- Joined
- Mar 7, 2022
- Messages
- 236
- Reaction score
- 869
Froggy is it Willbanks in this video ?Also Officer Wilbanks was a Juvenile Detective and looked like Joe Friday on Dragnet.
[News Clip: Missing women]
Froggy is it Willbanks in this video ?Also Officer Wilbanks was a Juvenile Detective and looked like Joe Friday on Dragnet.
Officer Wilbanks stated he felt the girls were still in Fort Worth, dead or alive (which was odd, IMO), though he claimed he had 'nothing to base that on'. This coming from the 'detective' who refused to 'detect'. Hmmm. Why would DA feel the need to stay so close, if there was no way the bodies would ever be found (i.e. 'incinerated')?
No.........He's the dark black hair guy in the Port Lavaca video. Looks like a young Joe Friday.Froggy is it Willbanks in this video ?
[News Clip: Missing women]
Also DA has chosen Husbands very very Carefully. She has close friends in High places.Maybe the bodies could be found and maybe not, Texas is a big place. Would the bodies have been disposed of as quickly as possible or would more emphasis have been put on doing it in such a way that they would never be found? In the end it may not matter, like I said Texas is a big place. I don't think bodies will ever be found without some kind of confession.
Just to maintain as much control of the situation as possible is why DA would want to stay close. Certain things could not happen. For instance, if one of the parents had went up and pressed kidnapping charges against Rachel. It doesn't matter if kidnapping has anything to do with this case or not it would have immediately ramped up the investigation with more than one agency. I've asked before and I will ask again did any of the family members attitude change towards other family members after the statutes for kidnapping expired? I don't guess I'll ever get an answer to that but it's something to think about. I think when those statutes expired it was a major milestone in this case and by that I mean a major milestone for the perps. JMO.
Oh.....lol I know exactly what you mean now! Wow I've tried to find out who that guy was lots of times, from his demeanor I would never have picked him as le. ThanksNo.........He's the dark black hair guy in the Port Lavaca video. Looks like a young Joe Friday.
No I do not BUT He looked Old in 1975 I'm sure he's not around anymore.Oh.....lol I know exactly what you mean now! Wow I've tried to find out who that guy was lots of times, from his demeanor I would never have picked him as le. Thanks
By the way do you happen to know who the officer in the video is?
Just for argument's sake, what evidence could a multi-agency investigation have found in 1974, that we don't have today? Allegedly the FBI came up empty-handed.Just to maintain as much control of the situation as possible is why DA would want to stay close. Certain things could not happen. For instance, if one of the parents had went up and pressed kidnapping charges against Rachel. It doesn't matter if kidnapping has anything to do with this case or not it would have immediately ramped up the investigation with more than one agency.
Oh Im sure he isn't but that wouldn't stop me looking him up if I knew a name!No I do not BUT He looked Old in 1975 I'm sure he's not around anymore.
Just for argument's sake, what evidence could a multi-agency investigation have found in 1974, that we don't have today? Allegedly the FBI came up empty-handed.
Depending on who you talk to there are different stories about the note. It was told the Note was on the door. Some say the front door in which tape might come into play. Some say the Frig. door where tape would probably not come into play(magnet). A verified insider and her friend went and talked to the people who saw the note awhile back. Maybe she will come on and share that conversation with this group.My brain probably reached the ultimate mess with all the info about this case, so I sorry for asking such question, but I honestly don't know at this point if I'm imagining things or recalling something I've read here (or if it's maybe from some less reliable source).
I keeps bugging me that one of the times DA was accused of lying was regarding to her story about the first time she saw the note. Either she said, or was quotted or someone summarized her story about sitting at Minot home confused and seeing disbelief on TT's face while he got back home.
And then someone said that nope, not the case, cause DA was actually OUTSIDE when TT got the letter from the mailbox. But... there was no clear claim that DA actually SAW IT then.
Was that deemed not credible? Or am I confusing something?
It'd be crazy to have some whitnesses who actually saw TT getting the thing out of the mailbox.
But it feels like there has to be something going on with it THERE, cause it's hard to discard the testimony of the person who allegedly saw the note taped to the door in that house (cause, unless LE was handling their evidence in crazy neglectful ways - piece of transparent tape is visible on the high resol pic of the note).
It's one thing to consider DA lying - obviously.
But that could also mean that possibly TT got something out of the mailbox earlier, but later switched it to the note we all saw (possibly altering the note he found on the bedroom doors)?
OR someone with access to the home, grabbed the note before TT or DA saw it on the door and planted it in their mailbox early morning, hanging out there and pretending they're helping in search (or are there with some other reason)?
Anyone remembers WHEN exactly the person who saw the note taped to the door visited there?
RSBM.My brain probably reached the ultimate mess with all the info about this case, so I sorry for asking such question, but I honestly don't know at this point if I'm imagining things or recalling something I've read here (or if it's maybe from some less reliable source).
I keeps bugging me that one of the times DA was accused of lying was regarding to her story about the first time she saw the note. Either she said, or was quotted or someone summarized her story about sitting at Minot home confused and seeing disbelief on TT's face while he got back home.
And then someone said that nope, not the case, cause DA was actually OUTSIDE when TT got the letter from the mailbox. But... there was no clear claim that DA actually SAW IT then.
It probably wasn't. However, if the envelope wasn't actually mailed, someone had to take it to the mall kiosk and get it postmarked that day.RSBM.
The story goes that DA retrieved it from the mailbox and brought it in to TT to read. JMO, but I don't think it was ever in the mailbox to begin with (more 'manafactured' evidence that surrounds this case).
Maybe a budding forger needed the practice...(kidding- I think).I have also read that the note was seen on both the front door and on the fridge !!!! That seems crazy...what on earth was going on in that house ??
RSBM.It probably wasn't. However, if the envelope wasn't actually mailed, someone had to take it to the mall kiosk and get it postmarked that day.
It would depend on when the day's postmark changed over. If the next day's mail was postmarked that afternoon, yes. If it was closer to say, midnight, then no. JMORSBM.
Could have been done when the car was 'staged' at the Mall that afternoon...if that is the way things went down that day.
TT mentioned expecting a ransom note, but not getting one. It's possible one did come in that envelope, but he kept mum about it, and it was replaced with the "letter", which was given to LE.You could be on to something about DA going back and forth. If we consider a scenario like this then we might need to consider the possibility that something else was in the evelope that morning and I don't mean a Christmas card or something, I mean something else relevant to this case.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.