car, and Rachel was en route to get Renee, or Julie, or had both and was on the way to the A/N store...who was watching the child? If no one was, I can see that triggering a dust up initially directed at Rachel. Is it certain who lived with who? I also wonder if that child was old enough to talk, and if alive, to remember anything now.

ST ( TT's son) was born March 1972 so he was 2, coming up 3 at the time. There are several versions of where he was and who was caring for him that day. As seems to be the way in this case, even basics like where a child who needed constant care was, is surrounded by its own mystery.
ST (son) is still alive and has been a member of, and commented in, various social media groups about the case. He seems to only know what he has been told rather than remember anything himself, or at least that is how he has responded to questions.

 

[Brightchaser47]

ST ( TT's son) was born March 1972 so he was 2, coming up 3 at the time. There are several versions of where he was and who was caring for him that day. As seems to be the way in this case, even basics like where a child who needed constant care was, is surrounded by its own mystery.
ST (son) is still alive and has been a member of, and commented in, various social media groups about the case. He seems to only know what he has been told rather than remember anything himself, or at least that is how he has responded to questions.

He's another one I'm sure whose life was affected by this case. It must be difficult to have no clear memory of such a fateful day, yet be surrounded by speculation and discussion of it your whole life. jmo

 

[falkenberg3132]

Julie definitely deserved better. Although Renee and Rachel would likely still have died without Julie's bad luck of being there too but Julie's life after the older girls' were killed would not have been easy.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Interesting case. I have talked to a person from one of the families and he is still at loss as why the police apparently did assume the girls were runaways at first, even if the parents and circumstances of their disappearance clearly told otherwise. Perhaps that was their standard procedure at the time.

Actually, if you go back to some of the earlier news articles, you'll find that the "rank-and-file" officers  didn't believe the girls ran off. That's a misnomer. It was the detectives and higher-ranking LE who seemed dismissive or ambivalent, imo. It's possible that someone at the county level (Tarrant County Sheriff/ Deputies) could be involved in the girls' disappearance, and FWPD was discouraged from making any real progress in investigating. Just a thought.

 

[Brightchaser47]

In 2001, Det. Tom Boetcher said :
* "We can say the girls were seen with one individual at one point", but LE "believed more were involved",
* and that the girls "left the mall with someone they trusted" and "met with unfortunate curcumstances"
* that the list of suspects was "under five"
In my own honest opinion, Boetcher's choice of words suggests he was giving what information he was  permitted to, to protect someone. Here in 2024, we understand that LE doesn't show their hand while they're surveilling a potential suspect, and often a press conference accompanies a significant development.
I have no reason to question Det. Boetcher's tenacity and skill as an investigator, so you'd think with the knowledge that prompted those comments in 2001, together with the contents of those alleged banker boxes, this case should be solved by now-- unless someone's being protected. It isn't even being investigated. JMO

 

[jetsfanjohn]

In 2001, Det. Tom Boetcher said :
* "We can say the girls were seen with one individual at one point",

RSBM.

Anyone have any idea who this one individual was ?

My money would be on it being 'California Jacket Guy' and the sighting was in the Record Store. If so, I would suggest this sighting was late morning. I don't think he was directly responsible for the girls disappearance, though.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Anyone have any idea who this one individual was ?

RSBM
I don't, but what puzzles me is why Det. Boetcher mentioned it at all. It would just be a teaser for the families, imo. Obviously LE knew something, but that's where it ended-- no updates, no arrests. Just crickets....I find that odd.

My money would be on it being 'California Jacket Guy' and the sighting was in the Record Store. If so, I would suggest this sighting was late morning.

Possible. But if so, why did the record store clerk allegedly call Rachel's parents, instead of her husband? That part makes no sense to me. If they  were seen in Sears at that point,, I wonder if they were seen by Hutchins. I'm not saying he did anything, but I'm pretty sure he knew something and was covering for someone.

I don't think he was directly responsible for the girls disappearance, though.

Agree. Although I think he must've known something. He's another one who had differing versions of his whereabouts that day, and you have to wonder why. jmo

 

[Same Old Stella]

If they did return home around noon, it wasn't to drop off the Army-Navy shopping bags; those were found in the abandoned car. This is the first I time I've heard that they might have returned home at all that day.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

If they did return home around noon, it wasn't to drop off the Army-Navy shopping bags; those were found in the abandoned car. This is the first I time I've heard that they might have returned home at all that day

I don't have any direct links to hand, unfortunately. In an earlier thread someone posted up the Missing Persons reports. With regards to Rachel, going from memory, it states she was last seen at the house at 12.00pm. I believe Tommy's first wife stated that she saw all three of them at the house around this time, also. She was picking up her child at the at house. The Gone Cold podcast also mentions a 'credible' witness seeing all three at the house around this time.

I just don't know whether they had visited the Mall as this stage. Is it possible they already been to the Mall, or where they going to meet their friends there as arranged at 1.00pm ?

 

[Brightchaser47]

I don't have any direct links to hand, unfortunately. In an earlier thread someone posted up the Missing Persons reports. With regards to Rachel, going from memory, it states she was last seen at the house at 12.00pm.

I believe Tommy's first wife stated that she saw all three of them at the house around this time, also. She was picking up her child at the
at house. The Gone Cold podcast also mentions a 'credible' witness seeing all three at the house around this time.

I just don't know whether they had visited the Mall as this stage. Is it possible they already been to the Mall, or where they going to meet their friends there as arranged at 1.00pm ?

I'd understood they were to meet the friends at the mall at 12:00 pm, but the trio was at A/N store at that time (that's been confirmed). So maybe they were running late. What doesn't add up is if they were definitely at A/N at noon, and DA definitely saw her sister at home at 12:30 pm (per MP report). That would mean Rachel:
* went home before going to the mall
* possibly never made it to the mall from Minot (which means the car was definitely planted)
I don't think she had time to hit the mall from A/N,  then go home in that time frame.

 

[Brightchaser47]

I'd understood they were to meet the friends at the mall at 12:00 pm, but the trio was at A/N store at that time (that's been confirmed). So maybe they were running late. What doesn't add up is if they were definitely at A/N at noon, and DA definitely saw her sister at home at 12:30 pm (per MP report). That would mean Rachel:
* went home before going to the mall
* possibly never made it to the mall from Minot (which means the car was definitely planted)
I don't think she had time to hit the mall from A/N,  then go home in that time frame.

ETA: Something else that doesn't add up is why no one from Gordon mentions seeing Rachel's step-son in the car, when she picked up Renee and Julie. He had to be with them, in order for ST's statement to be accurate. jmo