I'm sure most of you remember this segment but for those of you who may not he was the metal plating specialist/weekend biker who disappeared and remains were later found. After he went missing a letter was sent to Tom's live in girlfriend confessing that the letter writer was the murderer and even included some of Tom's personal belongings to help convince her it was true. I had seen this segment countless times and was always curious what the letter said and if it gave any clue as to why he killed Tom. They do show parts of it quickly on UM and decided a few weeks ago to pause it and see if I could decipher any of it. Anyway here is what I've come up with:

"I am suffering a great deal of guilt right now about what I have done and it is necessary to write about it for my sake and yours. You don't know me and hopefully never will but I am the one who killed Tom Roche. I cannot and will not go to jail. I could never handle it.

I almost lost my mind. Never again after being in Vietnam. In fact these were the ugliest days of my life. I felt such a rush whenever I had a confirmed kill. It was hard to switch it off when I came back to the United States for it is (???). I have had this in check except for the nightmares and fantasies about killing. This Jeffrey Dahmer thing really got to me and I wondered if I could still do it.

I figured it would be the best place for what I had in mind."

Well I apologize for it being disjointed as they only show parts of the letter. It really does give you some idea of the mindset of the killer though. If anyone has any better luck deciphering this letter or can add anything to it, feel free.

Wow not as creepy as the "Kay" letter or the guy who thought he was on a tour with Michael Jackson but still...some sick f****ks out there.

A little further down,

The killer says that he met tom in a strip bar. They planned to meet that Friday. He says he killed Tom early Friday and that Tom did not suffer much, he died quickly.



I paused it a turned the brightness up on my tv si I could read the bottom portions of the letter.

Wow thanks a lot mercy!! It was interesting getting that additional piece of information because it explains how he knew Tom. I wonder if he had chose Tom to kill after they met since it appears this person planned on killing someone. It also makes me think that the killer is the man seen with Tom by his truck in front of his apartment.

Does anyone know when this segment originally aired? It aired today on Lifetime along with the Ben Stahl case which aired April 7, 1993. The Our Lady of Guadalupe segment and the Road Rage segment also aired, but did they all air on April 7, 1993?

I think I remember this case, and I don't think UM mentioned that his remains were found. In fact, the episode goes on to suggest that maybe Tom planned his own disappearance to start a new life.

I believe there was an update at the end of the segment that said some remains were found and had been positively identified as Tom Roche's.

So what happened with the DNA in this case? Were the bone fragments officially identified as Tom Roche's? My guess is that he orchestrated the whole thing himself, but, if the bones were identified as his, then I'm obviously wrong...

EDIT: Never mind, found my answer in another thread. Looks like it was him.

Wasnt there was one of those lifetime updates on one that said that Tom's body was found several years later? It is just a strange case, an anonymous note, then some of Tom's possessions were found in Placer County, California which I believe is in the northern part of the state, just north of Sacramento I think. Tom lived in Los Angeles County so that is obviously quite the distance between the two spots.

But I thought there was a lifetime update that said that Tom Roche's body was found in the late 90's? I dont know why Tom would do this elaborate disapperance, he wasnt in trouble with the law or in trouble financially, so if he wanted to leave his girlfriend he would have just told her I think.

There was the whole sighting of Tom with the mysterious man at his apartment building the day he disappeared. The guy that owned that parts store, I think he did see Tom but I think he had the days mixed up about what day he saw him. But then again, I also cannot figure out why anyone would want to kill Tom unless it was just something the killer did for kicks.

Am I the ONLY one who thinks that Tom disappeared to start a new life? I just thought it was odd that his body ended up being found nowhere near where the letter said it was, in addition to his body being found with a bunch of shirts, like he had almost packed to go on a long trip. Maybe I'm totally cynical, but I tend to assume that he wrote the letter himself, only to meet with foul play later.

That's just me, though.

Am I the ONLY one who thinks that Tom disappeared to start a new life? I just thought it was odd that his body ended up being found nowhere near where the letter said it was, in addition to his body being found with a bunch of shirts, like he had almost packed to go on a long trip. Maybe I'm totally cynical, but I tend to assume that he wrote the letter himself, only to meet with foul play later.

That's just me, though.

Yeah that is one of the things in this case that puzzles me. I mean if he had met up with someone the day he dissapeared & then was murdered that day or a short time later, why did they find these items as well. I don't think he had all these things stored in his truck.

Another thing tho is if he took off on his own free will why did he deposit his check & not just cash it & take the money with him. That's another thing that seems odd with this case.

Then the guy in the auto parts store who saw him. Even if he did get his days mixed up it seems odd that Tom didn't even bother to talk to him & just left after a short time. The auto parts guy gave the impression that they was on a friendly basis & talked whenever he came into the store. I find this strange as well.

I definitey think that Tom was the kind of guy that if he wanted to leave he would have. But from what I gather about him from his girlfriend, who says they were together for a long time, wouldn't have just left without letting her or someone know about it or at least an explaination. I think that this killer is the worst kind of scum. Who writes a letter to someone's loved one(s) and tells them how they were murdered!? I don't think the killer wrote the letter out of the kindness of his heart or out of guilt; I think he did it to make her suffer and to cause terrible emotional pain and distress. I think this guy "gets off" by doing this just for the hell of it, because he CAN! I hope and pray that he hasn't gone and done the same thing to someone else. Did he give a reason for the murder? I mean what could Tom have done to this guy that was so bad, that he would just take his life and ditch him like a piece of trash out in the middle of nowhere? I can only pray that whomever did this gets caught someday. Because you know he's the type of guy that if he's gotten away with it once, he's gonna do it again!

Well Cricci I must I think you are absolutely certifiable if you think Tom Roche left of his own choice. ;) :lol: No really I have never seriously thought that because the letter mailed to his girlfriend sounded pretty credible as to what happened and lets not forget that his belongings were in there as well. That would be beyond cruel for him to do that to someone he seemed to love so much. Plus the fact that they did find his remains out in a field sounds like someone disposed of his body after killing him. There were some very specific things mentioned in the letter about the guy being a Vietnam vet that I think would help the police in their investigation, I wonder if they ever had a suspect.

I agree with crystaldawn and lilmissd, I can't see Tom Roche being that dramatic to stage his own disapperance.

I can't see why Tom would want to hurt his girlfriend even if he did want to start a new life, he could've just told her that in a letter and she would have been able to move on with her life, they seemed to be very close so for him to just leave her and letting her suffer like that, no way.

I just rewatched this segment on CD's dvd and it really makes me wonder if the remains were actually identified as those of Tom. Some of you talk about an update, but there wasn't an update on CD's dvd :/ I would really like to know what happened to Tom...

:confused: :confused:

No one has posted on this thread for a long time, but in case anyone still has unanswered questions...I knew Tom Roche very well, and I was sure, even before remains were found that were identified as his, that he did not stage his own disappearance to start a new life. I am sure the ID of his remains was accurate, because it was done by matching DNA from several close family members. As far as I know, his killer was never found. I do have a terrible feeling, though, based on what I know of the psychology of serial killers, that whoever killed Tom Roche would be compelled by his own inner demons to kill again. I hope with all my heart that this case may yet be solved, the killer brought to justice, and Tom's loved ones will have closure. I hope most of all that Tom has found an eternal resting place of peace.

No one has posted on this thread for a long time, but in case anyone still has unanswered questions...I knew Tom Roche very well, and I was sure, even before remains were found that were identified as his, that he did not stage his own disappearance to start a new life. I am sure the ID of his remains was accurate, because it was done by matching DNA from several close family members. As far as I know, his killer was never found. I do have a terrible feeling, though, based on what I know of the psychology of serial killers, that whoever killed Tom Roche would be compelled by his own inner demons to kill again. I hope with all my heart that this case may yet be solved, the killer brought to justice, and Tom's loved ones will have closure. I hope most of all that Tom has found an eternal resting place of peace.

Thanks for posting! Tom seemed like such a likable guy in the UM segment. It did sound like his killer had some sort of PTSD and I agree is likely to kill again. Its too bad they never found him and could put him away. I always wondered if they had any leads. I think the fact that a few people saw the guy and that the letter he wrote would have helped but I guess not.

I read back through this thread and the case is still not sounding familiar to me.

A post on page 1 mentioned that Tom's remains were not found any where near where the letter said that he had been left. Can someone fill in this info for me, please?

I read back through this thread and the case is still not sounding familiar to me.

A post on page 1 mentioned that Tom's remains were not found any where near where the letter said that he had been left. Can someone fill in this info for me, please?

http://www.unsolved.com/ajaxfiles/mur_tom_roche.htm

Thanks a bunch, Justin! :)

Wow thanks a lot mercy!! It was interesting getting that additional piece of information because it explains how he knew Tom. I wonder if he had chose Tom to kill after they met since it appears this person planned on killing someone. It also makes me think that the killer is the man seen with Tom by his truck in front of his apartment.

I definitely think this was a murder but the problem I have with it is when they show the update and the area that the body was found, there are no roads or paths near it. Its almost as though someone took the body all the way out there and left it. My problem is that Tom looked like a big guy who wouldnt be very light. I highly doubt (unless the killer was strong) that he could carry a body all the way out there on his own. I wonder if in fact there were two killers or 1 killer and an accomplice?

I also find it weird that his body is found years after yet his stuff was found scattered all around. If he was killed and discarded there within a week of his disappearance, I would think that his stuff would have been blown away due to weather conditions. The fact that his belongings were there with his body makes me wonder if 1 of 3 things possibly happened:

1. He was killed and dumped there along with his belongings right when he disappeared and his stuff just happened to stay there that whole time.

2. He staged his disappearance and later met with foul play. This theory isnt likely in my opinion, but would explain how all of his belongings were there with him.

3. He was murdered and body dumped there, but the killer held onto his stuff then later went back and left his belongings there.

If the killer says he met Tom at a Strip club, why couldn't they investigate that lead, that sounds like a good lead. It seems like that letter had a lot of information on it that would narrow down a lead. Anyways, I think that Tom unfortunately met the wrong person at the wrong time.

Also, in the letter the killer says he met up with Tom later. Why would they meet up later? Thanks for deciphering the letter guys.
Hopefully they solve it and soon, the killer sounds like a maniac.
:confused:

So... forgive me for going in this direction. this is no offense to Tom at all. just something that popped into my head reading the excerpts from the letter. could Tom have been gay & chatting up the killer in the club? it seems like the killer was sexually attracted to Tom in some way. I mean... doesn't it seem odd he targeted him at a strip club? why not go after a woman? what if the killer came onto Tom. and Tom shot down his advances. thus resulting in the wackjob killing him for feeling rejected.

for all i know the above scenario was true. but Tom wasn't gay. the whole orientation angle popped into my head because the letter mentioned Jeffrey Dahmer. I wonder what's up with that?

When I initially saw the segment, I thought cycling might be some factor in Tom's death, much in the same way it was in the Gus Hoffman case. A hobby-biker-meets-motorcycle-gang-members kind of thing. It isn't difficult at all to imagine they'd be frequenting at least a few of the same establishments and places.

I know what I definitely think, however: Tom didn't engineer his own disappearance. The note is something I don't understand at all, though. It sounds so crazy, what with Vietnam and Dahmer and all that nonsense. How does Tom become a target for someone like that? That's what I don't understand.

I've always been curious about the prescription bottles found near Roche's body (apparently one of them was empty). What were they for?

The medicine, along with the bag of his clothing, suggests he was planning on some long distance traveling -- something he failed to mention to his girlfriend. I can't figure out why the hell he would take a harmless out of town trip and not notify her about it.

Since the note had Roche's earring (?) sent along with it, I've always felt that the letter writer was involved in Roche's death and wanted to partially confess, but made up the crazy details about Vietnam and Dahmer in order to deflect suspicion off of himself. Who was the guy Roche was last seen with at his house? Possibly he was a coworker at Roche's new job, or an acquaintance he traded bike parts with, and a petty argument ensued that led to his death.

A bit more out there is the thought that Roche planned on leaving, possibly to commit suicide, and wrote the letter. Rather Gail Delano-ish, and not something I really buy into, but it has ocurred before.

I've always been curious about the prescription bottles found near Roche's body (apparently one of them was empty). What were they for?

The medicine, along with the bag of his clothing, suggests he was planning on some long distance traveling -- something he failed to mention to his girlfriend. I can't figure out why the hell he would take a harmless out of town trip and not notify her about it.

Since the note had Roche's earring (?) sent along with it, I've always felt that the letter writer was involved in Roche's death and wanted to partially confess, but made up the crazy details about Vietnam and Dahmer in order to deflect suspicion off of himself. Who was the guy Roche was last seen with at his house? Possibly he was a coworker at Roche's new job, or an acquaintance he traded bike parts with, and a petty argument ensued that led to his death.

A bit more out there is the thought that Roche planned on leaving, possibly to commit suicide, and wrote the letter. Rather Gail Delano-ish, and not something I really buy into, but it has ocurred before.

This bothers me as well. There was no indication that Tom had plans to leave, and the picture painted of him certainly would show he and Barbara were dedicated to each other and he would not have just left her. On the one hand, this would suggest that the easiest explanation - that he was killed by the mystery man seen with him (and said man also wrote the letter), but begs the question of the stuff he had with - why would he have it?

When I initially saw the segment, I thought cycling might be some factor in Tom's death, much in the same way it was in the Gus Hoffman case. A hobby-biker-meets-motorcycle-gang-members kind of thing. It isn't difficult at all to imagine they'd be frequenting at least a few of the same establishments and places.

I know what I definitely think, however: Tom didn't engineer his own disappearance. The note is something I don't understand at all, though. It sounds so crazy, what with Vietnam and Dahmer and all that nonsense. How does Tom become a target for someone like that? That's what I don't understand.

Refresh my memory, but what did the letter writer say about Dahmer and Vietnam? Its been so long since I've seen that episode and I cant remember what was said.

Refresh my memory, but what did the letter writer say about Dahmer and Vietnam? Its been so long since I've seen that episode and I cant remember what was said.

The contents of the letter weren't explicitly stated in the segment, but CD was able to freeze the screen and read this:

I am suffering a great deal of guilt right now about what I have done and it is necessary to write about it for my sake and yours. You don't know me and hopefully never will but I am the one who killed Tom Roche. I cannot and will not go to jail. I could never handle it.

I almost lost my mind. Never again after being in Vietnam. In fact these were the ugliest days of my life. I felt such a rush whenever I had a confirmed kill. It was hard to switch it off when I came back to the United States for it is (???). I have had this in check except for the nightmares and fantasies about killing. This Jeffrey Dahmer thing really got to me and I wondered if I could still do it.

I figured it would be the best place for what I had in mind.

Just watched this segment again after reading the thread. This is def. a tough one to figure out. On the one hand, I don't want to believe that he left on his own accord, but on the other hand why in the world would he have a bag with him that appears to be for roughing it in the woods (pocket knife, bottled water, rope, etc...). I'm starting to wonder if this wasn't a suicide. Perhaps he got tired of the rat race and 9-5 existence, as many free spirits do. I mean no disrespect to Tom or his girlfriend; obviously it's just a theory.

The murder idea could make sense if Tom did not have that bag with him. Tom may have written the letter himself in order to give his girlfriend closure (however painful) without having to shame himself by admitting suicide. Any other ideas?

I highly doubt this was a suicide. I mean if he was gonna commit suicide, why even bother depositing his check??? If he was planning on just leaving, why would he deposit his check??? Surely he would need some money.

What I would like to know is the items that were found, if he kept these in his truck on a regular basis.

Just out of curiosity, did LE ever try to do DNA testing on the stamp or envelope for the letter? Seems to me, they could potentially prove or disprove Tom sending the letter, himself.

I was thinking that about his clothes as well. I know we (my husband and I) keep rope, a knife, duct tape and random little things like that in our car just in case. Right now we also have a case of bottled water, and we both always have pocket knives on us as well. Before we got this car, my husband always had about 4 t-shirts in his car, a couple old uniform shirts and at least one baseball hat. When I lived in Chicago I always had at least one sweatshirt and a blanket, even. You just never know what the weather will be, nor what might come up that you'd need to fix in a pinch. Shoot, I even used to use old prescription bottles to hold change.

With all that in mind, it never really fazed me that he was found with the extra clothes and whatnot spread around his body. The killer could have been looking for something of value.

I tend to think that the letter is legitimate. The wording and the way the author writes about it just rings true for me.

It does bother me that his death/murder hasn't been solved, Tom seemed like such a cool, nice guy.

There were some very specific things mentioned in the letter about the guy being a Vietnam vet that I think would help the police in their investigation, I wonder if they ever had a suspect.

I agree but it also makes me wonder if the police even consider this letter credible. Surely if they found it credible, they would have checked local strip clubs and found out which one Tom frequented and then checked to see if at that specific club, there were any regulars who happen to be Vietnam vets. I'm assuming some of this happened but only if the police found the letter credible.

I also still believe it to be very odd that his decomposed body was found in a field in the middle of nowhere years after his murder, yet the same clothes he had on him were scattered around in seemingly perfect condition. Does anyone else find this odd?

Maybe, maybe not. Even today, there are ****ed up people claiming that they were "in the 'Nam," so they could use it as a reason why they have issues, when in reality, they never even entered Vietnamese airspace, let alone spent time in-country. The person may not have even served. We're seeing the same thing, today, with people claiming to have been in The Sandbox, and using that to excuse things they do.

No disrespect intended, but it's possible that Tom led a double life.
I mean, if he was so dedicated to his girlfriend, why is he going to strip clubs?

No disrespect intended, but it's possible that Tom led a double life.
I mean, if he was so dedicated to his girlfriend, why is he going to strip clubs?

While the former very well may be true, it's possible that Tom's girlfriend accepted his patronage of strip clubs and didn't necessarily feel as though it was adverse to their relationship. I couldn't accept that in a relationship, but I have known other women who are just fine with their husband or boyfriends going to said establishments.

No disrespect intended, but it's possible that Tom led a double life.
I mean, if he was so dedicated to his girlfriend, why is he going to strip clubs?

It goes back to Roche missing his lunch date with his girlfriend; did he tend to skip plans, or was he pretty integral about keeping appointments?

I can't remember if UM mentioned if Roche's motorcycle or vehicle went missing as well, or if it was left at his house.

The information about Tom hanging out with his killer at a strip club comes from the letter. I think the letter writer's general admission is credible in that it had his earring and his license. It sounds like a partial confession where the narrator is deliberately being misleading in the details, such as where they met.

I couldn't accept that in a relationship, but I have known other women who are just fine with their husband or boyfriends going to said establishments.

Do you mind introducing me to those women? :wave:

I actually just saw this one on that "unmentionable" website a couple of days ago. First of all, my heart goes out to Tom's girlfriend, I believe her name was Barbara. You could tell just by listening to her speak, that Tom was her world,and that she was absolutely crushed by his disappearence. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe at the end of the segment, there was an update that stated that DNA tests confirmed that human remains that were found, were indeed those of Tom Roche.

I actually just saw this one on that "unmentionable" website a couple of days ago. First of all, my heart goes out to Tom's girlfriend, I believe her name was Barbara. You could tell just by listening to her speak, that Tom was her world,and that she was absolutely crushed by his disappearence. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe at the end of the segment, there was an update that stated that DNA tests confirmed that human remains that were found, were indeed those of Tom Roche.

Yes, sadly those were Tom's remains. Her interview was one of the most heartbreaking ones I've ever seen on UM. It was so apparent she was so crushed, yet so stunned at the same time.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe at the end of the segment, there was an update that stated that DNA tests confirmed that human remains that were found, were indeed those of Tom Roche.

Yes; Roche also died from a gunshot wound.

The link below is a 1992 L.A. Times article about the case; it has a few parts of the letter that haven't been mentioned on here:

http://articles.latimes.com/1992-07-19/local/me-4840_1_man-disappears

After reading the article solientgreen linked, I wish we knew what the circumstances were surrounding the "prearranged meeting" Tom and this person supposedly had. Maybe he lured Tom with something he was allegedly selling, perhaps a bike or parts.

I just don't see why, however, a would-be serial killer would choose a large man hanging out in "rougher" establishments like Tom Roche as a murder victim.

After reading the article solientgreen linked, I wish we knew what the circumstances were surrounding the "prearranged meeting" Tom and this person supposedly had. Maybe he lured Tom with something he was allegedly selling, perhaps a bike or parts.

I just don't see why, however, a would-be serial killer would choose a large man hanging out in "rougher" establishments like Tom Roche as a murder victim.


I agree. Tom was a big guy. I think in the UM segment it said he was 6'2 and 210 lbs. Why would you choose someone like that? Also, what was this prearranged meeting? Perhaps it was about bikes? That's how he lured Tom? The white guy seen with Tom at his apt. the day he went missing? I dunno.

As a practicing psychic, I did a brief reading on this case, having seen it for the first time. Again, this is my suggestion based on what I saw in the cards.

My sense is that this crime may have been committed by someone closer to Tom, like one of the members of the biker group, someone who was jealous of his relationship with Barbara. I also get that there may have been an argument with this person prior to his death, and this person had a prior grudge - maybe there was an issue of borrowed money. From what I see, I am beginning to suspect that the whole letter was a fabrication, down to the strip club, the mysterious stranger, Vietnam, Jeffrey Dahmer. The whole thing seems contrived, and in a strange way, intimate, in a way that I wouldn't imagine from sociopaths.

I think there was someone in the group that was attracted to his girlfriend, and who thought if Tom was out of the picture, the girlfriend would be attracted to him. The letter is his sick way of connecting with her, trying to forge an intimacy they couldn't have while Tom was alive. I feel the police should have looked more closely at his biker friends.

The whole thing about meeting a stranger at a strip club, then just killing them because you were in the war - if I were the police I would look at people close to Tom who were writers, because it's very contrived. Again, this is just another theory.

I just don't see why, however, a would-be serial killer would choose a large man hanging out in "rougher" establishments like Tom Roche as a murder victim.


I agree. If it were a complete stranger or someone who targeted Tom, then why target a large biker? Makes no sense unless the rush he was getting from Vietnam was causing him to try to kill a big guy.

I wouldn't completely write off a friend or someone close to him as the murderer either.

I have always thought the letter was credible in what he said and the possible motive behind his murder. Someone who apparently killed before and wanted to do it again. Doesn't it seem a bit off though that this person who wanted to experience the thrill of killing again would have so much guilt afterwards as he says. That might go to the theory of him being an acquaintance or friend of Tom's. I can see him having met Tom at his strip club outings on various occasions and invited him to go back there as a lure to his death. This guy is clearly very mentally deranged and with the guilt he claims to be experiencing I wouldn't be surprised if he has since committed suicide.

I have always thought the letter was credible in what he said and the possible motive behind his murder. Someone who apparently killed before and wanted to do it again. Doesn't it seem a bit off though that this person who wanted to experience the thrill of killing again would have so much guilt afterwards as he says. That might go to the theory of him being an acquaintance or friend of Tom's. I can see him having met Tom at his strip club outings on various occasions and invited him to go back there as a lure to his death. This guy is clearly very mentally deranged and with the guilt he claims to be experiencing I wouldn't be surprised if he has since committed suicide.

I've had my doubts about the letter but overall, I believe it to be legit. Especially since his drivers license and credit card were mailed with it as proof.

The odd thing about this case is that his body was found decomposed as if it had been there for a while, however, his clothes were scattered around him. It doesn't make sense for a badly decomposed body to be found with clothes scattered around. Seems like some sort of weather condition would have blown the clothes away, especially since his body had been there so long, which would mean his clothes were dumped there too unless someone went back and dumped the clothes just before the body being found. Also, the location where Tom's body was found seemed to be way off the road which would indicate that the killer either drove his body out there and dumped it or the killer had to have an accomplice help him carry Tom's body since Tom was a big man.

As a practicing psychic, I did a brief reading on this case, having seen it for the first time. Again, this is my suggestion based on what I saw in the cards.

My sense is that this crime may have been committed by someone closer to Tom, like one of the members of the biker group, someone who was jealous of his relationship with Barbara. I also get that there may have been an argument with this person prior to his death, and this person had a prior grudge - maybe there was an issue of borrowed money. From what I see, I am beginning to suspect that the whole letter was a fabrication, down to the strip club, the mysterious stranger, Vietnam, Jeffrey Dahmer. The whole thing seems contrived, and in a strange way, intimate, in a way that I wouldn't imagine from sociopaths.

I think there was someone in the group that was attracted to his girlfriend, and who thought if Tom was out of the picture, the girlfriend would be attracted to him. The letter is his sick way of connecting with her, trying to forge an intimacy they couldn't have while Tom was alive. I feel the police should have looked more closely at his biker friends.

The whole thing about meeting a stranger at a strip club, then just killing them because you were in the war - if I were the police I would look at people close to Tom who were writers, because it's very contrived. Again, this is just another theory.

your post was the only one close to what i was thinking..how would i get more infomation on this case ..was there more like the location besides just the town..is it possible to find the site on internet satilite ?was that infomation let out ? was there enough infomation to prove he was not undercover cop? or mistaken for a cop ?...i think he was talked into going somewhere for a few days and was planning on returning to his girl and bike. did he leave his bike behind because he suspected something or was it broke?.......i dont know anything about phikets but when i read your post my kitchen light went low then on to brighter then it was all day...i thought someone walked into the kitchen and turned the light on...have a good day.

was he a undercover cop through with his assignment ? was he mistaken for a undercover cop ?

do you know where the location was..i dont have all the infomation on this case was wondering where in placer county , ca

I just watched this segment again and here is where I keep getting stuck: either he ran away or he was murdered.

If Tom ran away, why did he take so little with him (no money, no motorcycle, very few posessions, etc.) and why did he run away? But if he didn't run away, why did he have some posessions with him (several shirts, hunting knife, pill bottle, etc.)?

Supposedly, if we are to believe the "letter writer", Tom met him at a strip club for unknown reasons. I think the strip club is a major red herring. If they did meet there, I don't think it involved sex -- I think it was an easy landmark (a biker guy who liked to occasionally go to a strip club would know where one is to meet someone). That would fit too, if Tom dropped off Barbara and was going to meet her for lunch. Drop her off, meet a guy to do or pickup ???? and go back home. I can see him being set up and murdered. But if that is the case why would he have a duffel bag full of stuff with him?

If we think he ran away, he sure made it look good (like he meant to stay) but why take so little with you? And why the need to stage an abduction/murder? Also, it would be incredibly cruel to do that to Barbara, so I don't buy that.

The only other scenario I can see is that he was approached/abducted at home. The killer made him pack a bag (or knocked him out and grabbed stuff and put it in a bag), but why would someone do that?

The two scenes do not match at all. The goodbye to Barbara and house indicate he was or intended to be around. The scene where the body was found indicates he was going to be gone for some amount of time. Whoever sent the letter, whether it was Tom, a killer, or someone who did it as a joke has to be one sick person.

For what it's worth, I also think the sighting of Tom at the store may be a red herring. In how many other cases have we seen such accounts that turn out to be totally false (Lisa Marie Kimmel, Gale Delano, etc.) It could have easily been that day, the day before, or someone else. Plus why would he stop in a motorcycle shop if he were leaving town without his motorcycle?

I still feel incredible sadness and sympathy for Barbara. I hope that time has helped her heal, but I don't know how it could with such a bizarre situation.

These are the type of super-bizzarre cases that keep me up at night sometimes...

I'm sure most of you remember this segment but for those of you who may not he was the metal plating specialist/weekend biker who disappeared and remains were later found. After he went missing a letter was sent to Tom's live in girlfriend confessing that the letter writer was the murderer and even included some of Tom's personal belongings to help convince her it was true. I had seen this segment countless times and was always curious what the letter said and if it gave any clue as to why he killed Tom. They do show parts of it quickly on UM and decided a few weeks ago to pause it and see if I could decipher any of it. Anyway here is what I've come up with:

"I am suffering a great deal of guilt right now about what I have done and it is necessary to write about it for my sake and yours. You don't know me and hopefully never will but I am the one who killed Tom Roche. I cannot and will not go to jail. I could never handle it.

I almost lost my mind. Never again after being in Vietnam. In fact these were the ugliest days of my life. I felt such a rush whenever I had a confirmed kill. It was hard to switch it off when I came back to the United States for it is (???). I have had this in check except for the nightmares and fantasies about killing. This Jeffrey Dahmer thing really got to me and I wondered if I could still do it.

I figured it would be the best place for what I had in mind."

Well I apologize for it being disjointed as they only show parts of the letter. It really does give you some idea of the mindset of the killer though. If anyone has any better luck deciphering this letter or can add anything to it, feel free.
i worked for tom when he lived in ri, he was my boss. . he was a great guy. and very big. he had to trust the person that killed him because he was hhuge. very tall rugged guy. he wasnt going down with out a huge fight. and he was no dummy either. very intelligent person. so that tells me he absolutly knew the person in some way because he trusted that person. he did like the strip clubs and his bike. who ever did this to him he meet that person through one of those places. i hope some day they find the sob that did that to him..

I wonder how Barbara is doing today? It said they were a couple for about fourteen years and she was obviously quite devastated. I hope that she's been able to move on as much as possible and live an ok life. I really felt for her and hope this crime is solved one day.

Anyone think the man Tom was with at his apartment complex was the killer? I'm not sure what to think myself. Finding several shirts with his body seems to indicate that he ran away and had packed belongings (unless he wore layers), but that seems very odd of him to do to his girlfriend of sixteen years and with a new job he seemed to enjoy. Also, if he planned to run off, why make a lunch date? Why not just say, ''See you when you get home?'' so that he would be long gone by the time she got home?

I think it's possible the man at the apartment was the killer, the reason why Tom left the door unlocked and the newspaper unread. Perhaps it was an old acquaintance. Perhaps it was a business deal and they took off together. Though I forget if Tom took his car or motorcycle...but perhaps they planned to go somewhere and the man killed him.

The letter seems legitimate, even if the location of the body is off (that could have been done deliberately, I think, to throw investigators off and have the actual body 500 miles away not be recognized as Tom).

I think suicide shouldn't be completely ruled out in this case. The update at the end doesn't reveal whether or not a firearm was found with Roche's remains, that certainly would have been helpful information. Plus, he had articles of clothing (among other things) found with his remains. And the shop owner who claims to have seen him after he disappeared was adamant about the date. Doesn't seem like 100% homicide to me.

BUMP

Watched this case again, and everything about it seems so bizarre. Not to rehash everything that has already been said in this thread, but if Tom was in fact murdered (and the letter was legit), that would seem to indicate that the man he was last seen alive with was his killer? The neighbor who witnessed him talking to this man said that they were talking near a pickup truck and looked in the back of it. Again, if this letter is accurate, I'm guessing this guy was a psychopath, dead set on murdering someone. Unfortunately, it was Tom. I think he met Tom at the strip joint, probably under the ruse that he had some bike parts for sale, and led Tom away from the area before murdering him.

Now the weird thing is it appeared that Tom had packed several shirts, his medicine bottles, and a travel bag. This is the only evidence presented in the segment that hints that Tom had ran off to start a new life (and eventually commit suicide). But there was no evidence of money problems, no relationship problems, nothing that would indicate that he would have any reason to run off. Nor commit suicide. So I think that is highly, highly unlikely now that I think about it. I wonder if Tom's killer had told him that the parts he had for sale were several miles away from where he lived, which is why Tom had packed a few things just in case he needed to spend the night somewhere. That would also fit in nicely with why his remains were found 500 miles away from his apartment.

It would be nice to know whether or not a gun was found among his remains, because that way we could rule out suicide 100%.

I wonder if Tom's killer had told him that the parts he had for sale were several miles away from where he lived, which is why Tom had packed a few things just in case he needed to spend the night somewhere. That would also fit in nicely with why his remains were found 500 miles away from his apartment.

The suitcase full of items is undoubtedly the most baffling aspect of this case. The only problem I have with the above theory is that IIRC, Tom was planning to meet Barbara for lunch at her workplace on the day he disappeared. He never showed up, but if someone convinced Tom to take a long road trip to pick up some parts, why wouldn't he at least call Barbara at work to let her know that he wasn't going to be there for lunch?

One thing the segment doesn't address is whether or not Barbara ever noticed any of Tom's clothes or personal items were missing from the apartment before they were found months later. Of course, it probably wouldn't be that unusual if Barbara didn't notice anything was gone, but it would be provide an amusing parallel to Mark Nichols and his amazing ability to account for every item of his wife's clothing which was missing.

The suitcase full of items is undoubtedly the most baffling aspect of this case. The only problem I have with the above theory is that IIRC, Tom was planning to meet Barbara for lunch at her workplace on the day he disappeared. He never showed up, but if someone convinced Tom to take a long road trip to pick up some parts, why wouldn't he at least call Barbara at work to let her know that he wasn't going to be there for lunch?

One thing the segment doesn't address is whether or not Barbara ever noticed any of Tom's clothes or personal items were missing from the apartment before they were found months later. Of course, it probably wouldn't be that unusual if Barbara didn't notice anything was gone, but it would be provide an amusing parallel to Mark Nichols and his amazing ability to account for every item of his wife's clothing which was missing.

Could be, but maybe he was planning on telling her about it at lunch. Keep in mind, this was done in an age before cell phones.

The suitcase full of items is undoubtedly the most baffling aspect of this case. The only problem I have with the above theory is that IIRC, Tom was planning to meet Barbara for lunch at her workplace on the day he disappeared. He never showed up, but if someone convinced Tom to take a long road trip to pick up some parts, why wouldn't he at least call Barbara at work to let her know that he wasn't going to be there for lunch?

One thing the segment doesn't address is whether or not Barbara ever noticed any of Tom's clothes or personal items were missing from the apartment before they were found months later. Of course, it probably wouldn't be that unusual if Barbara didn't notice anything was gone, but it would be provide an amusing parallel to Mark Nichols and his amazing ability to account for every item of his wife's clothing which was missing.

I guess it's possible that Tom's killer, after murdering him, went back to the residence and took the paper in, and packed some clothes among other things, to make it appear like Tom was taking off for awhile. The only problem I have with this is the risk factor. One of Tom's neighbors could have seen this guy entering the apartment and leaving, or what if Barbara came home and found the guy? Too risky, IMO.

I guess it's possible that Tom's killer, after murdering him, went back to the residence and took the paper in, and packed some clothes among other things, to make it appear like Tom was taking off for awhile. The only problem I have with this is the risk factor. One of Tom's neighbors could have seen this guy entering the apartment and leaving, or what if Barbara came home and found the guy? Too risky, IMO.

Yea, the only way I see that as possible is if his GF murdered him, which didn't happen. I know you know this, but one thing people need to keep in mind is that when some kills a complete stranger, they do not go to lengths to conceal or hide anything about the body. People who knew the victim do that sort of thing.

Yea, the only way I see that as possible is if his GF murdered him, which didn't happen. I know you know this, but one thing people need to keep in mind is that when some kills a complete stranger, they do not go to lengths to conceal or hide anything about the body. People who knew the victim do that sort of thing.

I read an article years ago about Tom's disappearance (he was still missing when the article was written, but they did find the remains and Tom's belongings at that point) that quoted several friends who said that he would have never left Barbara without telling her, and that he would have never went off with someone unless he trusted them. One friend was adamant that Tom would have never just ran off or trusted a random guy he met at a strip club (as hinted at in the letter Barbara received), and that he had to have known the guy who wrote the letter.

I guess it's possible that Tom's killer, after murdering him, went back to the residence and took the paper in, and packed some clothes among other things, to make it appear like Tom was taking off for awhile. The only problem I have with this is the risk factor. One of Tom's neighbors could have seen this guy entering the apartment and leaving, or what if Barbara came home and found the guy? Too risky, IMO.

Not to mention that Barbara received the anonymous letter about Tom's murder only days after he disappeared. I don't see why a killer would go to the trouble of packing a bag and trying to make it look like Tom disappeared voluntarily, only to send a letter confessing to Tom's murder shortly afterward.

Could be, but maybe he was planning on telling her about it at lunch. Keep in mind, this was done in an age before cell phones.

I guess it's possible that the killer had somehow convinced Tom to accompany him on an unplanned road trip, but after packing a bag, Tom said: "We have to stop off at my girlfriend's workplace first, so I can tell her I'm leaving". Not wanting to be seen, the killer pulls a gun on Tom while they're on their way to Barbara's workplace, abducts him, and kills him at another location. I have my doubts that the killer would have forcibly abducted Tom from the apartment complex without drawing any attention.

First, I don't watch much TV, I leave it on so I don't have complete silence in my apartment. I leave it on the channels that have Unsolved Mysteries, Westerns or GetTV, sometimes the news from Los Angeles. This Tom Roche case I've seen a few times before & got to thinking about it. What I see here is this: the killer said he came 'to' LA to find a person to kill just to see if he could still do it & get the same rush he got in Vietnam. So, I believe he was from one of three places that come together in northern California. Placer County (where the body was found), El Dorado County (real close to Placer) or Sacramento County (where weekend warriors live & work, but head to the hills on weekends to get away). They should be looking for a male about Toms size & physical shape, over 65 years old today (2015), knows his way around Placer County, came back from Vietnam about 1973 (??), has an interest in motorcycles, 4 wheel drives (which I suspect he used to get to the place where he dumped the body), strip clubs & porn shops (Sacramento has most of them in that area), a gold miner perhaps, crank dealer or a pot farmer (they all live in the hills of Placer & El Dorado counties, lots of wealthy people live there too., He had to have the time, the money & know his way around Los Angeles (or he would go crazy trying to get in & out of there without attracting attention), next, he had to drive to Placer county with a dead body, not easy to do in an open pick up truck, I suspect that he may have used a car (if Tom was already dead) or a van or closed in truck (has a camper on it) & might have somehow taken Tom to Placer county alive & killed him there, like the killer who was a baker in Alaska that used hookers for sport & hunted them in the open country. (on another true crime show I saw). I think he might have taken Tom to Placer county alive, let him loose & hunted him down like a dog, if he wanted just to kill him, he would have done that in Los Angeles & left him where he fell. It was the thrill of stalking him & then killing him. (at least I see it that way). They don't say exactly where in Placer county he was killed, but knowing the area, it goes from Sacramento to Nevada, Lake Tahoe & Truckee are in it. There are places up in the hills that you are unlikely to see anyone for miles around. Now if it was closer to Sacramento, say Foresthill or Coloma area, the American River Canyon is close & its hard to get down in there, unless you know your way around & mostly gold miners & drug dealers that cook crank are down in it. Another desolate place up there is on the Rubicon Trail where only 4 wheel drives can go. This clown left the body where it could be found, he didn't bury it, he wanted it to be found or he would have dumped it down an old mine shaft or well, plenty of them in Placer county. Another thing about the clothes & knife found with him, he just quit his job at the machine shop. I used to work in one & always carried extra clothes because you get dirty & after work, you go with your friends to a bar or restaurant & eat. He might have taken everything from work & was bringing them into his house at the time he got kidnapped, he went out & got the newspaper, then went after his clothes & bag & ran into this clown that killed him. I'll bet that if this moron is still alive, he is reading this, going to VA hospitals, VFW's (and the like), maybe even riding in the toy run in Sacramento at Christmas time, as a biker or veteran. His friends & neighbors will think he is a nice guy & I suspect he fits in among the people around him. The demons are hidden in his mind & aren't exposed to the people he sees on a daily basis. I also think it would be hard to transport a dead body in an open truck, he would be real nervous trying to drive that far with one. Now if Tom were still alive, handcuffed, tied up & taped his mouth shut, he would be less nervous knowing that they could only get him for kidnapping. Dead body means the end of the road forever. I also think that he didn't drive on Interstate 5 or on Route 99 either, to many places to attract attention & get people looking at you. He 'might' have taken Route 395 to Carson City, very desolate on that road at any hour, especially at night. Its a good way to get to Placer county without attracting attention & there are a bunch of gas stations with very few customers at night. Small towns & runs close to Nevada on the eastern side of the Sierra mountains. You can get to 395 from Los Angeles in about an hour & a half, take the I-220 & then I-15 headed toward Las Vegas, not a bad way to go if you don't want to be seen by the cops. Anyway, that is my thoughts on this. He is from northern California, maybe a trucker, seeing as he knows Los Angeles. Find one who came home from Vietnam around 1973 & lives up there, knows the things I said in this postings. He may have done this again after Tom, but I don't think he did it before that. It was a plan in his head & he would not tell anyone about it or anything like it. But it will always be on his mind & if he needs another thrill, he will do it again. Check all unsolved cases in that area after Tom was killed. I'm betting he did it again & didn't want to go out of the area to find someone this time, now that he knew how to get away with it. I believe he liked hunting & Tom was the pray, makes no sense, but to him it does.

In Vietnam, those were impersonal kills, he killed them from a distance, not up close, unless he murdered old people, women & children like some sickos did. So, with Tom, he had to be up close & get to know him, but not just drop him there & walk away. I believe he is a hunter of sorts, he enjoys stalking his prey & dropping it from a distance. I think when he got him where he wanted him to be, then he let him go & run for his life. They should know if he was shot in the back while running or hiding in the bushes. I've been thinking about it all night after watching the show again. I'll bet this jerk lives close to where they found Tom, so he can go there & visit the site every now & then. What do you folks think about what I've said ? Does it make sense ?

I found two articles online:

https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=2245&dat=19920720&id=n2wzAAAAIBAJ&sjid=oDIHAAAAIBAJ&pg=7207,3890305&hl=en
and
https://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=110&dat=19920720&id=uDNQAAAAIBAJ&sjid=2VUDAAAAIBAJ&pg=6766,1512432&hl=en

One article I believe was published in a Michigan newspaper, the other in a newspaper from a town some 300 miles north of Burbank. I know most of what's in these articles has been posted on this thread and/or mentioned on UM.

However, maybe the location of the newspaper where the article was published, provides a clue to things such various places where police thought the killer might live, places Tom might have visited between disappearing and his body being found, or some other component of the investigation (at least at that time)? And the articles generated to try and get new leads?

That said, it could also have been a slow news day and the editors were looking for something to fill their pages. Before the internet and social media, the Associated Press was always a good way to fill in the blanks.

As a former reporter/assignment editor and news producer -- I can see either being possible.

However, maybe the location of the newspaper where the article was published, provides a clue to things such various places where police thought the killer might live, places Tom might have visited between disappearing and his body being found, or some other component of the investigation (at least at that time)? And the articles generated to try and get new leads?


Thanks for the articles. I am curious where the letter that was sent to Barbara Rondeau was postmarked. Lodi, CA could have potentially been on the northbound route to Placer county, where Tom's remains were later located.

Tom was described as being a responsible person, so it's hard to believe that he would impulsively decide to take a 7 hour one way road trip and not mention it to his girlfriend. Another question is if investigators ever checked out former coworkers from the machine shop that Roche had recently quit.

I highly doubt that anybody close to Tom (girlfriend, family, friends, co-workers and acquaintances) had any reason to kill him or were involved in any way. What I feel is that Tom was killed by a motorcycle gang and had his motorcycle stolen, in the same way Gus Hoffman was murdered, and the fact that personal effects of Tom's were sent to Barbara Rondeau (the girlfriend) signifies that Tom's murder was a hit. Has anyone else thought this? Did it ever say if his motorcycle was still at home or never turned up? What about DNA on the letter? If they have DNA/fingerprint(s), they can tie the murder to somebody. I hope Tom's murder can be solved so his girlfriend and everyone else who loved him can be at peace.

Did it ever say if his motorcycle was still at home or never turned up?

The L.A. Times article on page 3 mentions that Tom's Harley-Davidson was left at his residence.

I don't believe this was a gang motivated crime, although it's possible that the killer was a one percenter or affiliated with mainstream biker culture. Neither Tom's bike nor the parts were stolen, and there's never been any evidence discovered about Tom that would indicate he was involved in criminal activities where he'd have been targeted for a hit. If the statement of the neighbor is valid, Tom felt comfortable enough with the killer to invite him over to his home, and he could have met this individual through any number of routes: a strip club, a bike rally or run, or through his most recent job. I find it a little odd that Tom didn't mention this guy or his impending visit to Barbara, but it might have been a spur of the moment thing.

Did anyone else think it was weird when she said Tom was her lover then she said he was my father.... i know she didnt mean literally but i don't really get this statement. IMO she seems clingy

Does anyone know if his gf/fiancee Barbara is still alive?

Did anyone else think it was weird when she said Tom was her lover then she said he was my father.... i know she didnt mean literally but i don't really get this statement. IMO she seems clingy
I didn't. I think Barbara was just expressing that Tom was her world. "Fatherly" is a term of endearment, and the connotation suggests that he was nurturing and protective of her besides being her lover.

Yeh i think you're right now that i re watch the segment.

Recently re-watched this segment.

Thoughts:

1. I agree that Andy Marsala probably had his dates mixed up, and that he didn't see Tom the day after he disappeared.

2. My current feeling is that the letter isn't entirely legitimate. I think it almost certainly was written by Tom Roche's killer, but I'm still having a hard time believing a serial killer would single out a large man as a victim--especially one who presumably hadn't killed anyone since the Nixon administration. I get the feeling that the letter could have been written to serve as a red herring for both Barbara Rondeau and the authorities.

3. I think Tom Roche's killer probably knew him personally fairly well.

4. I still think Tom Roche had pretty ample occasion to come into contact with those on the "fringes of society" via his riding hobby, through venues such as biker bars, shops, strip clubs, etc. I tend to think he did indeed meet his killer this way, although I do not think the murder was motivated by the killer's supposed homicidal urges. I think it was over some beef or perceived slight that unfolded in the recesses of one of these establishments, and either no one talked about it with police, or no one even knew about it with the exception of Tom and/or the perpetrator(s).

I don't often dig into cases from later seasons like this, but this one seemed to be one of those fringe ones I never heard too much about before.

Given the conditions under which he disappeared, I would have to agree with others that the killer was someone Tom knew/felt comfortable with. I can't see robbery being a motive, as his bike didn't disappear, nor did he cash that paycheck of his and take the money with him.

I got stuck on post #44 (from pg 3) and would have to agree w/that scenario. The only question I'd have though, is what ever became of Barbara? Did the perp in this case, end up getting together with her as the post implied? A guy crazy enough to off someone over a woman doesn't seem like the type to take rejection well (and I'd find it hard to believe he'd just resume his normal life if the woman he killed for rebuffed him).

I forgot that the letter contained Tom's earring and his license. The letter is definitely not a hoax. But I do think the contents of the letter could be fabricated to throw the investigation off. Like the Vietnam stuff and meeting Tom at the strip club. I get the feeling that his killer is closer to him than the letter is making it out to be.

I forgot that the letter contained Tom's earring and his license. The letter is definitely not a hoax. But I do think the contents of the letter could be fabricated to throw the investigation off. Like the Vietnam stuff and meeting Tom at the strip club. I get the feeling that his killer is closer to him than the letter is making it out to be.

I agree.

I may have mentioned this before, but I think it's entirely possible that Tom, as upstanding as he seemed, could have very likely been in the periphery of some other people that were not simply by virtue of the biking hobby. Biker gangs, after all, are still a thing.

(Lord, please stay the wrath of the board, amen.)

I agree.

I may have mentioned this before, but I think it's entirely possible that Tom, as upstanding as he seemed, could have very likely been in the periphery of some other people that were not simply by virtue of the biking hobby. Biker gangs, after all, are still a thing.

(Lord, please stay the wrath of the board, amen.)


Indeed. A 'rougher' acquaintance of his (who could've been a member in such a group) could've been the one who wanted to get him out of the way or could've been the person to actually commit the act (on behalf of someone else)

I agree.

I may have mentioned this before, but I think it's entirely possible that Tom, as upstanding as he seemed, could have very likely been in the periphery of some other people that were not simply by virtue of the biking hobby. Biker gangs, after all, are still a thing.

(Lord, please stay the wrath of the board, amen.)

I don't even know if his killer had to be an "unsavory" character. It could have been someone close to him but totally away from the biker lifestyle. The letter just seems too disguised as a way to throw off the investigation. Whoever killed him dumped his body 500 miles away from where he was last seen. The direction from where he was last seen to where the dumpsite was looked like this person was heading north and then east towards Nevada. I don't know why a random guy who ran into Tom at a strip club and was "just an acquaintance" of his would kill him and then make this trek.

To my knowledge the police have never released where the letter was post marked from.

The letter just seems too disguised as a way to throw off the investigation. Whoever killed him dumped his body 500 miles away from where he was last seen. The direction from where he was last seen to where the dumpsite was looked like this person was heading north and then east towards Nevada.

I started thinking about this case again after listening to RobinW's TTWC podcast. He did a great job breaking this down.

Cars brings up a really good point that I didn't think about as much before. The drive from where Tom lived to Placer county would take HOURS. So either Tom was alive and killed/died there, or the killer was hauling a dead body for a long, long way. Driving through that part of California, there are many places to dump a body that are a lot closer to LA. There are plenty of mountainous areas, desert areas, water, etc.

So to me, that means that Tom was either alive and going for a ride or the killer felt comfortable hauling a dead body that far and for that long. That seems a bit nuts because that adds to the chance that it would be discovered.

I agree with Cars that it seems like the person was driving away, which makes me think the killer didn't live in LA or was getting out of LA for good.

One other thing that always bothered me -- the bag of Tom's things had a knife, flashlight, glasses, empty pill bottle, and some t-shirts. If that list is complete, what is not there bothers me more. There was no underwear, socks, shoes, pants, or toiletries which means this was probably not a complete bag. It almost sounds like it was partially packed for a future trip, leftover from a past trip, or he kept it as a disaster/bug-out bag. It's still odd AF as to why it was there, but I don't think Tom intentionally packed for a trip.

I'm just curious why the body was dumped so far away. It just doesn't make sense to drive so far and to such a remote location. I have the feeling this was way more personal of a murder and this person wanted Tom dead. As Cars said, the letter really smacks of being a red herring to throw off the investigation.

*BUMP

I just watched this segment on Peacock this morning. I usually watch an hour or so of UM every morning after I have had breakfast and before I crash because I work third shift. It helps me unwind after a long night at the hospital.

Anywho.. I was wondering how Barbara Rondeau was doing it was very touching the way she spoke of Tom and I was hoping she was able to move on with her life and have a family. Sadly I learned she had passed away in 2010 at age 49 and decided to list her in the UM deaths thread.

I was having trouble reading her entire obituary I was curious if she had any kids and her cause of death. Unfortunately her obituary has been archived because it has been such a long time. I listed some links in that thread if you care to check it out.

Somehow when I searched her name I stumbled up The True Crime Database and it goes more in depth about the case.

https://www.thetruecrimedatabase.com/case_file/tom-roche

They also list the ENTIRE letter that was mailed to Barbara:

I am suffering a great deal of guilt right now about what I have done and
I feel it is necessary to write about it for my sake and yours. You don't
know me and hopefully never will, but I am the one who killed Tom Roche.
I cannot and will not go to jail. I could never handle it.
I almost lost my mind. Never again.
I loved being in Vietnam, in fact those were the
happiest days of my life. I felt such a rush whenever I had a confirmed kill
that it was hard to switch it off when I came back to the states. For 18 long
years I have held this in check despite the nightmares and fantasies about
killing. This Jefferey Behemer thing really got to me and I wondered if I
could still do it.
I figured L.A. would be the best place for what I had in mind.
I did not want just a random thing cause you can get caught that way so I
set up a plan. I met Tom in a strip joint in the Valley and got to talking.
He fell for it and we arranged to meet on Friday the 13th, I must assure you
that it was neat and quick. I do not think he suffered at all. I am very sorry
for what I have done and I know in time that the guilt will leave me.
So will your pain.

This case is a prime example of "so and so would NEVER do that" being a complete logical fallacy. Because it does appear that Tom Roche did in fact pack up and leave for a trip without telling Barbara. His prescription eyeglasses and an empty pill bottle were found with Tom's remains, as well as several days worth of clothing.

I think Tom knew his killer. I think the letter is authentic, but only some of its contents is true.

Re: the TR segment, it seems that one of two things happened to him:

1) The most obvious is that he was murdered, and the killer was sending letters to his gf for some twisted reason. But, if so - why?! From watching the segment, it didn't seem that TR or his gf were wealthy, and there is no indication that any $ was stolen/taken from TR. And, the alleged "confession" letter was just that, a confession to the crime - and the alleged killer wasn't asking for anything.

2) Or - TR was depressed/distraught about something, killed himself, and for some reason sent the false "confession" letter to his gf before he died. From the UM segment there is no indication that he was suicidal , having problem, and/or that he & his gf were having issues in the relationship - but I still think this is a possibility; and, UM doesn't always mention important facts about these cases. And, just because this wasn't mentioned as a theory re: what happened to TR in the UM segment or anywhere else that I've read about the case - I still see this as a possibility.

Re: the gun that was used to kill TR, if he did kill himself with this weapon - the reason it wasn't found with his body may have been because some unknown person/persons (completely unrelated to his death) came upon the body later & took the weapon. Possibly they even rifled through this things & not finding anything else of value, left most of them behind - which would explain the scattering of the belongings near his remains.

I'm just curious why the body was dumped so far away. It just doesn't make sense to drive so far and to such a remote location. I have the feeling this was way more personal of a murder and this person wanted Tom dead. As Cars said, the letter really smacks of being a red herring to throw off the investigation.

I agree with this. I also think the killer likely knew Barbara and thus wrote the letter because he may have felt bad for her and wanted to give her some sort of closure. I also agree with those of you who said the letter contained a lot of misinformation to throw off the investigation.

Just watched this segment and read most of the thread to this point.

I would disagree with a number of suppositions put forth so far.

I don't think there is anything about the place where the body was found that can really say much as to who did it.
"It just doesn't make sense to drive so far and to such a remote location." No, it makes plenty of sense. If someone wants to minimize the chances of the body being found and connected to them than that is the exact relative location, ie. far away and remote, that is best suited for that.

The letter is obviously not a hoax, the inclusion of his license combined with the discovery of remains proved that. Other than the wrong location of remains being given no part of the letter is clearly wrong and one might surmise that that particular detail was not given truthfully in order to avoid being caught. However the rest of the contents, ie. Vietnam etc. seem plausible.

As to why the killer chose such an imposing target, the obvious answer which fits with the letter's contents is that they wanted a challenge, its part of their psychological condition.

The presence of the extra clothing, etc. at the scene is somewhat harder to reconcile, but it seems very possible that the scene was staged in some way and that he was killed at another location.

I don't think there is anything about the place where the body was found that can really say much as to who did it.
"It just doesn't make sense to drive so far and to such a remote location." No, it makes plenty of sense. If someone wants to minimize the chances of the body being found and connected to them than that is the exact relative location, ie. far away and remote, that is best suited for that.

The logistics of hauling a body and dumping it 500 miles north, in an area his killer would have driven by countless places in California to dump a body in a remote area makes zero sense. Then when you factor in that Tom had packed clothes and his medicine, it makes more sense that Tom drove near or to that location on his own volition.

The letter is obviously not a hoax, the inclusion of his license combined with the discovery of remains proved that. Other than the wrong location of remains being given no part of the letter is clearly wrong and one might surmise that that particular detail was not given truthfully in order to avoid being caught. However the rest of the contents, ie. Vietnam etc. seem plausible.

The Vietnam aspect does not seem plausible. This letter writer was writing something like a fan fiction account of what being in the Vietnam War was like. Also, every single person that knew Tom said he wouldn't have just up and left with a stranger that he met once or twice at a topless bar, and at the very least would have said something to Barbara. The police haven't disclosed where this letter was postmarked, which has always been odd to me.

As to why the killer chose such an imposing target, the obvious answer which fits with the letter's contents is that they wanted a challenge, its part of their psychological condition.

Why shoot him if you want some sort of "challenge"?

ETA: Am I the only one perplexed as to why law enforcement has seemingly abandoned this case? The UM update says "the exact circumstances of his death...remain a mystery". Is this leaving the door open for suicide?

The logistics of hauling a body and dumping it 500 miles north, in an area his killer would have driven by countless places in California to dump a body in a remote area makes zero sense

What "logistics"? In disposing of a body there are two choices. Where the person died or a very short distance from that by hand OR loading it into a vehicle.
Once the body is in a vehicle the marginal difficulty of adding an extra 100 miles is insignificant. Sure there were places in between they could have used, but perhaps they was more familiar with that area or simply wanted more distance.


Then when you factor in that Tom had packed clothes and his medicine, it makes more sense that Tom drove near or to that location on his own volition.


When you factor in that no trip plan of any kind was known by any person known to Tom it forces a conclusion that either this was some big secret he had to travel OR those items (which are hardly a complete weekend bag, missing other clothes and items) were incidental, either obtained from his home by the perpetrator for whatever reason or some random items he had in a bag perhaps left over from a past trip that he used for some purpose. Tom had no reason to be in that area while to a perpetrator it was a suitable area to dispose of a body.


The Vietnam aspect does not seem plausible. This letter writer was writing something like a fan fiction account of what being in the Vietnam War was like. Also, every single person that knew Tom said he wouldn't have just up and left with a stranger that he met once or twice at a topless bar, and at the very least would have said something to Barbara. The police haven't disclosed where this letter was postmarked, which has always been odd to me.


What he wrote about Vietnam does not seem off the mark to me, and especially when viewed through the lens of someone with some mental issues that stemmed from the conflict. How he got Tom to leave the topless bar is hard to say, but there may have been some manipulation (ie driving to a local location for something bike related) involved.
I agree the police secrecy is a problem, it makes it difficult to place the letter writer in time which would be helpful. However, at the same time any postmark in California is not going to be particularly shocking since the perpetrator could have mailed it from a location they had no ties to.


Why shoot him if you want some sort of "challenge"?


Shooting him would still be a challenge as just getting him into a position for it would take some effort. The letter, if accurate, indicates someone who did most of their killing with a firearm so it would be the natural tool for them, especially if they were trying to relive Vietnam.


ETA: Am I the only one perplexed as to why law enforcement has seemingly abandoned this case? The UM update says "the exact circumstances of his death...remain a mystery". Is this leaving the door open for suicide?

LE has limited resources and has to allocate them in some fashion. Decades old murder cold cases eat resources and time faster than almost any other type of police work. Unfortunately every LE agency in the country runs into this same issue.
One thing I have noticed about cases where a body is finally located in such condition that little can be ascertained about the death is that LE is ready to leave the suicide door open because it reduces their case load. David Stone is another such example from UM, police could not find a cause of death, so they just ruled out foul play. From the standpoint of a beat detective this is not hard to understand, the case is unlikely to be solved by dumping more resources into it and those resources are always badly needed for other cases. So leaving open a suicide door and not actively working the case is a way to move on without closing the case.

What "logistics"? In disposing of a body there are two choices. Where the person died or a very short distance from that by hand OR loading it into a vehicle.
Once the body is in a vehicle the marginal difficulty of adding an extra 100 miles is insignificant. Sure there were places in between they could have used, but perhaps they was more familiar with that area or simply wanted more distance.

You act as if it is easy to move a body, "on a remote hillside" 500 miles away from where you just got done murdering someone. I think it's more likely he was killed close to where his body was found.

When you factor in that no trip plan of any kind was known by any person known to Tom it forces a conclusion that either this was some big secret he had to travel OR those items (which are hardly a complete weekend bag, missing other clothes and items) were incidental, either obtained from his home by the perpetrator for whatever reason or some random items he had in a bag perhaps left over from a past trip that he used for some purpose. Tom had no reason to be in that area while to a perpetrator it was a suitable area to dispose of a body.

The items found were a flashlight, knife, rope, bottles of water, 2 pairs of prescription eyeglasses, shirts, cigarettes, a comb, an empty pill bottle, and a book. I would hardly call these items "incidental", nor would I think it would be plausible that after killing Tom somewhere in the Burbank area, this person would then go to his home to retrieve items in an attempt to throw off people into thinking Tom left for a trip. We don't know whether or not Tom had a reason to be in that area.

What he wrote about Vietnam does not seem off the mark to me, and especially when viewed through the lens of someone with some mental issues that stemmed from the conflict. How he got Tom to leave the topless bar is hard to say, but there may have been some manipulation (ie driving to a local location for something bike related) involved.
I agree the police secrecy is a problem, it makes it difficult to place the letter writer in time which would be helpful. However, at the same time any postmark in California is not going to be particularly shocking since the perpetrator could have mailed it from a location they had no ties to.

One of Tom's friends was quoted in an LA Times article saying that he thought the letter was a hoax because there were "inconsistencies" with what the letter said and how Tom disappeared. One of the things in the letter that has been publicly revealed is that the "killer" said he dumped Tom's body in the mountains of Los Angeles. Which is obviously not true. If he wanted to clear his conscious for killing Tom, why give up potentially identifying information (he served in Viet Nam, met Tom at a strip club in LA, inspired by Dahmer, etc.) but lie about where he ditched Tom's body?
The full letter has never been released, further complicating things.

Shooting him would still be a challenge as just getting him into a position for it would take some effort. The letter, if accurate, indicates someone who did most of their killing with a firearm so it would be the natural tool for them, especially if they were trying to relive Vietnam.

Again, what challenge is it to shoot someone once (presumably) in the back of the head? It isn't active combat. Tom was not a threat to him. If the letter was legit, he somehow convinced Tom to accompany him on a trip after meeting him once at a topless bar. I think it's possible that the letter writer did in fact kill Tom, but I think he's lying about everything else in the letter.

One thing I have noticed about cases where a body is finally located in such condition that little can be ascertained about the death is that LE is ready to leave the suicide door open because it reduces their case load. David Stone is another such example from UM, police could not find a cause of death, so they just ruled out foul play. From the standpoint of a beat detective this is not hard to understand, the case is unlikely to be solved by dumping more resources into it and those resources are always badly needed for other cases. So leaving open a suicide door and not actively working the case is a way to move on without closing the case.

Alternatively, cases such as David Stone's were investigated thoroughly, and when his remains were ultimately found where he was last seen wandering around yelling about the beast with zero trauma to his remains; Occam's razor kicks into effect. As for Tom Roche, it is bizarre to me that the police have never commented as to the type of weapon used to shoot him, if he had owned a similar weapon, or whether or not a weapon was located with his remains.

As for Tom Roche, it is bizarre to me that the police have never commented as to the type of weapon used to shoot him, if he had owned a similar weapon, or whether or not a weapon was located with his remains.

Agreed. I completely understand not releasing certain bits of information, in hopes that when a tip comes in, you can recognize it as fact vs fiction. But sheesh, its been 30 years. It may be time to fully to release all of their information that they withheld.

You act as if it is easy to move a body, "on a remote hillside" 500 miles away from where you just got done murdering someone. I think it's more likely he was killed close to where his body was found.



The items found were a flashlight, knife, rope, bottles of water, 2 pairs of prescription eyeglasses, shirts, cigarettes, a comb, an empty pill bottle, and a book. I would hardly call these items "incidental", nor would I think it would be plausible that after killing Tom somewhere in the Burbank area, this person would then go to his home to retrieve items in an attempt to throw off people into thinking Tom left for a trip. We don't know whether or not Tom had a reason to be in that area.



One of Tom's friends was quoted in an LA Times article saying that he thought the letter was a hoax because there were "inconsistencies" with what the letter said and how Tom disappeared. One of the things in the letter that has been publicly revealed is that the "killer" said he dumped Tom's body in the mountains of Los Angeles. Which is obviously not true. If he wanted to clear his conscious for killing Tom, why give up potentially identifying information (he served in Viet Nam, met Tom at a strip club in LA, inspired by Dahmer, etc.) but lie about where he ditched Tom's body?
The full letter has never been released, further complicating things.



Again, what challenge is it to shoot someone once (presumably) in the back of the head? It isn't active combat. Tom was not a threat to him. If the letter was legit, he somehow convinced Tom to accompany him on a trip after meeting him once at a topless bar. I think it's possible that the letter writer did in fact kill Tom, but I think he's lying about everything else in the letter.



Alternatively, cases such as David Stone's were investigated thoroughly, and when his remains were ultimately found where he was last seen wandering around yelling about the beast with zero trauma to his remains; Occam's razor kicks into effect. As for Tom Roche, it is bizarre to me that the police have never commented as to the type of weapon used to shoot him, if he had owned a similar weapon, or whether or not a weapon was located with his remains.


Strawman. I'm not saying its easy. I'm saying the "500 miles" is irrelevant. Once someone has decided to move a body with a vehicle the marginal effort for 500 miles versus 5 is minor. Unless he was killed at the spot he was found (which leaves other questions) then the effort to move him there has little to do with the distance from where he was last seen.

At this very moment I have all of those items (minus the prescription glasses and cigs as neither applies to me) sitting in my car. That does not mean I'm about to leave on a trip. For a guy that was into biking, the idea that he had a backpack with that kind of stuff in it he threw on a pannier for running around town seems very reasonable.
I agree someone would not return to the home after killing him, but if he was killed in or around the home then he may have obtained them at the time.

Above I explicitly called out that the body location was wrong, so that is not something I contest, but that particular detail was likely to be fabricated by the perpetrator to avoid being caught. That has little to no bearing on the veracity of the Vietnam angle.

We don't know where he was shot. Shooting someone (and getting away with it) is actually a considerable challenge. The challenge is in getting him into a vulnerable position where he can do this and not be seen. Sure, it would be more challenging to take him out with his hands but that is irrelevant. The point is targeting a large man would add to the challenge as opposed to taking out a woman that was 5' tall which fits with the letter contents. It does not have to be "active combat" that is a red herring.

David Stone's case was not investigated more or less than this by all appearances. The police found scattered remains years after the fact and wrote off that it must not have been foul play. Yes he was last seen acting strangely, but that could have been significantly removed in time and place from the actual death.

As to the comments of the police, based on the time elapsed since the death it is almost certain that nothing more specific than death by gunshot wound could be determined. With skeletal remains a gunshot wound is not even necessarily apparent. To say what the weapon was based on that would be guessing. If the weapon was found at the scene the police would have said so and closed the case on the grounds of a suicide, so no weapon was found there.

Agreed. I completely understand not releasing certain bits of information, in hopes that when a tip comes in, you can recognize it as fact vs fiction. But sheesh, its been 30 years. It may be time to fully to release all of their information that they withheld.

That model of police work based on secrecy and deception could be argued to be outdated in the 21st century. There are plenty of issues that come from withholding information and the benefits of doing so are less and less significant. There are also plenty of abuse opportunities for LE when information is supposedly being withheld from the public.

Strawman. I'm not saying its easy. I'm saying the "500 miles" is irrelevant. Once someone has decided to move a body with a vehicle the marginal effort for 500 miles versus 5 is minor. Unless he was killed at the spot he was found (which leaves other questions) then the effort to move him there has little to do with the distance from where he was last seen.

It's not a strawman. I'm not saying anything about the distance other than that's where I think he was killed. I'm saying that killing him, driving 500 miles north, and then careening down a remote hillside with a large man who is nothing but dead weight is ridiculously tough to do.

At this very moment I have all of those items (minus the prescription glasses and cigs as neither applies to me) sitting in my car. That does not mean I'm about to leave on a trip. For a guy that was into biking, the idea that he had a backpack with that kind of stuff in it he threw on a pannier for running around town seems very reasonable.
I agree someone would not return to the home after killing him, but if he was killed in or around the home then he may have obtained them at the time.

Your random personal anecdote aside, a smoker who doesn't take his cigarettes with him would be a red flag and would indicate that someone other than Tom packed that bag.

Above I explicitly called out that the body location was wrong, so that is not something I contest, but that particular detail was likely to be fabricated by the perpetrator to avoid being caught. That has little to no bearing on the veracity of the Vietnam angle.

If he was wrong about the location of the body, why should you trust anything else in the letter? He had Tom's ID, credit card, and earring inside. The cops still aren't sure if Tom or his killer sent the letter.

We don't know where he was shot. Shooting someone (and getting away with it) is actually a considerable challenge. The challenge is in getting him into a vulnerable position where he can do this and not be seen. Sure, it would be more challenging to take him out with his hands but that is irrelevant. The point is targeting a large man would add to the challenge as opposed to taking out a woman that was 5' tall which fits with the letter contents. It does not have to be "active combat" that is a red herring.

He was shot in the head.

As to the comments of the police, based on the time elapsed since the death it is almost certain that nothing more specific than death by gunshot wound could be determined. With skeletal remains a gunshot wound is not even necessarily apparent. To say what the weapon was based on that would be guessing. If the weapon was found at the scene the police would have said so and closed the case on the grounds of a suicide, so no weapon was found there.

This isn't true. The cops ruled Doug Johnston's death a suicide and no gun was found at the scene. Also, if there is a chance of predators moving and scattering the remains away from wherever he potentially could have shot himself. His family is not pushing for this case to be solved. One of his sisters was quoted in a 1994 article about how they will never know how he died, and this was after the DNA testing on the remains came back as a match.

It's not a strawman. I'm not saying anything about the distance other than that's where I think he was killed. I'm saying that killing him, driving 500 miles north, and then careening down a remote hillside with a large man who is nothing but dead weight is ridiculously tough to do.


Lets put it this way. Loading the body into a vehicle, and driving somewhere before unloading the body and careening down a remote hillside with a large man is more difficult than just shooting him and letting him lie, no questions. But 500 miles might as well be 5 once he has been loaded, it makes zero difference.
All that sounds difficult, unless of course (as is likely) the perpetrator was also a large man. And while Tom was a big guy, he was not morbidly obese 450 lbs big. He was not much heavier than a lot of deer I see shot and hauled out of the woods by one guy. Its not that difficult to the point where it means he was shot there.




Your random personal anecdote aside, a smoker who doesn't take his cigarettes with him would be a red flag and would indicate that someone other than Tom packed that bag.

Its not random, read it again. The point is that many people, myself included, would have some or most of those items in their cars even if they were not traveling. I would agree a smoker not taking cigarettes is a red flag, but unfortunately the inverse does not have the same logical conclusion. The cigarettes were there, so they may have been taken by Tom, or by the perpetrator, or by the perpetrator in a bag Tom previously packed.


If he was wrong about the location of the body, why should you trust anything else in the letter? He had Tom's ID, credit card, and earring inside. The cops still aren't sure if Tom or his killer sent the letter.

Because there is a compelling reason to lie about the location so as not to get caught. He wanted to confess (in a sense) but not be caught for doing so. The location of the body was vague and perhaps intended to mislead police.


He was shot in the head.

That does not preclude him being shot elsewhere, nor does it tell us if the wound was post mortem. Also, the exact location of the wound on the head is a very significant factor as well, front, back, intra-oral, etc. So no, we don't really know where he was shot, at most we know his skull had a wound consistent with a gunshot.


This isn't true. The cops ruled Doug Johnston's death a suicide and no gun was found at the scene. Also, if there is a chance of predators moving and scattering the remains away from wherever he potentially could have shot himself. His family is not pushing for this case to be solved. One of his sisters was quoted in a 1994 article about how they will never know how he died, and this was after the DNA testing on the remains came back as a match.

Doug Johnson was very obviously not a suicide and was ruled as such for reasons that had nothing to do with police work. The fact that they ruled it a suicide with no firearm is the massive waving red flag on that one.
The predators angle is far fetched, firearms are very easy to find due to the massive metal signature. I've found smaller tools in the woods with a child's metal detector and only a vague idea of the area they were in. If the police did any work at all and there was a firearm there it would have been found.

There are several questions that remain unanswered, which could paint a clearer picture as to what happened to Tom.

* The UM re-enactment shows Tom dropping off Barbara at work in his pickup truck. They make plans to go to lunch together at noon. Tom never arrives or calls Barbara. Barbara gets home at 5:30 p.m. and still no signs of Tom. But where was his truck? Was the truck missing as well as Tom? If so, where was it located? I'd have to guess that the truck was not left behind at the apartment or else the police wouldn't have considered him taking off as strongly as they did initially. Also, Barbara would have been in more of a panic when she got home at 5:30 p.m. One of the articles about Tom's disappearance says she was worried, but thought he would be home at some time that night. To me, this is another point in favor of the truck missing as well.

* The police believe the neighbor who saw Tom talking with a white guy and says it happened on Friday the 13th. But the cops think the shop owner who reported seeing Tom on Saturday the 14th got his dates mixed up. Couldn't the neighbor also have gotten the date wrong? If she did, then the guy seen talking with Tom could be a total red herring.

* When Barbara arrived home from work, the front door was unlocked, the newspaper was sitting on the sofa unopened, and the motorcycle batter that Tom planned on installing that day was still sitting on the kitchen counter. Because the apartment was unlocked and the paper was brought inside, at some point Tom made it back to the apartment after dropping Barbara off at work. If he had some clandestine meeting with a guy he just met a week prior at a strip club that required him packing a duffel bag full of clothes, why did he not phone Barbara to tell her he wouldn't be there for lunch?

* Tom's sister was quoted in an article from February 1994 saying that the exact date and cause of death "may be impossible to determine". The article makes it seem as if Tom disappeared and his remains were found on an embankment. No mention of a gunshot wound. And this would have been after his remains were turned over to the family. Why would his sister say this if the police did in fact inform them that his cause of death was a gunshot wound?