Like a lot of you, I've been fascinated by the Wacker case for years. I'm an author who writes crime fiction and true crime, and I tracked down the case file (86 pages) and wrote about what it contains.

Season 6, Episode 23. May 25, 1994. One thread here has a hundred pages. 2.3 million YouTube views and counting on the episode.

For thirty years this case has been discussed, debated, and theorized. The crayon notes, Dorothy's attack, the family stakeout, the phone calls that followed them through every number change. Robert Stack called it one of the most baffling cases the show ever covered. No arrest was ever made.

The lab never returned a single positive result. The trap never captured a call. The neighbors, including the family next door with the clearest sight lines, never saw anything.

You can read my piece at:

https://grantharwood.substack.com/p/cheaper-but-will-do

Thumbs up. Super job with the writing. Like I said in the other thread I love this new info but it leaves me with even more questions. If it was all a hoax, why?? If my partner was attacked I’d be doing everything humanly possible to find the perpetrators but Bill didn’t seem to care. How did UM get the story to begin with and why did they (possibly knowingly) leave out all these facts??

I’ve asked this a hundred times at least on countless cases (Paul Beale for one) and I still cannot find an answer. Other than having to do with some form of narcissism, why would a hoaxer welcome national attention?

Thanks for the kind words. I think Unsolved Mysteries worked with what they were given, and it is an entertainment show, not a news broadcast as they state at the beginning.

Thanks for the kind words. I think Unsolved Mysteries worked with what they were given, and it is an entertainment show, not a news broadcast as they state at the beginning.

Can’t argue with that! We were indeed warned lol.

You’re welcome. It was a very fascinating read and I like how you presented everything objectively (I said this in the other thread too I think so I’m sorry I’m a bit of a broken record). It’s great to see writers and fans like yourself doing deep research on these cases all these years later, and sharing what you find. I hope you might consider doing another case in the future. Subscribed.

Can’t argue with that! We were indeed warned lol.

You’re welcome. It was a very fascinating read and I like how you presented everything objectively (I said this in the other thread too I think so I’m sorry I’m a bit of a broken record). It’s great to see writers and fans like yourself doing deep research on these cases all these years later, and sharing what you find. I hope you might consider doing another case in the future. Subscribed.

Thank you, that means a lot, especially on a first piece. The objectivity was important to me. The file says what it says, and I wanted to let it do the talking. It was pretty clear the Sheriff's office had some skepticism here. I do have a couple other cases I'm looking into, though I'm keeping those close for now until the sourcing is where it needs to be. In between, I'm also working on some fiction, crime and thriller stuff, serial killers, with influences like John Sandford and Stephen King. Appreciate you subscribing.

I used to have doubts that the Wackers could have orchestrated everything themselves, but having read your article (very well-written and researched) all the evidence does now point to that conclusion. As to why, my only guess is that they were looking for attention. I'm rather curious about the neighbors' previous experiences with the Wackers and why they had bad impressions of them. The Wackers "crying wolf" seems like something those in the neighborhood felt was typical of them.

One of the most surprising revelations is that Bill apparently never installed the infamous lights that were "a laugh." If he didn't, then obviously no intruder could have left a note commenting on them. It was odd for Bill to say he didn't want to put up the lights because he wanted to catch the intruder himself. This was a stressful and terrifying situation for the Wackers, so you'd assume yard lighting that might eliminate the problem entirely would be something they'd go for. Anything that might prolong the situation (and even result in a confrontation) seems counterintuitive.

I've always thought "Cheaper, but will do" is the supposed intruder remarking on something they stole that wasn't the quality they wanted although it would do. The alternate transcription of "Cheap, but it will do" suggests that, but still... it seems like a weird thing to take the time to write on the wall of someone whose house you robbed. The writing style of the notes does strike me as someone trying to sound mean/tough, but (as you said) never quite doing so in a believable way. "I'll get you the next time I come you creeps" especially gives that impression.

Thanks Starshine!

The Wackers weren't the sweet old couple I thought they were? Well...my illusions are shattered.

Like a lot of you, I've been fascinated by the Wacker case for years. I'm an author who writes crime fiction and true crime, and I tracked down the case file (86 pages) and wrote about what it contains.

Season 6, Episode 23. May 25, 1994. One thread here has a hundred pages. 2.3 million YouTube views and counting on the episode.

For thirty years this case has been discussed, debated, and theorized. The crayon notes, Dorothy's attack, the family stakeout, the phone calls that followed them through every number change. Robert Stack called it one of the most baffling cases the show ever covered. No arrest was ever made.

The lab never returned a single positive result. The trap never captured a call. The neighbors, including the family next door with the clearest sight lines, never saw anything.

You can read my piece at:

https://grantharwood.substack.com/p/cheaper-but-will-do

Unless of course, they were the ones responsible.

I used to have doubts that the Wackers could have orchestrated everything themselves, but having read your article (very well-written and researched) all the evidence does now point to that conclusion. As to why, my only guess is that they were looking for attention. I'm rather curious about the neighbors' previous experiences with the Wackers and why they had bad impressions of them. The Wackers "crying wolf" seems like something those in the neighborhood felt was typical of them.

One of the most surprising revelations is that Bill apparently never installed the infamous lights that were "a laugh." If he didn't, then obviously no intruder could have left a note commenting on them. It was odd for Bill to say he didn't want to put up the lights because he wanted to catch the intruder himself. This was a stressful and terrifying situation for the Wackers, so you'd assume yard lighting that might eliminate the problem entirely would be something they'd go for. Anything that might prolong the situation (and even result in a confrontation) seems counterintuitive.

I've always thought "Cheaper, but will do" is the supposed intruder remarking on something they stole that wasn't the quality they wanted although it would do. The alternate transcription of "Cheap, but it will do" suggests that, but still... it seems like a weird thing to take the time to write on the wall of someone whose house you robbed. The writing style of the notes does strike me as someone trying to sound mean/tough, but (as you said) never quite doing so in a believable way. "I'll get you the next time I come you creeps" especially gives that impression.

Pretty sure Dorothy had real head injuries though, how do you explain that?

That Dorothy actually had bruises is odd if everything was faked, but sometimes people intentionally injure themselves to make it appear they've been attacked.

The Wackers weren't the sweet old couple I thought they were? Well...my illusions are shattered.

By that same token though, if the neighbors didn't like them, it also creates a potential motive wouldn't you say?

What if the bumping noises the Wackers heard were the neighbors sticking something long out an adjacent window and pounding on the windows? Explains why no one was ever seen.

Again, sheer speculation. But as I said in the other thread I question how much the neighbors may have been looked into. And also how Dorothy was able to get their attention if her mouth was taped shut.

The lack of fingerprints is always an overrated wonder in my view. Anyone with a minimal amount of intelligence or knowledge of police investigations knows to use gloves. And DNA was in its infancy back then and would not have been any help in the 80's and early 90's.

But the odd thing is, the perp who attacked Dorothy in 1985, we know he used the phone. I'm assuming they dusted the phone for fingerprints. but nothing was mentioned either way. I'm not sure whether to think that means there was none found, or they got prints but they were not identified. Fingerprint databases I'm fairly certain were not complete in the 1980's. So its not that implausible they got some and didn't match them to anyone.

That Dorothy actually had bruises is odd if everything was faked, but sometimes people intentionally injure themselves to make it appear they've been attacked.

yeah, but it would be pretty hard for an old lady to hit herself in the back of the head, unless you think Bill did it.

I still would be curious about the nature of her head injuries. And how easy or hard it would have been for them to be self inflicted.

Because really, hitting someone in the head is tricky business, you got to know just how to do it. If you hit someone to hard, you risk killing them, and you don't hit them hard enough, you fail to knock them out and they can turn around and see you.

So apparently these perps were able to get it just right twice and just force her to take a nap. For all we know could have been the same person who did both attacks though it seems unlikely, assuming she didn't do it to herself.

I guess its possible Bill could have done it too. Apparently he wasn't home during the first attack, its not clear where he was the second attack though.

In the 1985 incident Dorothy reported being knocked unconscious by an intruder. A large bruise on her right cheek and jaw was reported, but she refused treatment or to go to the hospital. She was evaluated at the scene by the North Lawrence Volunteer Fire Department.

In the 1993 incident Dorothy was transported in 1993 to Massillon Community Hospital by the North Lawrence Fire Department rescue squad. Deputy Veigh's handwritten supplement report states that at the hospital, she told him an "unknown Person Did strikE Her on the Head, And she Fell To the ground". (Their casing, by the way). However, the official police investigative report form for that night (Case 93-10340) literally has the "VICTIM INJURED?" box checked "N", and the corresponding field asking to "IF INJURED, DESCRIBE INJURIES" is left completely blank. No documentation of a head wound.

In one of the other topics, I found a 'letter to the editor' that was written by Bill Wacker.. I don't remember what it was about, but it had a picture of him and I posted the letter in the topic..

I asked.. "You think this is the same Bil Wacker"?

And.. Someone pointed out that he was wearing a freaking Unsolved Mysteries hat. So.. Yeah.. Captain Obvious missed that one.

But.. Now, of course, when you look at things in hindsight.. You tend to start drawing conclusions and connections where none exist at all.. But.. there were a few of those letters to the editor from a Bill Wacker, that was the only one that had a photo.. It.. At least makes me wonder.. Did he shift over to using the newspaper to get his.. 'fix'?

I'm probably reaching here. Certainly not anything that is conclusive, just.. One of those things that makes you go "Hmmm"

So they made the whole thing up to get on TV? In the back of my mind I always thought parts of the story were made up. What are the odds of someone screwing with the same elderly couple for over a decade? Makes you wonder.

So they made the whole thing up to get on TV? In the back of my mind I always thought parts of the story were made up. What are the odds of someone screwing with the same elderly couple for over a decade? Makes you wonder.

Perhaps getting on TV wasn't the goal, just.. Attention seekers? And it snowballed into them getting a segment on UM, which was just a bonus?

I don't know for sure.. None of us do.. But.. It just.. Nothing adds up here, other than it being faked. That's the only outcome that really checks all the boxes.

Perhaps getting on TV wasn't the goal, just.. Attention seekers? And it snowballed into them getting a segment on UM, which was just a bonus?

I don't know for sure.. None of us do.. But.. It just.. Nothing adds up here, other than it being faked. That's the only outcome that really checks all the boxes.

I still am inclined to believe the Wackers. My honest opinion is that Unsolved Mysteries in an effort to make this case seem stranger and more mysterious than it was, left out some critical details and they inadvertently gave a lot of people the impression they fabricated all this. For instance, the shoe prints found in 1993 that did not match Bill or Dorothy. And Mr Pedigo the neighbor who went an untied Dorothy in 1985 testifying he heard someone slamming the door and fleeing when Dorothy was still tied up.

And their daughter had to be in on it too, because she heard the banging on the house same as the others did.

Not to mention, apparently at least one of the neighbors did not think much of the Wackers, telling the authorities they brought a lot of this on themselves. That has to raise at least some red flags.

Could they have fabricated it? Its possible, but it doesn't really sit right with me. These incidents seemed to have started kind of out of nowhere in 1984, and as far as I know the Wackers had no history of doing anything else like this in the past. The notion an old couple with no history of doing things like this just starts this up out of nowhere us difficult to swallow, just for attention.

I personally think a neighbor being behind it does check a lot of the oddity boxes in the case, and that there was in fact some evidence of an intruder that was simply never mentioned. Also that the local sheriffs dept simply did not take them seriously from the beginning.

I acknowledge though that I could be wrong.

I still am inclined to believe the Wackers. My honest opinion is that Unsolved Mysteries in an effort to make this case seem stranger and more mysterious than it was, left out some critical details and they inadvertently gave a lot of people the impression they fabricated all this. For instance, the shoe prints found in 1993 that did not match Bill or Dorothy. And Mr Pedigo the neighbor who went an untied Dorothy in 1985 testifying he heard someone slamming the door and fleeing when Dorothy was still tied up.

And their daughter had to be in on it too, because she heard the banging on the house same as the others did.

Not to mention, apparently at least one of the neighbors did not think much of the Wackers, telling the authorities they brought a lot of this on themselves. That has to raise at least some red flags.

Could they have fabricated it? Its possible, but it doesn't really sit right with me. These incidents seemed to have started kind of out of nowhere in 1984, and as far as I know the Wackers had no history of doing anything else like this in the past. The notion an old couple with no history of doing things like this just starts this up out of nowhere us difficult to swallow, just for attention.

I personally think a neighbor being behind it does check a lot of the oddity boxes in the case, and that there was in fact some evidence of an intruder that was simply never mentioned. Also that the local sheriffs dept simply did not take them seriously from the beginning.

I acknowledge though that I could be wrong.

Again, none of us know for sure, so.. I can't say you're wrong, I can't say I'm right.

It's just really hard to fathom that someone could do all this - at times right under the noses of cops and family members staking out the house.

That's crap you only see in the movies.

It's also rather hard to believe that this 'sweet old couple' could make it all up.

It's something I doubt that we'll ever know the answer to.. So.. 50 years down the road, i'm betting the argument over whether it was faked or real will still be happening. Both Bill and Dorothy have passed and they didn't confess before they went.

I still don't think the million dollar question has been answered, tho.. Did all this continue after the UM episode aired? I don't think that answers anything, but I'm pretty sure it's something we all want to know the answer to.

Again, none of us know for sure, so.. I can't say you're wrong, I can't say I'm right.

It's just really hard to fathom that someone could do all this - at times right under the noses of cops and family members staking out the house.

That's crap you only see in the movies.

It's also rather hard to believe that this 'sweet old couple' could make it all up.

It's something I doubt that we'll ever know the answer to.. So.. 50 years down the road, i'm betting the argument over whether it was faked or real will still be happening. Both Bill and Dorothy have passed and they didn't confess before they went.

I still don't think the million dollar question has been answered, tho.. Did all this continue after the UM episode aired? I don't think that answers anything, but I'm pretty sure it's something we all want to know the answer to.

Much like Cindy James.

Much like Cindy James.

The similarities between those two cases are pretty striking. They even took placed over a similar time frame, the mid to late 80's.

Of course there is one glaring difference, Cindy James wound up dead under mysterious circumstances, the Wackers went on to die of natural causes later on.

Its also noteworthy that the police believed that Dorothy Wacker after her first assault was tied up in such a way police believed she could not have done it herself, Cindy James was found several times assaulted and tied up, and the authorities in her case believed she could have done it herself.

However in James's case, the coroner also refused to rule it suicide but basically undetermined, but the police immediately dismissed it as a suicide. And I'm fairly certain at Cindy James' death scene, highway workers said they had been over the site and not spotted her body there before, meaning she could not have been there long. This is significant because she had been dead multiple days when they found her, meaning she could not have succumbed to her death there, but was placed there, which means it almost had to be murder. Then again, these workers could be mistaken about the body not being there before.

I lean towards both cases being real harassment. There were tangible suspects in the Cindy James case, not as much in the Wackers though it sounds to me like the neighbors should have been.

Again, none of us know for sure, so.. I can't say you're wrong, I can't say I'm right.

It's just really hard to fathom that someone could do all this - at times right under the noses of cops and family members staking out the house.

That's crap you only see in the movies.

It's also rather hard to believe that this 'sweet old couple' could make it all up.

It's something I doubt that we'll ever know the answer to.. So.. 50 years down the road, i'm betting the argument over whether it was faked or real will still be happening. Both Bill and Dorothy have passed and they didn't confess before they went.

I still don't think the million dollar question has been answered, tho.. Did all this continue after the UM episode aired? I don't think that answers anything, but I'm pretty sure it's something we all want to know the answer to.

I understand your rationale, but it goes back to what I said I think some misleading info has been put out in this case, there is enough in the details to make me think this. We all love Unsolved Mysteries but are aware it was notorious for making a lot of cases seem stranger than they really were.

As to the harassment going on or not after the broadcast, it seems there were no more reported incidents after that. That doesn't mean nothing happened mind you, but apparently either nothing was really happening or the Wackers just got tired of reporting it. I don't think anything serious like an assault happened though cause obviously they have to do that regardless. It does seem that the second assault may have made the authorities at least take it somewhat seriously again so it might have scared the perps into stopping as maybe it was getting out of hand. If so at least the Wackers had some peace for a few years.

What is not clear to me though, is some things about the second assault. I read in the report files Dorothy sustained no known injuries, the UM broadcast said she had skull lacerations which isn't a real injury, but I saw a podcast the other night that said she had a concussion in fact. People also wondered how someone got close to her without her dog raising a fuss. But apparently she was taking to dog out to go to the bathroom, and I've read some animals can miss things if they are focused on doing their business. If it was a neighbor, maybe the dog was familiar with them and therefore was not alarmed. Also it makes people believe Bill did it, and Bill was in fact home when the second assault happened, which I admit does seem suspicious. As it seems less likely anyone else could have snuck up behind Dorothy without the dog raising a fuss.

Just a lot of unanswered questions.

I understand your rationale, but it goes back to what I said I think some misleading info has been put out in this case, there is enough in the details to make me think this. We all love Unsolved Mysteries but are aware it was notorious for making a lot of cases seem stranger than they really were.

As to the harassment going on or not after the broadcast, it seems there were no more reported incidents after that. That doesn't mean nothing happened mind you, but apparently either nothing was really happening or the Wackers just got tired of reporting it. I don't think anything serious like an assault happened though cause obviously they have to do that regardless. It does seem that the second assault may have made the authorities at least take it somewhat seriously again so it might have scared the perps into stopping as maybe it was getting out of hand. If so at least the Wackers had some peace for a few years.

What is not clear to me though, is some things about the second assault. I read in the report files Dorothy sustained no known injuries, the UM broadcast said she had skull lacerations which isn't a real injury, but I saw a podcast the other night that said she had a concussion in fact. People also wondered how someone got close to her without her dog raising a fuss. But apparently she was taking to dog out to go to the bathroom, and I've read some animals can miss things if they are focused on doing their business. If it was a neighbor, maybe the dog was familiar with them and therefore was not alarmed. Also it makes people believe Bill did it, and Bill was in fact home when the second assault happened, which I admit does seem suspicious. As it seems less likely anyone else could have snuck up behind Dorothy without the dog raising a fuss.

Just a lot of unanswered questions.

So far as the concussion.. Concussions weren't really taken seriously back in the day. They weren't really properly diagnosed.. You got hit over the head, the docs would say "Eh, probably a concussion"

I had like 3 of them in high school alone.. Coaches would just say "Ah.. You got your bell rung.. Sit out for 5 minutes and then get back in there"

We have come quite a ways. In the diagnosis and the treatment of concussions since that time.

So far as the concussion.. Concussions weren't really taken seriously back in the day. They weren't really properly diagnosed.. You got hit over the head, the docs would say "Eh, probably a concussion"

I had like 3 of them in high school alone.. Coaches would just say "Ah.. You got your bell rung.. Sit out for 5 minutes and then get back in there"

We have come quite a ways. In the diagnosis and the treatment of concussions since that time.

This!! People did not take TBIs as seriously, to your point, and OT, a lot of football players have suffered psychological damage because of the concussions. Think of that movie "Concussion" that got nominated for Oscars.

Whenever anyone elderly falls these days, one of the things that automatically gets them sent to trauma centers is if they hit their head. At least in my personal experience. Dorothy Wacker's head injury would be handled WAY differently today.

The similarities between those two cases are pretty striking. They even took placed over a similar time frame, the mid to late 80's.

Of course there is one glaring difference, Cindy James wound up dead under mysterious circumstances, the Wackers went on to die of natural causes later on.

Its also noteworthy that the police believed that Dorothy Wacker after her first assault was tied up in such a way police believed she could not have done it herself, Cindy James was found several times assaulted and tied up, and the authorities in her case believed she could have done it herself.

However in James's case, the coroner also refused to rule it suicide but basically undetermined, but the police immediately dismissed it as a suicide. And I'm fairly certain at Cindy James' death scene, highway workers said they had been over the site and not spotted her body there before, meaning she could not have been there long. This is significant because she had been dead multiple days when they found her, meaning she could not have succumbed to her death there, but was placed there, which means it almost had to be murder. Then again, these workers could be mistaken about the body not being there before.

I lean towards both cases being real harassment. There were tangible suspects in the Cindy James case, not as much in the Wackers though it sounds to me like the neighbors should have been.

The Cindy James "she tied herself up" always seemed a bit strange to me. OTOH, I'm not doubting what the investigators said, especially if she took morphine in pill form (and read Agatha Christie).

The police believed Dorothy was tied up by someone else, I think, because she was elderly. Elderly people aren't helpless (media stereotypes to the contrary), but their physical strength and reaction time and recovery time are different than younger people's. I highly doubt she could have tied herself up, which means a co-conspirator if she was staging this. But who? Bill?

This!! People did not take TBIs as seriously, to your point, and OT, a lot of football players have suffered psychological damage because of the concussions. Think of that movie "Concussion" that got nominated for Oscars.

Whenever anyone elderly falls these days, one of the things that automatically gets them sent to trauma centers is if they hit their head. At least in my personal experience. Dorothy Wacker's head injury would be handled WAY differently today.

TBI wasn't even a term back in the 80's and.. Probably the 90's as well. Concussions were just treated with rest and if you got 2, 3 or 20 of them.. No big deal.

So far as I know, i've had no adverse effects from the multiple ones that I've had, but.. In general.. I wouldn't know.

There's a Harvard educated former pro wrestler.. Bet you never thought you'd see those words side by side.. Christopher Nowinski. He wound up with post-concussion syndrome which led to his retirement from wrestling, but co-founded the CTE center at Boston University and is one of the leading researchers in the world on the subject.

TBI wasn't even a term back in the 80's and.. Probably the 90's as well. Concussions were just treated with rest and if you got 2, 3 or 20 of them.. No big deal.

So far as I know, i've had no adverse effects from the multiple ones that I've had, but.. In general.. I wouldn't know.

There's a Harvard educated former pro wrestler.. Bet you never thought you'd see those words side by side.. Christopher Nowinski. He wound up with post-concussion syndrome which led to his retirement from wrestling, but co-founded the CTE center at Boston University and is one of the leading researchers in the world on the subject.

I actually have heard of him!

TBI wasn't even a term back in the 80's and.. Probably the 90's as well. Concussions were just treated with rest and if you got 2, 3 or 20 of them.. No big deal.

So far as I know, i've had no adverse effects from the multiple ones that I've had, but.. In general.. I wouldn't know.

There's a Harvard educated former pro wrestler.. Bet you never thought you'd see those words side by side.. Christopher Nowinski. He wound up with post-concussion syndrome which led to his retirement from wrestling, but co-founded the CTE center at Boston University and is one of the leading researchers in the world on the subject.

The night I got my TBI I had seizured out and don’t remember being taken to the hospital. I found out later they never checked me for a hematoma. When I started coming out of the seizure I was sitting in the ER waiting room holding discharge papers I don’t remember signing. I vaguely remember stumbling to a phone to call for a ride. I spoke backwards for three months. Hippocampus damage. Hospitals don’t take head injuries as seriously as they should now, let alone in the 1980s.

The night I got my TBI I had seizured out and don’t remember being taken to the hospital. I found out later they never checked me for a hematoma. When I started coming out of the seizure I was sitting in the ER waiting room holding discharge papers I don’t remember signing. I vaguely remember stumbling to a phone to call for a ride. I spoke backwards for three months. Hippocampus damage. Hospitals don’t take head injuries as seriously as they should now, let alone in the 1980s.

That is horrible. I hope you are OK now.

I was finally able to view this segment. It begins at 30 minutes comcludes at 42 minute season 6 episode 23 a two hour special. Dorothy had suffered a blow to the head by the guy who borrowed the phone. Could the "attack" when she let the dog out been an accidental fall? The head injury from that incident could have left her confused. Default would be to assume it was the harasser.

Security lights really tend to be a joke. Most are poorly situated and benefit everyone but the homeowner. I have seen lights that create blind spots or spotlight and blind the homeowner. This hold true on commercial property and military sites as well. So I can understand why Bill removed the lights or refused to add more depending on the version of the story.

The stolen pistol, scanner and movie or video camera sound like a robbery kit. Camera for casing, scanner for casing and real time info, pistol for muscle. It doesn't seem the ballistic characteristics of the pistol were ever tested or put into a system for comparison. The messages on rocks found on the porch could have been launched by a wrist rocket or even a hockey stick from distances well outside of viewing range in darkness.

This could easily be harrasment or gaslighting from a neighbor, an acquaintance or a third party who gained information on them. It seems local law enforcement could have done a better job. I have read the links provided on this thread to the casefiles. I take official police reports with a grain of salt based on personal experience.
Personally I don't think Bill and Dorothy did this to themselves.

I was finally able to view this segment. It begins at 30 minutes comcludes at 42 minute season 6 episode 23 a two hour special. Dorothy had suffered a blow to the head by the guy who borrowed the phone. Could the "attack" when she let the dog out been an accidental fall? The head injury from that incident could have left her confused. Default would be to assume it was the harasser.

Security lights really tend to be a joke. Most are poorly situated and benefit everyone but the homeowner. I have seen lights that create blind spots or spotlight and blind the homeowner. This hold true on commercial property and military sites as well. So I can understand why Bill removed the lights or refused to add more depending on the version of the story.

The stolen pistol, scanner and movie or video camera sound like a robbery kit. Camera for casing, scanner for casing and real time info, pistol for muscle. It doesn't seem the ballistic characteristics of the pistol were ever tested or put into a system for comparison. The messages on rocks found on the porch could have been launched by a wrist rocket or even a hockey stick from distances well outside of viewing range in darkness.

This could easily be harrasment or gaslighting from a neighbor, an acquaintance or a third party who gained information on them. It seems local law enforcement could have done a better job. I have read the links provided on this thread to the casefiles. I take official police reports with a grain of salt based on personal experience.
Personally I don't think Bill and Dorothy did this to themselves.

Security lights, in my experience, are good but anyone who knows the property like (dun dun dun) a neighbor would know how to get around those. Same for cameras. I have seen it happen.

I'm not one to say, "well, the police are automatically wrong because people on the Internet said so," but in UM we have seen examples where the police came to ONE conclusion and then stuck to it regardless of the evidence. Bias exists. The report mentioning that some people didn't like the Wackers rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like the police went out of their way to dismiss the Wackers or worse.

I was finally able to view this segment. It begins at 30 minutes comcludes at 42 minute season 6 episode 23 a two hour special. Dorothy had suffered a blow to the head by the guy who borrowed the phone. Could the "attack" when she let the dog out been an accidental fall? The head injury from that incident could have left her confused. Default would be to assume it was the harasser.

Security lights really tend to be a joke. Most are poorly situated and benefit everyone but the homeowner. I have seen lights that create blind spots or spotlight and blind the homeowner. This hold true on commercial property and military sites as well. So I can understand why Bill removed the lights or refused to add more depending on the version of the story.

The stolen pistol, scanner and movie or video camera sound like a robbery kit. Camera for casing, scanner for casing and real time info, pistol for muscle. It doesn't seem the ballistic characteristics of the pistol were ever tested or put into a system for comparison. The messages on rocks found on the porch could have been launched by a wrist rocket or even a hockey stick from distances well outside of viewing range in darkness.

This could easily be harrasment or gaslighting from a neighbor, an acquaintance or a third party who gained information on them. It seems local law enforcement could have done a better job. I have read the links provided on this thread to the casefiles. I take official police reports with a grain of salt based on personal experience.
Personally I don't think Bill and Dorothy did this to themselves.

I never thought about the second attack being a fall. Its certainly more plausible than her hitting herself in the head, she was old. But it happened in the front yard so guessing she would have had to have fallen on something hard maybe a stone, I don't see how she could have injured her head sufficiently to be knocked out just on grass, though I guess its possible.

As far as the lights go, some of my neighbors have them when I've gone to their house, as far as I could tell the generally seem to work pretty well, but then again I'm not really a cat burglar and I don't prowl in people's yards as a hobbie or for a living so there are probably ways to beat them I'm sure, though I don't know off hand what they would be I'm not in that line of work.:lol:

The second attack though was part of what cast suspicion on Bill Wacker, cause he was apparently home when it happened whereas the first attack in 1985 he was not, he could have still been working then so maybe he was at work. But I don't guess any motive was found why Bill would do it.

I also wonder why the Wackers didn't get themselves a big dog, like a pitbull or a rottweiler to defend their yard, if someone was indeed prowling around their house pulling this crap that would have definitely complicated things for them. Probably more so than lights. But then dogs like that can be a handful for an elderly couple too.

Like you though, I do believe the harassment was real, and according to the police files there was apparently at least one neighbor who did not think much of the Wackers, as they told the police they were bringing a lot of it on themselves, what does that mean? so that definitely should have been a red flag. You just wonder why they would come to dislike an old couple. The only thing I can think of is that old folks can be cantankerous about loud music and such things, maybe the Wackers told them to hold it down or something and it didn't sit well. This was after all during the age of the hair bands, and many older folks didn't care for the loud rock music that was popular then. But that is just a guess.

I think part of the problem was the Unsolved Mysteries segment in an effort to make this more mysterious like some kind of phantom was doing it, left out some details that made it make more sense like the shoeprints found in the yard in 1993, and as a result inadvertently made a lot of people doubt the Wackers story. Unsolved Mysteries was notorious for that sometimes.

Security lights, in my experience, are good but anyone who knows the property like (dun dun dun) a neighbor would know how to get around those. Same for cameras. I have seen it happen.

I'm not one to say, "well, the police are automatically wrong because people on the Internet said so," but in UM we have seen examples where the police came to ONE conclusion and then stuck to it regardless of the evidence. Bias exists. The report mentioning that some people didn't like the Wackers rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like the police went out of their way to dismiss the Wackers or worse.

The Wackers apparently had a close neighbor on one side, only like about a few feet away. Makes you wonder if the bumps on the house were caused by someone sticking a long object out the window and beating on the side of the house. Like a rake or pole of some kind. Sounds silly I know, but it would explain why no one was seen and one way they could have circumvented their security lights. And also why a car was never heard.

The rocks with notes could have been thrown onto the front porch as well.

I think a neighbor was behind it. The Wackers may have even suspected them, but couldn't say so on air without proof.

Could have even been a family next door, maybe only one family member was actually doing it and the rest of them were totally innocent. Maybe a teenager or young adult lived next door with his parents and he was the only one doing it and his parents were unaware of it. The Wackers might have trusted the parents and the police only talked to them and decided they didn't seem suspicious. the 1985 attacker could have been a buddy of theirs who didn't live nearby which was why Dorothy didn't recognize him and was visiting and he got them to do it.

As I said above, this is all just speculation but there are feasible scenarios. And like you not sure the police took this seriously and Unsolved Mysteries made it seem more mysterious than it really was.

The Wackers apparently had a close neighbor on one side, only like about a few feet away. Makes you wonder if the bumps on the house were caused by someone sticking a long object out the window and beating on the side of the house. Like a rake or pole of some kind. Sounds silly I know, but it would explain why no one was seen and one way they could have circumvented their security lights. And also why a car was never heard.

The rocks with notes could have been thrown onto the front porch as well.

I think a neighbor was behind it. The Wackers may have even suspected them, but couldn't say so on air without proof.

Could have even been a family next door, maybe only one family member was actually doing it and the rest of them were totally innocent. Maybe a teenager or young adult lived next door with his parents and he was the only one doing it and his parents were unaware of it. The Wackers might have trusted the parents and the police only talked to them and decided they didn't seem suspicious. the 1985 attacker could have been a buddy of theirs who didn't live nearby which was why Dorothy didn't recognize him and was visiting and he got them to do it.

As I said above, this is all just speculation but there are feasible scenarios. And like you not sure the police took this seriously and Unsolved Mysteries made it seem more mysterious than it really was.

Look at the substack on post #1. The overhead view is labeled & numbered on the houses. My estimate is the Maddox house on the west is about 25 feet away. Too far to use a stick or pole. Right idea, wrong method. A pocket fisherman, a tennis ball on a cord, small clods or acorns could be used to thump the house. Light cord or fishing line would be difficult to see in daylight and impossible at night if some looked out a window expecting to see a prankster running away. Objects on a line could be retrieved before anyone made it to the door.

It is stated Bill didn't want lights because he wanted to catch the guy. If you look outside from an unlit room into the darkness you can see a lot because your eyes adapt and the available light is more even. If you have have lights the brightest or closest like a porchlight will give you a pool of visibility. But the contrast will make shadows deeper and you can't see beyond the lighted area. Effectively nightblinding yourself. Motion activated are the worst. Large insects close enough can set them off. June bugs flying into the wall make a healthy thump.

The substack notes police reports lacked accurate detail and conflicted even when written by the same officer. They weren't specific about the neighbors complaints. Were they legitimate? Now that I am a rural cranky old man I tend too see things from Bill's perspective.

TheCars1986 's skill linking to googlemaps would really be handy now. We would be able to check the scene from map or satellite phot overhead and from streetview. I couldn't manipulate or enlarge the view on the substack.

Yard conditions are not mentioned when Dorothy was "attacked" in 1993 eight years after the stranger hit her and bound her. Here in Kansas when it's dry the ground is like concrete and the grass is like a nylon scrubbrush. Add light dew and conditions are perfect for a slip and fall resulting in minor lacerations and possible concussion. At least having your bell rang. Even if the ground is soft, when your feet leave the ground and you drop it will be a hard impact.

A woman and her son had worked for Bill and Dorothy. They knew the house and lived in a nearby town. It doesn't appear they were investigated. Even if they didn't do anything they may have dicussed the Wackers with someone else. Maybe even the initial attacker of 1985. That is how the Clutters were murdered. A third party learned about them from a former employee.

That's why I tend to think it was a combination of events harassment, theft assault and accidents. Some related, some unrelated but perceived to be connected. Except for the pole theory I find all of Excalibers thoughts on this plausible. In any case I recommend everyone read the link provided in comment #1. There is a lot of info and you can reach your own conclusions.

The Wackers address is 10271 Wooster St NWMassillon, OH 44647

The Wackers apparently had a close neighbor on one side, only like about a few feet away. Makes you wonder if the bumps on the house were caused by someone sticking a long object out the window and beating on the side of the house. Like a rake or pole of some kind. Sounds silly I know, but it would explain why no one was seen and one way they could have circumvented their security lights. And also why a car was never heard.

The rocks with notes could have been thrown onto the front porch as well.

I think a neighbor was behind it. The Wackers may have even suspected them, but couldn't say so on air without proof.

Could have even been a family next door, maybe only one family member was actually doing it and the rest of them were totally innocent. Maybe a teenager or young adult lived next door with his parents and he was the only one doing it and his parents were unaware of it. The Wackers might have trusted the parents and the police only talked to them and decided they didn't seem suspicious. the 1985 attacker could have been a buddy of theirs who didn't live nearby which was why Dorothy didn't recognize him and was visiting and he got them to do it.

As I said above, this is all just speculation but there are feasible scenarios. And like you not sure the police took this seriously and Unsolved Mysteries made it seem more mysterious than it really was.

If it was an adolescent or young adult doing that just for the lulz, that's pretty sick, especially since Dorothy was attacked. Makes me wonder two things.

1) Did the culprit(s) get scared off with all the media coverage when it got too real? "Unsolved Mysteries" was huge, a hit show, and suddenly there was a national spotlight. If it was an adolescent, maybe they realized they'd really gone too far and were afraid of the consequences, or maybe their conscience bothered them finally.

2) Did the family find out about the harassment and decided not to report it to the police so that the adolescent wouldn't get in trouble, but in return, told him or her, "You ever go near the Wackers again and we will turn you in"? Maybe the kid got shipped off somewhere to reform school.

Look at the substack on post #1. The overhead view is labeled & numbered on the houses. My estimate is the Maddox house on the west is about 25 feet away. Too far to use a stick or pole. Right idea, wrong method. A pocket fisherman, a tennis ball on a cord, small clods or acorns could be used to thump the house. Light cord or fishing line would be difficult to see in daylight and impossible at night if some looked out a window expecting to see a prankster running away. Objects on a line could be retrieved before anyone made it to the door.

It is stated Bill didn't want lights because he wanted to catch the guy. If you look outside from an unlit room into the darkness you can see a lot because your eyes adapt and the available light is more even. If you have have lights the brightest or closest like a porchlight will give you a pool of visibility. But the contrast will make shadows deeper and you can't see beyond the lighted area. Effectively nightblinding yourself. Motion activated are the worst. Large insects close enough can set them off. June bugs flying into the wall make a healthy thump.

The substack notes police reports lacked accurate detail and conflicted even when written by the same officer. They weren't specific about the neighbors complaints. Were they legitimate? Now that I am a rural cranky old man I tend too see things from Bill's perspective.

TheCars1986 's skill linking to googlemaps would really be handy now. We would be able to check the scene from map or satellite phot overhead and from streetview. I couldn't manipulate or enlarge the view on the substack.

Yard conditions are not mentioned when Dorothy was "attacked" in 1993 eight years after the stranger hit her and bound her. Here in Kansas when it's dry the ground is like concrete and the grass is like a nylon scrubbrush. Add light dew and conditions are perfect for a slip and fall resulting in minor lacerations and possible concussion. At least having your bell rang. Even if the ground is soft, when your feet leave the ground and you drop it will be a hard impact.

A woman and her son had worked for Bill and Dorothy. They knew the house and lived in a nearby town. It doesn't appear they were investigated. Even if they didn't do anything they may have dicussed the Wackers with someone else. Maybe even the initial attacker of 1985. That is how the Clutters were murdered. A third party learned about them from a former employee.

That's why I tend to think it was a combination of events harassment, theft assault and accidents. Some related, some unrelated but perceived to be connected. Except for the pole theory I find all of Excalibers thoughts on this plausible. In any case I recommend everyone read the link provided in comment #1. There is a lot of info and you can reach your own conclusions.

Why wasn't the lead of the woman and her son investigated? People who work in and around your home, and people they know, are always prime suspects when something happens, like with the Clutters. Brian David Mitchell worked around the Smart home for one day before he kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Workers were investigated in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

The Wackers address is 10271 Wooster St NWMassillon, OH 44647

Thanks for the address. I had seen it but couldn't find it again.

Some interesting information. The house to west (Maddox?) is no longer there. There is a light patch on the ground where it stood. The building north of the now empty lot is derelict and empty. From ground view only the missing house would have had a clear view of the back (north) side, the left (west) side and partial view of the front porch (south). The surrounding homes had that building, trees and distance interfering. There is 4-5 ft high fence less than 6 ft away from the west side of the Wacker home. Is that the property line? If it was there during the mysterious events Excaliber's pole theory comes back into play. A teenager or even a small adult could brace themselves on it and thump the house with a broomhandle, branch etc. If there was no fence a prankster could thump the house and disappear into the basement stairwell on the west side towards the back.

On the lighter side Wooster is the New England pronunciation of Worchester. Like Rolla (Raleigh), Eastern place names travelled West with semiliterate settlers and were spelled like they sounded.

First I need to correct a dumb mistake on my part. I stated a rock could be launched with a hockey stick. While this is possible I meant a lacrosse stick.
I appreciate the work put into making the police reports available. I always take these reports with a grain of salt because they are written by humans and we make mistakes. I have seen some wildly inaccurate police reports. I have also seen thorough well written reports.
In my opinion when the theory the Wackers were behind all of this took hold the police work and reports concentrated on proving this to the exclusion of other possibilities.

I still feel whoever did this was a close neighbor OR family member (I lean toward neighbor). What always bothers me about The Wackers doing this to themselves is more of the motive which makes no sense. My guess is the Wackers likely were very close to this neighbor, but this neighbor secretly didn’t like them. The guy who attacked Dorthy was likely a hired man by the neighbor