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

[Olivier La Buse]

One question: Is TT still alive today? It seems someone was very keen on erasing documents with his handwriting on the internet. I found some of them years ago, but now they simply vanished.

 

[ChuckChaplin66]

One question: Is TT still alive today? It seems someone was very keen on erasing documents with his handwriting on the internet. I found some of them years ago, but now they simply vanished.

I believe he is still alive and still living in Texas, though not in Fort Worth. Last I heard he was living down south on the coast somewhere

 

[ekardh]

My feeling is still that it was a stranger abduction, carried out by possibly more than one perpetrator. Rachel wrote the letter under duress, and used those oddities as a tipoff that something wasn't right. I initially thought the speed of the letter's delivery was suspicious, but apparently mail really did travel that fast back in the 1970s! I honestly would not be surprised if it was a security guard or someone acting in a role of authority.

 

[T rex]

50 years coming up and I guess Fort Worth investigators don't even feign interest anymore. I haven't heard anything in the media either, or family members for that matter. It seems kind of hopeless at this point. It doesn't look like there will be any justice for these girls, Julie Ann Moseley, Renee Wilson and Rachel Trlica.

 

[Brightchaser47]

50 years coming up and I guess Fort Worth investigators don't even feign interest anymore. I haven't heard anything in the media either, or family members for that matter. It seems kind of hopeless at this point. It doesn't look like there will be any justice for these girls, Julie Ann Moseley, Renee Wilson and Rachel Trlica.

Nope. When a big deal is made over how under-staffed FWPD Cold Case Unit currently is, it's easy to forget the detectives who have been assigned "exclusively" to this case through the years...
Also, you have to wonder why Julie's not listed on Tarrant County's Missing Persons website, although Rachel and Renee are. As old as this case is, and with all the publicity it's gotten, I find it very hard to believe that it's simply an oversight...jmo

 

[Olivier La Buse]

One question: Is TT still alive today? It seems someone was very keen on erasing documents with his handwriting on the internet. I found some of them years ago, but now they simply vanished.

P.S. Thanks to those who sent them to me. Just my opinion, ok? Not registered as a specialist here (yet), but the documents are quite revealing (to me). A pity I cannot discuss more due to the rules.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

My feeling is still that it was a stranger abduction, carried out by possibly more than one perpetrator. Rachel wrote the letter under duress, and used those oddities as a tipoff that something wasn't right. I initially thought the speed of the letter's delivery was suspicious, but apparently mail really did travel that fast back in the 1970s! I honestly would not be surprised if it was a security guard or someone acting in a role of authority.

Normally, I would be in complete agreement with you, but in this situation, I bump the security guard (whether rogue or not) theory down the list for the following reasons :-

1. No one can state with 100% certainty that they were even at the Mall that day.

2. The Runaway Letter. If mall security are involved I don't see them writing a letter stating that the missing girl's car is at his place of employment. Or even if it someone impersonating a security guard is responsible, I don't think they are going to bother with a letter stating were the car is, a potential crime scene, when they have already got away with the crime.

3. According to a V.I who posts/posted here, the writing is not Rachel's, but is very similar to someone close to her. it is back on an earlier thread (probably from around 2020 or 2021)

 

[Brightchaser47]

One question: Is TT still alive today? It seems someone was very keen on erasing documents with his handwriting on the internet. I found some of them years ago, but now they simply vanished.

P.S. Thanks to those who sent them to me. Just my opinion, ok? Not registered as a specialist here (yet), but the documents are quite revealing (to me). A pity I cannot discuss more due to the rules.

3. According to a V.I who posts/posted here, the writing is not Rachel's, but is very similar to someone close to her. it is back on an earlier thread (probably from around 2020 or 2021)

RSBM
It's interesting that the FBI, with their training and expertise, was unable to conclusively determine whether Rachel wrote the letter, when it seems so obvious to folks around her that she didn't. Must've been a decent forgery. It's also interesting (and unfortunate) that we amateurs are only given samples of her husband's writing for comparison. jmo

 

[Brightchaser47]

It was Det. Wilbanks who allegedly received that letter from Rachel's family the day after the girls went missing, told the media he thought Rachel wrote it under duress, and became became lead investigator in the case. It was Wilbanks and other detectives assigned to this case at that time who absolutely toyed with the one family (Renee's) who dogged them relentlessly to find the girls. And now, as mentioned earlier, we have "we're badly under-staffed" and it's absolute  crickets. Folks, if that's not evasion and a cover-up by LE from Day 1, I don't know what is. I wonder whose idea it was for Wilbanks to take this case, and whether he knew any of these families personally prior to the girls going missing (namely Rachel's)-- or knew any of the girls. Probably a coincidence, but the newspaper photo of him standing next to Rachel's parents during a search (Hog Bayou maybe?) makes me wonder. I haven't decided whether he was actually involved, or merely covering for someone else in LE. jmo

 

[Olivier La Buse]

RSBM
It's interesting that the FBI, with their training and expertise, was unable to conclusively determine whether Rachel wrote the letter, when it seems so obvious to folks around her that she didn't. Must've been a decent forgery. It's also interesting (and unfortunate) that we amateurs are only given samples of her husband's writing for comparison. jmo

Just an information: A person closer to the family (I have talked about this in another thread) has given me more than samples. By the way, I am not an amateur/curious person but have been a professional investigator for many years who have not registered here yet for a private reason.

 

[DD Byrd]

I haven't decided whether he was actually involved, or merely covering for someone else in LE.

Maybe just a media , it wouldn't be the first time LE or LE adjacent wanted to be in the spotlight. And nothing says "look how involved and Detective-y I am" like a photo with parents during a search for the victim/s. That's about as good as it gets, barring film of a live action rescue.

 

[Brightchaser47]

Maybe just a media *advertiser censored*, it wouldn't be the first time LE or LE adjacent wanted to be in the spotlight. And nothing says "look how involved and Detective-y I am" like a photo with parents during a search for the victim/s. That's about as good as it gets, barring film of a live action rescue.

Maybe, but I'm inclined to think he knew Rachel's family, felt comfortable around them.

 

[Olivier La Buse]

Normally, I would be in complete agreement with you, but in this situation, I bump the security guard (whether rogue or not) theory down the list for the following reasons :-

1. No one can state with 100% certainty that they were even at the Mall that day.

2. The Runaway Letter. If mall security are involved I don't see them writing a letter stating that the missing girl's car is at his place of employment. Or even if it someone impersonating a security guard is responsible, I don't think they are going to bother with a letter stating were the car is, a potential crime scene, when they have already got away with the crime.

3. According to a V.I who posts/posted here, the writing is not Rachel's, but is very similar to someone close to her. it is back on an earlier thread (probably from around 2020 or 2021)

What is your opinion on the way the police acted? ONE (of two) of the relatives I talked to (a nice guy by the way), said the police didn't make a good effort because they were "common folk" not important people.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

What is your opinion on the way the police acted? ONE (of two) of the relatives I talked to (a nice guy by the way), said the police didn't make a good effort because they were "common folk" not important people.

Yes, I think there would have been an element of that in their thinking. Then adding the 'arrival' of the Runaway Letter to this thinking, they probably thought they ran away due to 'some family stuff' and decided to take a step back from the situation. They probably thought they would be back in a couple of days. I'm not sure exactly when they started to take the case 100% seriously, but I don't think they did in those crucial first days, unfortunately.

I don't want to put down the FWPD, but it was also Christmastime. In some cases LE probably just wanted to get off their shift and get home, without any hassle. I appreciate that I am being a bit flippant here, but I remember as a kid back in 1970s, TV with family at Christmastime was a bit thing. If you want to see the Colombo Christmas Special then you better be back at home on your couch. No VCR in 1974.

 

[Brightchaser47]

What is your opinion on the way the police acted? ONE (of two) of the relatives I talked to (a nice guy by the way), said the police didn't make a good effort because they were "common folk" not important people.

Yes, I think there would have been an element of that in their thinking. Then adding the 'arrival' of the Runaway Letter to this thinking, they probably thought they ran away due to 'some family stuff' and decided to take a step back from the situation. They probably thought they would be back in a couple of days. I'm not sure exactly when they started to take the case 100% seriously, but I don't think they did in those crucial first days, unfortunately.

I don't want to put down the FWPD, but it was also Christmastime. In some cases LE probably just wanted to get off their shift and get home, without any hassle. I appreciate that I am being a bit flippant here, but I remember as a kid back in 1970s, TV with family at Christmastime was a bit thing. If you want to see the Colombo Christmas Special then you better be back at home on your couch. No VCR in 1974.

I would agree with all this regarding the initial LE response. Per procedure at the time, one officer (who would've had a shotgun in the patrol car) responded to the mall lot. Only one missing person report was actually made in person (Julie's)-- the other two were phoned in. I've never heard a really good explanation for that btw, but anyway. It's how FWPD detectives (namely Wilbanks) handle the case in the days and weeks immediately following the introduction of the letter that I question. Would he have treated this case the same if he'd never seen that letter? I may be off, but I really think there was something about the letter of significance to Wilbanks himself. Something that would prompt him to be rather suggestible/collaborative with Rachel's parents (the newspaper articles suggest that possibility imo), then be a real jack@$$ to Renee's parents, as they persist in hounding FWPD to find their daughter. He didn't just ignore them, he flat-out  lied and toyed with them (per Renee's father).
Wilbanks was with the Youth Division of FWPD (per newspaper articles). It was his job to associate with/monitor/mentor  youth. Just saying and jmo

 

[Brightchaser47]

In the 1970's, towns like Fort Worth implemented team policing. Neighborhoods were assigned teams of LE, with the idea that rapport between LE, citizens and youth would reduce crime. Ideally this would greatly enhance the community. However, I wonder if a group or groups of less-than-honorable LE could've abused this system and taken advantage of kids from poorer neighborhoods to engage in illegal activities. Parents who didn't know any better trusted "Officer Friendly" and encouraged the interaction with their kids. Parents who did know what was going on were highly unlikely to speak out, for fear of retaliation. I believe something like that may've happened here. Just a thought.

 

[Valiant]

One might wonder if the information from the A family to the police might be part of the reason the police were not as active on the case as expected. There seems to be misdirection from the family now, and I wonder if it was around back then to keep police away from the family and the business.

 

[DD Byrd]

Maybe, but I'm inclined to think he knew Rachel's family, felt comfortable around them.

He could be both.

 

[DD Byrd]

If a member of LE was involved with the actual disappearance (which I don't believe), it would have to be just one, IMO. Possibly two but that gets trickier, and what is the motive for a triple homicide, that could've been delayed to get Julie out of the picture? Renee and Rachel weren't leaving town (that we know of), so why THAT day? I don't see even a handful of PD knowing what happened and not finding a way to let it be known. People talk, even with badges, and especially with something this heinous.

Meanwhile, if Rachel's family knew (or based on facts we don't know, assumed) more than they let on, they either were directly involved themselves, were covering for someone else for what they must have deemed a life or death reason, or felt Rachel was "at fault" for whatever happened and didn't want to have the other girls deaths (particularly Julie's) on their family name. "Life or death" could be financial, but Julie's likely death needn't have been part of it. The Arnolds could have known they were dead, known they were alive and were supposed to be back, or not known anything. I don't think snapshots reflect all. And even if they had some idea, I'd expect them to be in shock.

I think this was sudden, probably not overly planned since Julie appeared, and personal. I don't think it was random since there would be no reason to write a letter. I'm undecided on the security guards, they may have been seen with the girls but not have anything to do with it. Maybe whoever DID take them wasn't thrilled when they were seen with the guards? I'm surprised there doesn't seem to be any sort of interview with the guards, they know who was working that day.

 

[jetsfanjohn]

One might wonder if the information from the A family to the police might be part of the reason the police were not as active on the case as expected. There seems to be misdirection from the family now, and I wonder if it was around back then to keep police away from the family and the business.

I would suggest that the purpose of this misdirection, wherever it comes from, is to try to place the girls at the Mall that day, e.g 'witness' sightings etc.