First of all, libel is the correct term- not slander (yes, I know, semantics). Second, just because you haven't heard of another 'old couple' making up a harrassment story doesn't mean it isn't common. I've been around enough elderly, mentally ill, and liars to know that sort of thing is more common than you think. yeah, I've been around quite a few humdingers in my life.

Of course UM wouldnt delve into the possibility the wackers may have had a mental illness or anything else. It wouldnt fit into what the show was about. nor would they be apt to to allow the detective who appeared on the show to give out cut and dry evidence that it was the wackers behind it all. I love UM, but at the end of the day their mission was to drum up ratings. they achieved this by creating mystery, even if some of the stories had definitive evidence. Its telling the cops and neighbors didnt buy it. That means something was likely left out.
again, I think people are getting caught up in the fact these are two elderly folks. Nobody wants to believe grandma and grandpa are snickering about all the trouble they're causing.
Has anyone tried contacting the police dept up there about getting more information? with this being years old and both parties deceased, they may talk.

Since I'm coming from the perspective that I don't believe the perp exists, I'm trying to approach this from a place where I question the tactics of the potential perp if only to debate against the presence/existence of one....

What I can't get over with is that despite the sporadic nature of these attacks, we have to believe that Dorothy was naive enough to let a complete stranger into her home when she was ALONE after heart surgery. After all of these break-in burglaries and veiled threats, at what point do you approach situations with more caution? Trusting a complete stranger who looks harmless isn't out of the realm of possibility, but it seems like a stretch after what they'd been through. Doesn't seem logical.

Ditto the scenario of the second attack. I understand dogs have to be let out before bed, but a little old lady going outside alone in the dark at night, when there is an unknown person "getting his kicks" out of messing with them who could potentially strike at any moment, seems silly to me, regardless of how long ago the last attack or contact was. Why risk it? And on this one night, Dorothy goes out alone, and is somehow attacked from behind by this sporadic stalker(maybe she surprises him, what have you etc), who himself has only intermittently attacked them? There are alot of things here that have to go along at once that are far from a coincidence in my books. Figuring it all in, Dorothy lets her guard down alone at night, gets attacked from behind on a night when the stalker just so happens to have targeted them(given that he would leave them alone for x amount of time between attacks). Statistically, it feels a little far-fetched for me.

Another issue I have with these two attacks is that she wasn't more severely injured, which to me feels like they were measured, calculated attacks that an unknown perp could not been sure to achieve, even if they weren't his original intention(lets say the moment struck him or he was spooked etc) I've studied elder abuse in victimology and this age demographic is highly susceptible to secondary injuries that are offshoots of the initial attack. This lady absorbs TWO attacks and has skull lacerations in the second, but nothing too severe with regards to the other potential outcomes? Seems controlled and directed, without intent to harm, that an attacker could not truly account for without a large margin for error.

I'm not 100% certain here by any stretch, but these are some of the more minute issues I have with the unknown perp argument and I can't really see too much supporting, corroborative evidence that is definatively from another party.

PS, I'm REALLY enjoying this conversation and love that I've found the time to get on these boards!!!!

Thank you for your thoughts and analysis. I understand and appreciate your concerns about the nuances regarding the assaults and the unlikelihood of Dorothy putting herself in these situations.

To approach this from a different tack for a minute, can I ask what your theory is with regard to the whole case?

I have read all sorts of suggestions ranging from Mr. Wacker being abusive to his wife and the incidents as a cover for abuse, to Mrs. Wacker suffering from Munchhausen syndrome and self injuring, to the Wackers out and out fabricating the incidents for attention from family or the media.

For me, the biggest stumbling block is trying to figure out which of these theories could be correct based on the totality of the circumstances.

Another problem I have is that a lot of the debate over fake vs. real with regard to the harassment is based on little nuances from the segment - the kitchen window being open, the dog not barking, etc. Basically, little details that are difficult to verify or assess without knowing other variables.

That being said, I'm not accusing you, LaurierCrimmajor, directly of doing this. However, if you go back and read some of this thread, you are likely to find examples of some of the little "nitpick" type details I'm talking about. The focus on such minutia is typically the foundation of these "Wackers are guilty" theories and I find this alarming, as it seems awfully flimsy.

Perhaps if I was to hear a plausible theory explaining all of the evidence, how it was faked, who was behind it - Mr. Wacker, Mrs. Wacker, or both - and why, I would better understand the other perspective.

Oh geez, I’m really having a helluva fun time developing a personal theory on this one, it’s just so lush with possibilities and I don’t want to bog this down with clinical speak from a bunch of stiff textbooks....hardening my insights into a sound theory is kind of a trip! Please keep in mind, this is just my own jab at it....

To begin, I’ll have to eliminate the unknown assailant. When applying my own criminological training (which anyone could proclaim to have here I suppose...), I just see too many statistical improbabilities for these actions to be perpetrated by someone outside of the couple. And when I say this, imagine tallying up every single one of the bizarre occurrences which have happened over the years to this couple by their alleged perpetrator. Here, when all lined up beside each other, I cannot mathematically fathom that these instances and actions committed by both this unknown assailant AND the actions which have befallen the couple could ALL correlate/coalesce with each other as it stands. To streamline my stance here, when you look at all of the extraordinary pieces of this case, to buy into the Wacker’s story, you have to ask yourself, “What are the chances” that all of these things could happen to one couple, without further corroborating proof? Statistically it’s astronomical.

Taking into account then, all of these extraordinary occurrences, my theory would argue that this most resembles a case of Munchausen’s on the part of Mrs. Wacker. When you delve into the varying facets of the psychological disorder and the depths and diversity of it, I believe it most reasonably explains what has occurred. For myself, this would explain how ALL of these extraordinary occurrences could statistically take place with the surrounding mystique. I recommend a deeper study into Munchausen Syndrome and its various offshoots to grasp how this could all have happened, but it sits best with me. It explains how there is no independent corroboration, no hardcore evidence(any evidence), how Mr. Wacker was so deeply concerned/committed(I think he believed every word of the unknown assailant theory as she pathologically convinced him hook, line and sinker), why law enforcement would look at the couple after smelling BS(but not having the psychological training to identify this)....

I’m not 100% positive and am completely open to being incorrect. However, given my studies I’m fairly comfortable with this opinion.

Oh geez, I’m really having a helluva fun time developing a personal theory on this one, it’s just so lush with possibilities and I don’t want to bog this down with clinical speak from a bunch of stiff textbooks....hardening my insights into a sound theory is kind of a trip! Please keep in mind, this is just my own jab at it....

To begin, I’ll have to eliminate the unknown assailant. When applying my own criminological training (which anyone could proclaim to have here I suppose...), I just see too many statistical improbabilities for these actions to be perpetrated by someone outside of the couple. And when I say this, imagine tallying up every single one of the bizarre occurrences which have happened over the years to this couple by their alleged perpetrator. Here, when all lined up beside each other, I cannot mathematically fathom that these instances and actions committed by both this unknown assailant AND the actions which have befallen the couple could ALL correlate/coalesce with each other as it stands. To streamline my stance here, when you look at all of the extraordinary pieces of this case, to buy into the Wacker’s story, you have to ask yourself, “What are the chances” that all of these things could happen to one couple, without further corroborating proof? Statistically it’s astronomical.

Taking into account then, all of these extraordinary occurrences, my theory would argue that this most resembles a case of Munchausen’s on the part of Mrs. Wacker. When you delve into the varying facets of the psychological disorder and the depths and diversity of it, I believe it most reasonably explains what has occurred. For myself, this would explain how ALL of these extraordinary occurrences could statistically take place with the surrounding mystique. I recommend a deeper study into Munchausen Syndrome and its various offshoots to grasp how this could all have happened, but it sits best with me. It explains how there is no independent corroboration, no hardcore evidence(any evidence), how Mr. Wacker was so deeply concerned/committed(I think he believed every word of the unknown assailant theory as she pathologically convinced him hook, line and sinker), why law enforcement would look at the couple after smelling BS(but not having the psychological training to identify this)....

I’m not 100% positive and am completely open to being incorrect. However, given my studies I’m fairly comfortable with this opinion.

This is probably the best attempt I've seen to explain the Munchausen's syndrome theory.

The only problem I see is that some of the events were witnessed by both the Wackers and the family members. Consider the pounding on the walls, for instance. Both Bill and Dorothy were in the room together and reported this.

Also, there was the stakeout conducted by the family. I'll have to watch it again to be sure, but I thought Bill was outside in a trailer with his two sons-in-law and Dorothy was inside with the daughter when the rock was thrown.

To me, this suggests Dorothy could not have acted alone.

I could understand Dorothy having Munchausen's and Bill being in denial but he would have to take an active role himself either by orchestrating some of the incidents or, at a minimum, by lying that anything took place.

Moreover, you would probably have to include the sons-in-law and daughter in the scheme as well since they not only witnessed the one incident, but apparently willingly went along with the idea of having the stakeout in the first place.

Finally, they took the whole affair to prime time on Unsolved Mysteries. Why take it so far if the whole thing is bogus? Why go through all of this when they could have just handled the matter privately and gotten Dorothy and/or Bill some help?

I suppose the whole family could be suffering from some kind of mental illness, but with no corroborating evidence, it's an awfully big assumption to make.

This is probably the best attempt I've seen to explain the Munchausen's syndrome theory.

The only problem I see is that some of the events were witnessed by both the Wackers and the family members. Consider the pounding on the walls, for instance. Both Bill and Dorothy were in the room together and reported this.

Also, there was the stakeout conducted by the family. I'll have to watch it again to be sure, but I thought Bill was outside in a trailer with his two sons-in-law and Dorothy was inside with the daughter when the rock was thrown.

To me, this suggests Dorothy could not have acted alone.

I could understand Dorothy having Munchausen's and Bill being in denial but he would have to take an active role himself either by orchestrating some of the incidents or, at a minimum, by lying that anything took place.

Moreover, you would probably have to include the sons-in-law and daughter in the scheme as well since they not only witnessed the one incident, but apparently willingly went along with the idea of having the stakeout in the first place.

Finally, they took the whole affair to prime time on Unsolved Mysteries. Why take it so far if the whole thing is bogus? Why go through all of this when they could have just handled the matter privately and gotten Dorothy and/or Bill some help?

I suppose the whole family could be suffering from some kind of mental illness, but with no corroborating evidence, it's an awfully big assumption to make.

You know, as soon as I posted I thought long and hard about Mr. Wacker's involvement or at least, complicancy while BBQing. I could perceive a situation of sheer codependency and him being a willing participant in aiding the facade.

I don't believe their children and in-laws would necessarily have to be in on it, as it is my holding that if Mrs Wacker with or without Mr. Wacker(and I tend to think he WOULD have to have some hand of at least going along) could have succeeded in pulling one over on them, as we would be talking about a situation where pathological lying could be achieved at a horrifyingly realistic level. I remember in the episode that "somehow, during the stakeout, the assailant found a blind spot"....for me, if their family wasn't looking at them as culprits, they could've done it themselves. Normally in instances of munchausen, the closest family members are fooled and ultimately burned, this could be an instance where these kids wanted to help their parents out on a stakeout and just didn't know what to look for(meaning, one or the other pulling something). I'd compare it to going to a magic show and just going along with the show against specifically watching for the magician to palm stuff and use gimmicks etc. If you're not actively looking for it, there's a great probability you won't notice it.


I wouldn't even rule out that Mrs Wacker suffered from a somatoform disorder, where even she herself was not cognitively aware of her actions. That said, I believe that possessing attention seeking traits where she plays the role of the victim, possibly nutured or someotherwise accepted by her husband would elevate the situation to where the most closest loved ones could be fooled.
I'd recommend the fascinating case of Ashley Kirlow, as an example of "munchausen by internet" to understand the lengths certain people would go to for attention under this disorder.

From here, I believe that is why they chose to go onto the show, due to the rush and near histrionic need for attention, which would thoroughly sate the appetite of a munchausen patient. The scrutiny always being placed by PD on Mr. Wacker feels as though they really missed the boat here, for self-mutilation and malingering should not have been so easily discounted.

Psychologically speaking, I believe there is much more that meets the eye that we here would never possibly be privy to, in order to grasp a more concise and thorough appreciation, however I think that a good criminal behaviourist could've at the time, knocked this case down had there been one present.

REALLY enjoying the conversation. I do agree with the fact that under this theory, factoring Mr. Wacker into the equation is no breeze, however I still feel that there is a greater probability of his involvement, cohesion/complicacy than an unknown assailiant and think that factoring in his involvement takes fewer leaps than it would for myself to accept it occurred outside of the couple.

I mean, under occam's razor, one is urged to select among competing hypotheses the one which makes the fewest assumptions and thereby offers the simplest explanation of the effect(cribbed the definition from wikipedia to save some time) and from that, I think the most flip and basic response would be "They Wanted Attention"....here one would have to figure out the how's and whys, which is where I believe munchausen could be the missing link...

Laurie, I'm enjoying your posts. You have a knack for criminology. Just want to ask: what about borderline personality disorder? Self harm, drastic acts to get attention are all there. I've heard, though, it lessens with age.

Laurie, I'm enjoying your posts. You have a knack for criminology. Just want to ask: what about borderline personality disorder? Self harm, drastic acts to get attention are all there. I've heard, though, it lessens with age.

I've studied alot of personality disorders under DSM-IV classifications(we're transitioning currently into DSM-V as we speak, sociopathology has more or less been graphed onto psychopathy for example of the changes) and borderline personality disorder, along with several very similar disorders are certainly plausible in a situation like this and can very certainly go undiagnosed for an entire lifespan, keeping in mind that psychological/psychiatric/mental health fields have gained much traction in the medical community and went largely unnoticed/unrecognized for many years....investigators would not have been privy to this knowledge and education and wouldn't have been able to look for tells etc.

But in all honesty, any further insight of one specific personality disorder is pure speculation from me and I don't feel I have anywhere near enough information to act as an expert. I've suggested that munchausen's fits here, but it is just that, a suggestion and many other likeminded disorders COULD be regarded as potential reasoning for why this could be a staged situation.

IMO, it makes the most sense.

Taking into account then, all of these extraordinary occurrences, my theory would argue that this most resembles a case of Munchausen’s on the part of Mrs. Wacker.

I would agree. I cannot say if it is definitely Munchausen's in a clinical sense, but considering there has never been a single eyewitness or a shred of physical evidence, it is hard for me to believe any of this actually happened.

Also, it is widely believed Cindy James suffered from Munchausen's. In her case, I think this is almost a certainty (probably accompanied by other disorders as well, possibly DID). I am sure you have seen that segment. If not, watch it now. :)

There is another case that I think mental illness played the major role: that of Blair Adams. I am 99.999% positive the guy was a paranoid schizophrenic who was not diagnosed. A shame, really, as he would probably be alive today.

I would agree. I cannot say if it is definitely Munchausen's in a clinical sense, but considering there has never been a single eyewitness or a shred of physical evidence, it is hard for me to believe any of this actually happened.

Also, it is widely believed Cindy James suffered from Munchausen's. In her case, I think this is almost a certainty (probably accompanied by other disorders as well, possibly DID). I am sure you have seen that segment. If not, watch it now. :)

There is another case that I think mental illness played the major role: that of Blair Adams. I am 99.999% positive the guy was a paranoid schizophrenic who was not diagnosed. A shame, really, as he would probably be alive today.

As I reiterated before, until you can prove the notes and ransackings were fabricated by the Wackers, which has never been proven, you can't say there is not a shred of evidence. That is evidence, not proof mind you, but evidence. And if the other family members witnessed the pounding on the window, you can't say there are no witnesses either. The injuries to Dorothy were also evidence, forensics people can tell the difference between someone who was struck in the head and someone who fell, believe me they can.

The criminal mind absoloutely adores this line of thinking though, because whether you want to believe it or not there are people out there smart enough to get away with these things and cover their tracks. Blaming the victim is always much easier then searching for an unknown assailant. Police do it everyday, I've seen it. Not that that happened in this case, cause from everything I've seen the police actually took it very seriously.

The bottom line is, sometimes you have to risk falling for the cry wolf.

Blair struck me as someone with bipolar disorder,what with the paranoia,pacing (he looked pretty manic in the hotel) and lack of logical thinking..leaving the country for no reason,and the way he illogically bought the tickets.jmo though.It shows someone in a manic state of mind,clearly not thinking rationally.

And if the other family members witnessed the pounding on the window, you can't say there are no witnesses either.

That's just it, though. The night they did the stake-out, none of the people outside saw anything, even though the people inside said they heard a knock. I find that pretty strange.

The criminal mind absoloutely adores this line of thinking though, because whether you want to believe it or not there are people out there smart enough to get away with these things and cover their tracks. Blaming the victim is always much easier then searching for an unknown assailant. Police do it everyday, I've seen it. Not that that happened in this case, cause from everything I've seen the police actually took it very seriously.

The bottom line is, sometimes you have to risk falling for the cry wolf.

Circle gets the square!

I wish I knew more information/details about this case. Not trying to be too judgemental, but I believe there is absolutely no chance of this harassment being true. IMO, it was staged to get attention from friends/familiy/etc.

The real question is why? I wish I could get ahold of the medical records of the elderly couple. Was there any hospitalization due to mental health issues? Was either of them diagnosed with a mental illness? It sure would go a long way in answering some questions I have about this case.

First of all, libel is the correct term- not slander (yes, I know, semantics). Second, just because you haven't heard of another 'old couple' making up a harrassment story doesn't mean it isn't common. I've been around enough elderly, mentally ill, and liars to know that sort of thing is more common than you think. yeah, I've been around quite a few humdingers in my life.

Of course UM wouldnt delve into the possibility the wackers may have had a mental illness or anything else. It wouldnt fit into what the show was about. nor would they be apt to to allow the detective who appeared on the show to give out cut and dry evidence that it was the wackers behind it all. I love UM, but at the end of the day their mission was to drum up ratings. they achieved this by creating mystery, even if some of the stories had definitive evidence. Its telling the cops and neighbors didnt buy it. That means something was likely left out.
again, I think people are getting caught up in the fact these are two elderly folks. Nobody wants to believe grandma and grandpa are snickering about all the trouble they're causing.
Has anyone tried contacting the police dept up there about getting more information? with this being years old and both parties deceased, they may talk.

well said.

Unsolved Mysteries was a television show. I get that. I get that they're going to want to pad their stories or beef them up to make them more entertaining to the viewer. However, UM had to kick out money to produce these segments. I've read several true crime books about unsolved murders and how the families of the victims reached out to UM, but UM had a very strict guideline in selecting the shows they profiled. So if there was even a hint of "mental disease" or that the general consensus was that the Wackers were crazy, attention seeking fools, I don't see how UM would have even wanted to waste their time and money in producing the segment and filming it. For what? And if the Wackers wanted attention from their family, why did they have to appear on a national television show like UM to do it? Wouldn't a phone call make more sense?

Unsolved Mysteries was a television show. I get that. I get that they're going to want to pad their stories or beef them up to make them more entertaining to the viewer. However, UM had to kick out money to produce these segments. I've read several true crime books about unsolved murders and how the families of the victims reached out to UM, but UM had a very strict guideline in selecting the shows they profiled. So if there was even a hint of "mental disease" or that the general consensus was that the Wackers were crazy, attention seeking fools, I don't see how UM would have even wanted to waste their time and money in producing the segment and filming it. For what? And if the Wackers wanted attention from their family, why did they have to appear on a national television show like UM to do it? Wouldn't a phone call make more sense?
Hmm I dunno I feel like there were many episodes showing victims with mental disorders.I Again i am somewhere in the middle in this debate. I think that the initail attack did happen but went unsolved for so long Mrs. Wacker began making stuff up either for attention or so the police would become involved more. If the Wackers did make it all up or most of it up it doesn't have to make sense to us. There are many cases where you ask "why would they do that?" or "what is there motive?" and in some cases there isn't a reason that seems logical to us. But to abnormal people like the Wackers maybe making all this up made sense to them. Some people are just odd. The Wackers strike me as odd.

Hmm I dunno I feel like there were many episodes showing victims with mental disorders.I Again i am somewhere in the middle in this debate. I think that the initail attack did happen but went unsolved for so long Mrs. Wacker began making stuff up either for attention or so the police would become involved more. If the Wackers did make it all up or most of it up it doesn't have to make sense to us. There are many cases where you ask "why would they do that?" or "what is there motive?" and in some cases there isn't a reason that seems logical to us. But to abnormal people like the Wackers maybe making all this up made sense to them. Some people are just odd. The Wackers strike me as odd.

I understand that there are motives for certain things that would never make sense to the majority of people, but this is certainly different than a run of the mill hoax. This was carried on for over ten years. Ten years is a long time. In that entire ten years there was never a shred of evidence that came out suggesting that the Wackers were making everything up.

there was never any evidence of an actual intruder or offender,either.like Mr W. said,no one ever saw or heard a car,saw no one,etc.

there was never any evidence of an actual intruder or offender,either.like Mr W. said,no one ever saw or heard a car,saw no one,etc.

Its like I said before, the notes, the injuries to Dorothy Wacker, that she was tied up............ all that qualifies as evidence of an intruder whether you believe it or not, unless you can prove that they were fabricated by the Wackers which was never proven.

You can't just brand the Wackers as liars and hoaxers until its proven that they are, anymore than you could accuse someone of actually carrying out the harrassment.

Am I the only one who is really disturbed about the mentality that many people in this country are developing that its the victim's fault so much? It happens in a lot of rape cases too.

If this country does not get some compassion and take a chance once in awhile of falling for a cry wolf scenario, we are going to be in serious trouble.

I'd have compassion for them if the evidence showed there was an intruder,but for all the reasons I had stated previously,*IMO*,there wasn't one.And there wasn't any up to the time of their deaths,either,it appears.
I'm not guilt-tripped into the compassion thing,bc it is merely my opinion under the banner of free speech,which I am entitled to.I'm not in L.E. or of anything of importance of that nature;and my opinion being just that,my opinion.

I'd have compassion for them if the evidence showed there was an intruder,but for all the reasons I had stated previously,*IMO*,there wasn't one.And there wasn't any up to the time of their deaths,either,it appears.
I'm not guilt-tripped into the compassion thing,bc it is merely my opinion under the banner of free speech,which I am entitled to.I'm not in L.E. or of anything of importance of that nature;and my opinion being just that,my opinion.

If the Wackers were doing this all for attention, why did they all of a sudden stop seeking media attention after their appearance on UM? Was that their sole purposeof purporting this hoax for over ten years, for a single appearance on UM?

If the Wackers were doing this all for attention, why did they all of a sudden stop seeking media attention after their appearance on UM? Was that their sole purposeof purporting this hoax for over ten years, for a single appearance on UM?
I don't know that they did,do you? I wasn't local to them,and where else,back in that day and time,would they have gone?
I don't think it was all for attention though.I think Bill was abusing Dorothy (evidenced by the skull and jaw injuries) and when police started questioning if Bill was doing it,he felt L.E. was moving in on him and he'd better do something to make it appear he wasn't responsible.again,JMO.I'm not asking anyone else to agree.

I don't know that they did,do you? I wasn't local to them,and where else,back in that day and time,would they have gone?
I don't think it was all for attention though.I think Bill was abusing Dorothy (evidenced by the skull and jaw injuries) and when police started questioning if Bill was doing it,he felt L.E. was moving in on him and he'd better do something to make it appear he wasn't responsible.again,JMO.I'm not asking anyone else to agree.

If Bill were abusing Dorothy, she would have had recurring injuries for years. But so far as the broadcast said she only had injuries these two isolated times. That points to random attacks more than an abusive husband.

But again you state that there is no evidence of an intruder, but all you are doing here is turning it around to point fingers at Bill blaming him first for the injuries and then for fabricating the notes.

Like I said, you simply can't slander people like that without proof, period.

Furthermore, a fifteen minute UM segment is unlikely to show ALL of the evidence the police may have had against an intruder.

Like I said, I understand it being theorized, but this absoloute determination people seem to have to blame the victim without proof is baffling to me, and somewhat disturbing.

While reading the news a couple days ago I came across a story about a teen witnessing his friend's mom being murdered while they were skyping online. http://abcnews.go.com/US/ipad-video-chat-catches-massachusetts-murder/story?id=16302258

It turns out that the killer, Christopher Piantedosi, had been given the nickname the "remorseful robber" last year for stealing a woman's purse, later mailing back her wallet, then actually showing up at her house to return her money and GPS with a letter of apology.

The first thing I thought of was the Wackers and all of their stolen items being returned. What a strange thing for a criminal to do (and this particular guy turned out to be a killer!).

Furthermore, a fifteen minute UM segment is unlikely to show ALL of the evidence the police may have had against an intruder..

To extrapolate from that, the segment is extremely vague, as most UM segments are. Do we really have enough information about the Wackers and the case itself to be able to accuse them of fabrication with the scant evidence we have? Do we have any compelling evidence of fraud that doesn't require one to make huge and baseless assumptions about the Wackers?

Like I said, I understand it being theorized, but this absoloute determination people seem to have to blame the victim without proof is baffling to me, and somewhat disturbing.

I agree. Personally, I wonder if UM had never done the Cindy James case if we would even be having these discussions.

I don't know that they did,do you? I wasn't local to them,and where else,back in that day and time,would they have gone?
I don't think it was all for attention though.I think Bill was abusing Dorothy (evidenced by the skull and jaw injuries) and when police started questioning if Bill was doing it,he felt L.E. was moving in on him and he'd better do something to make it appear he wasn't responsible.again,JMO.I'm not asking anyone else to agree.

Bill mentions on the segment that they have been married for 48 years. That puts the date of their marriage some time in the mid-forties, 45 or 46, somewhere around there. The physical attacks began in 1985. Spousal abuse rarely works like that. If she was being abused, why begin in 1985, after being married nearly forty years at that point? Wouldn't you expect to see some history of violence there and before '85? It doesn't add up.

Just a random observation. On the segment, Bill said the pounding on the walls began on the "driveway side" of the house. Going by the photo of the house and comments from those who have seen the location (by MapQuest?), there is a large field adjacent to the property on the side where the driveway is located. It's easy to see how someone could sneak up on the property without being detected. If one were going to launch an "attack", this would be the logical location in which to approach from.

Edit: Here it is on StreetView.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=848&bih=606&q=10271+Wooster+St.,+Massillon,+OH&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x883727d9003edf4b:0x71867eb4a9f1fd09,10271+Wooster+St+NW,+Massillon,+OH+44647&gl=us&ei=AZaqT6-VF5G4twfMmbihAg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

Just a random observation. On the segment, Bill said the pounding on the walls began on the "driveway side" of the house. Going by the photo of the house and comments from those who have seen the location (by MapQuest?), there is a large field adjacent to the property on the side where the driveway is located. It's easy to see how someone could sneak up on the property without being detected. If one were going to launch an "attack", this would be the logical location in which to approach from.

Edit: Here it is on StreetView.

http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&safe=off&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&biw=848&bih=606&q=10271+Wooster+St.,+Massillon,+OH&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x883727d9003edf4b:0x71867eb4a9f1fd09,10271+Wooster+St+NW,+Massillon,+OH+44647&gl=us&ei=AZaqT6-VF5G4twfMmbihAg&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=title&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ8gEwAA

The house does appear to be somewhat isolated from nearby neighbors (at least on the driveway side of the house), which could explain why there were no neighbors who witnessed anything.

While reading the news a couple days ago I came across a story about a teen witnessing his friend's mom being murdered while they were skyping online. http://abcnews.go.com/US/ipad-video-chat-catches-massachusetts-murder/story?id=16302258

It turns out that the killer, Christopher Piantedosi, had been given the nickname the "remorseful robber" last year for stealing a woman's purse, later mailing back her wallet, then actually showing up at her house to return her money and GPS with a letter of apology.

The first thing I thought of was the Wackers and all of their stolen items being returned. What a strange thing for a criminal to do (and this particular guy turned out to be a killer!).

Its really not that strange considering that its highly unlikely the motive for stealing the items was because the perpetrator wanted them or that robbery was the motive for the attack.

From everything we know about the attacks, its obvious the motive was to mess with the Wackers' heads and put fear into them. And returning the items was probably just his sick way of letting them know he was back and could come and harass them anytime he wanted to.

I agree. Personally, I wonder if UM had never done the Cindy James case if we would even be having these discussions.

I'm still not convinced Cindy James wasn't murdered, but thats another discussion.

If you look back through the thread, Bill has been accused of being a liar and a batterer and Dorothy of being mentally ill. This is heavy stuff. If any of the Wackers' relatives came on here I wouldn't blame them if they were very offended.

It would be nice if one their relatives found this board someday and if they could shed some light on this case.

I'm still not convinced Cindy James wasn't murdered, but thats another discussion.

Right. All I meant was since the suggestion was made in the Cindy James segment that she could have been mentally ill and fabricating the harassment, people are now saying the same of the Wackers.

I just wonder if UM hadn't profiled Cindy James at all, if folks would still be making some of these connections.

It's ridiculous, IMO, to compare these two cases because it is documented that Cindy James was suffering from some degree of mental illeness. With the Wackers, there is not one single shred of known evidence that they were mentally ill.

Just looking at the satellite imagery, it appears that there is a densely wooded area behind the Wackers' and the neighbor's houses. Also, they only have one really close neighbor - to the west. There is quite a distance between the Wackers' house and the neighbor to the east. I think there are good places where someone could hide and sneak around. Also, this may be reaching a bit, but I thought Stack said the perp found a "blind spot" in the surveillance. Assuming the narrative is correct, Bill was in a camper in the driveway, the others were across the street. The rock with the note was found on the back porch, which I would surmise was facing the woods. If this is all correct, that does look like a blind spot and someone hiding in the woods could have thrown a rock (the "bump bump bump" as described by Mrs. Wacker) without being seen. It's also difficult to see how Bill could have chucked the rock himself from his location. We know Dorothy was inside the house with the daughter, so there you go.

Just looking at the satellite imagery, it appears that there is a densely wooded area behind the Wackers' and the neighbor's houses. Also, they only have one really close neighbor - to the west. There is quite a distance between the Wackers' house and the neighbor to the east. I think there are good places where someone could hide and sneak around. Also, this may be reaching a bit, but I thought Stack said the perp found a "blind spot" in the surveillance. Assuming the narrative is correct, Bill was in a camper in the driveway, the others were across the street. The rock with the note was found on the back porch, which I would surmise was facing the woods. If this is all correct, that does look like a blind spot and someone hiding in the woods could have thrown a rock (the "bump bump bump" as described by Mrs. Wacker) without being seen. It's also difficult to see how Bill could have chucked the rock himself from his location. We know Dorothy was inside the house with the daughter, so there you go.

I think people tend to base their opinions too much on the reenactments of the incidents (like "why didn't the dog bark", etc.) when they really have no idea of what went on nor do they have a clear picture of the area in which the Wackers lived. The satellite images definitely seem to lend more credence to the Wackers' story, IMO.

This is completely off the wall - but I wonder who owned the house to the west? It appears that the two houses are really close together - the Wackers' old house and the neighbor.

Major hypothetical scenario here, but what if the owners of the house to the west wanted the Wackers to move out so they could move a relative or family member in to the Wackers old place? Perhaps they orchestrated the harassment campaign to drive the Wackers out.

Like I said, totally hypothetical. However, it could explain some of the shenanigans. I wonder how closely the police looked at the neighbors.

This is completely off the wall - but I wonder who owned the house to the west? It appears that the two houses are really close together - the Wackers' old house and the neighbor.

Major hypothetical scenario here, but what if the owners of the house to the west wanted the Wackers to move out so they could move a relative or family member in to the Wackers old place? Perhaps they orchestrated the harassment campaign to drive the Wackers out.

Like I said, totally hypothetical. However, it could explain some of the shenanigans. I wonder how closely the police looked at the neighbors.

This theory actually makes a lot of sense. Because Bill himself stated that he thought the goal of the perpetrators was to get the Wackers to move.

And it would actually explain a ton of strange things about the case.

Because if you will recall, after the 1985 attack, the segment said that a neighbor heard Dorothy cry out and came and freed her. It never really specified who the neighbor was, but a lot of people thought it was strange that Dorothy if she was bound and gagged could have made enough noise to attract the attention of the neighbors, so it would almost have to have been the close neighbor in the photograph.

But what if the neighbor didn't actually hear Dorothy, but already knew she had been attacked and was there? Again the broadcast never specified who came and freed Dorothy, but you almost figure it had to be the neighbor who was really close by.

In that scenario, the next door neighbor would probably be the only one who could have heard Dorothy, and its possible they could have heard Dorothy if they were outside in the yard, which given that the attack occured in the summer of 1985 it would be even more plausible for them to be outside in warm weather. And being the one who came and rescued Dorothy they would not look suspicous, and it being believable they could have heard her......... no one would think anything of it if they said they happened to be out in their yard gardening or something, its a believable explanation. But they could have just as easily had prior knowledge of Dorothy's attack. If the goal of the perps was to get the Wackers to move, it makes sense they would have them attacked to put fear in them, and then go help Dorothy so as to cast any suspicion away from themselves.

I've always believed the 1985 attacker was either a friend or hired help of the person actually behind the harassment since he allowed himself to be seen. So what if the neighbors pay him to go over and brain Dorothy and steal the stuff, he goes over and does the job, gives the stolen items to the neighbors, and the neighbors themselves go and free Dorothy later and take them back themselves.

Several more points:

1. The next store neighbors could have been easily close to the Wackers residence without arousing suspicion.

2. The next door neighbors being the most likely candidate to see any activity, if they are the ones actually carrying out the harassment of course they won't admit to seeing anything.

3. The next store neighbors would be the people most likely to have noticed the Wackers' stakeout. They could literally be sitting on their front porch and watching them get in vans. They could watch their house all the time and not arouse suspicion.

4. The next store neighbors would have had an easy escape route after commiting an act, back to their own place. would explain why a car was never heard

5. The next door neighbors do have a possible motive like you suggested, if they wanted someone to move into the Wackers' house. Of course, it seems like great lengths to go to just to get relatives or friends to move in next door, but people have done more for less.

Wow, after you think about it it almost makes to much sense. Makes you wonder if the police suspected them at all but never had enough evidence to make any charges.

Of course, like you said, this is hypothetical, for all we know there was an eighty year old woman living alone next to the Wackers, which would make this theory seem ridiculous. But even that would go a ways towards explaining an intruder, because even if the Wackers' closest neighbor was elderly and decrepit, they would be less likely to hear or see anything thus makeing it easier for an intruder who lived far away.

Still, I think it would say a lot to know who lived in that close by house............

Some more ideas...

- If the Wackers assumed the neighbors were not responsible for the harassment campaign, it may be conceivable that the Wackers did give their phone number to the neighbors each time it changed.

Also, if the neighbor's goal was to scare the Wackers sufficiently enough to force them to move, it would explain the "benign" nature of some of the events with little escalation. It may also partially explain why Dorothy wasn't seriously injured in either attack, they didn't want to kill her.

Perhaps the neighbors began by ransacking the house repeatedly in the hope that the repeated break-ins would force the Wackers to move. When that failed, they hired some thug to assault Mrs. Wacker. When that also failed they resorted to the phone calls, notes, returning the stolen property, pounding on the walls, etc.

Of course, this could all be a bunch of malarkey given that we know nothing at all about the neighbors and I'm making unfounded and baseless assumptions. Gee, sounds just like the hoax "theory" ;)

The neighbor theory makes perfect sense and certainly explains a lot. I have to wonder if the police investigated this angle.

The neighbor theory makes perfect sense and certainly explains a lot. I have to wonder if the police investigated this angle.

That could be another problem. With something like this, I'm sure all of the neighbors would have been under scrutiny.

However, assuming for the sake of discussion the neighbors to the west were behind the harassment, it's easy to see how they could have been overlooked or in a position where probable cause to question them more vigorously simply didn't exist.

It is unlikely that they would have been questioned thoroughly about the three burglaries at the Wacker residence. At most, they may have been asked some general questions about comings and goings in the neighborhood, suspicious vehicles, etc. However, there isn't any obvious reason to suspect they perpetrated the break-ins.

The attack in '85 - since these are likely the same neighbors who found Dorothy and Dorothy herself described the assailant as a young man who didn't fit the description of any known person (assuming the neighbors hired this guy) the neighbors wouldn't be obvious suspects.

Nothing with the phone calls is traceable back to the neighbors. I have to wonder how seriously the police took the phone calls anyway. I doubt they attempted a trace. Probably just told the Wackers to change their number, etc.

Since no one was ever seen leaving threatening notes or pounding on the walls, there isn't anything traceable to the neighbors. Possibility again that they may be questioned, though probably not too thoroughly.

They would have definitely been questioned about the attack in '93 as the police were desperate for witnesses. I still think they could have denied seeing anything as it was late at night, and this would have been an entirely plausible explanation.

The Wackers should have just bought two big ass pit bulls. Problem solved

Perhaps the neighbors began by ransacking the house repeatedly in the hope that the repeated break-ins would force the Wackers to move. When that failed, they hired some thug to assault Mrs. Wacker. When that also failed they resorted to the phone calls, notes, returning the stolen property, pounding on the walls, etc.

I have one problem with this theory...just how finanncially well off were these neighbors to be able to hire someone to rough up and old lady so they could have the house? I don't see why they would want the second house anyway, and why they would go through such great lengths to drive the Wackers away.

Now here's another idea I just thought about...what if there was someone trying to buy the Wacker's house for development purposes (since there was a significant lot next to the Wacker's driveway) but the Wackers refused to budge and thus the harassment campaign began? Could it have been for some real estate development purposes? It's doubtful, but it's still a thought. And there's even the possibility that the neighbors were offered a "buyout" of their house and were willing to sell, but the Wackers were stubborn and didn't want to, which would have gave the neighbors a motive to conspire with the terror campaign. Maybe we're analyzing too much into this, but I still think these theories are far more plausible than the hoax theory.

I have one problem with this theory...just how finanncially well off were these neighbors to be able to hire someone to rough up and old lady so they could have the house? I don't see why they would want the second house anyway, and why they would go through such great lengths to drive the Wackers away.

Therein lies the problem with the neighbor theory.

However, when one takes into account the close proximity of the neighbors to the west and the possibility that they could, theoretically, execute this harassment campaign flawlessly for years without getting caught, I think they should be considered suspects.

Now here's another idea I just thought about...what if there was someone trying to buy the Wacker's house for development purposes (since there was a significant lot next to the Wacker's driveway) but the Wackers refused to budge and thus the harassment campaign began? Could it have been for some real estate development purposes? It's doubtful, but it's still a thought. And there's even the possibility that the neighbors were offered a "buyout" of their house and were willing to sell, but the Wackers were stubborn and didn't want to, which would have gave the neighbors a motive to conspire with the terror campaign. Maybe we're analyzing too much into this, but I still think these theories are far more plausible than the hoax theory.

I suppose it can't be entirely ruled out. On the other hand, if someone was interested in purchasing the property, this individual would have had numerous, possibly even heated, conversations with the Wackers about selling before the harassment ever began. If this is true, I wonder if the Wackers wouldn't have suspected this was the case and reported it to the police?

Also, I have a difficult time believing that a rogue developer would maintain a harassment campaign for as long as this went on, nearly ten years, maybe longer. You would think that after a few "incidents" and not getting the desired response this problem would stop on it's own.

Which leads me back to my original theory of a mentally unbalanced, antisocial, "shut-in" type - suppose the next door neighbors had such a relative who lived with them on occasion who set their sights on terrorizing the Wackers for "kicks". Could such a person be the source of the harassment?

I have one problem with this theory...just how finanncially well off were these neighbors to be able to hire someone to rough up and old lady so they could have the house? I don't see why they would want the second house anyway, and why they would go through such great lengths to drive the Wackers away.

Now here's another idea I just thought about...what if there was someone trying to buy the Wacker's house for development purposes (since there was a significant lot next to the Wacker's driveway) but the Wackers refused to budge and thus the harassment campaign began? Could it have been for some real estate development purposes? It's doubtful, but it's still a thought. And there's even the possibility that the neighbors were offered a "buyout" of their house and were willing to sell, but the Wackers were stubborn and didn't want to, which would have gave the neighbors a motive to conspire with the terror campaign. Maybe we're analyzing too much into this, but I still think these theories are far more plausible than the hoax theory.

They didn't neccesarily have to be really well off, if the guy who attacked Dorothy in '85 was a drug addict a couple of hundred bucks for a quick scored would have probably been enough to get him to do it. Or if he was a good enough friend and had some stake in the Wackers moving out he might have done it for free. I do remember in the reinactment Dorothy's 1985 attacker making it a point to say "Nice place you have here", you all remember that? I've always wondered if the perp actually said that to Dorothy, I'm assuming he did if they put it in the reinactment, if he did could it have been a subtle hint? If it was the theory definitely fits.

Its entirely possible they only used hired help that one time and carried out the rest of the harrassment theirselves.

I don't think the same person carried out both assaults, I actually have the gut feeling that while the 1985 attack was planned and a hired thug, the 1993 attack might very well have been an improvisation by the actual perpetrator. He was over at the Wackers to pound on the window or leave a note like usual, Dorothy may have came outside and caused him to change his plans, possibly for whatever reason he couldn't get back home without alerting her or being seen so he knocked her out instead.

But the interesting thing about the assaults, knocking someone out with a blow to the head is not as easy as it seems. You have to judge the lick just right, if you hit them to hard you could kill them, you don't hit them hard enough you just make them mad. It may mean something that the attacker managed to get it right twice........ but I don't know. But my gut feeling is two different people actually carried out both assaults...... the '85 assault was a hired thug, and the '93 assault was the actual perpetrator behind the whole campaign.

That could be another problem. With something like this, I'm sure all of the neighbors would have been under scrutiny.

However, assuming for the sake of discussion the neighbors to the west were behind the harassment, it's easy to see how they could have been overlooked or in a position where probable cause to question them more vigorously simply didn't exist.

It is unlikely that they would have been questioned thoroughly about the three burglaries at the Wacker residence. At most, they may have been asked some general questions about comings and goings in the neighborhood, suspicious vehicles, etc. However, there isn't any obvious reason to suspect they perpetrated the break-ins.

The attack in '85 - since these are likely the same neighbors who found Dorothy and Dorothy herself described the assailant as a young man who didn't fit the description of any known person (assuming the neighbors hired this guy) the neighbors wouldn't be obvious suspects.

Nothing with the phone calls is traceable back to the neighbors. I have to wonder how seriously the police took the phone calls anyway. I doubt they attempted a trace. Probably just told the Wackers to change their number, etc.

Since no one was ever seen leaving threatening notes or pounding on the walls, there isn't anything traceable to the neighbors. Possibility again that they may be questioned, though probably not too thoroughly.

They would have definitely been questioned about the attack in '93 as the police were desperate for witnesses. I still think they could have denied seeing anything as it was late at night, and this would have been an entirely plausible explanation.


I got the impression that the local sheriff's department in the Wackers' story probably wasn't very well funded and didn't have many resources to really blow this case open.

Had the Wackers hired a professional PI, I personally think this case would have been solved. Of course, they may not have been able to afford it.

Well, I finally got there. For a while now I've been reading through this thread, all 50+ pages of it! It's been very interesting to see how opinions/thinking have altered from time to time over the years this thread has been going.

Here's something which, when I watched the segment I picked up on, yet hasn't been covered that extensively in this thread - the nature of the messages left for the Wackers on their porch.

"You scum i'll get even no ????"

To me that doesn't sound like a "kook" just doing this for "kicks". The phrase "I'll get even" certainly implies some sort of revenge motive here, I think. Perhaps this ties in with the theory being discussed over the last page or two about the neighbours having a hand in this one. Surely it has to be someone close to the family - either a neighbour or a family member, maybe a close acquaintance. Why would a random stranger choosing to terrorise a seemingly innocent old couple call them "scum"?

"Your lights are a laugh"

Been mentioned before but worth repeating - I'm 25 and I would never, ever use the phrase "are a laugh". It seems just too old-fashioned to be ignored. I would argue that the rest of the note is in the same tone as well - "didn't do you in" just sounds like something an elderly person has heard on a TV cop show and thinks it is how people talk!

One final thing - curious how the perp writes "scum" with a normal S but then for all the other times on the other notes he writes a backwards S. Why? :confused:

This case is really, really fascinating!

There was a story on "Today" this morning that I caught just before leaving for work. It was about a Minnesota couple who were stalked and harassed by one of their neighbors for many years. The motive is unknown. One major difference compared to the Wacker case is they know the source of the harassment - their neighbor who lives across the street. They videotaped this lady screaming at them and putting crude spray painted signs with obscene messages directed at them on her own garage. They even got a restraining order against this woman, and she still continues to taunt them. She has been arrested numerous times for violating the order. The neighbor declined interview requests, but was interviewed by a local television station a few years ago. She seemed to be a sandwich short of a picnic.

I'll see if I can find more info.

EDIT: Here is a link to the video. Not sure how long this will be active...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/47612383#47612383

There was a story on "Today" this morning that I caught just before leaving for work. It was about a Minnesota couple who were stalked and harassed by one of their neighbors for many years. The motive is unknown. I'll see if I can find more info.

The good old Daily Mail has that story too. What a crazy woman!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2151641/Lori-Christensen-Neighbor-hell-terrorizes-family-FIVE-years.html

She kind of reminds me of that nutty woman from the Detroit area who harassed the family of a dead woman and her dying 7 year old little girl, with online and in person taunts of the grim reaper, coffins, etc. What the heck is wrong with people... sheesh.

There was a story on "Today" this morning that I caught just before leaving for work. It was about a Minnesota couple who were stalked and harassed by one of their neighbors for many years. The motive is unknown. One major difference compared to the Wacker case is they know the source of the harassment - their neighbor who lives across the street. They videotaped this lady screaming at them and putting crude spray painted signs with obscene messages directed at them on her own garage. They even got a restraining order against this woman, and she still continues to taunt them. She has been arrested numerous times for violating the order. The neighbor declined interview requests, but was interviewed by a local television station a few years ago. She seemed to be a sandwich short of a picnic.

I'll see if I can find more info.

EDIT: Here is a link to the video. Not sure how long this will be active...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/26184891/vp/47612383#47612383

I saw that on the news one morning at the gym and immediately thought of the Wackers. That woman is mental! But it just goes to show you that it can and does happen...there doesn't really have to be an explanation other than people are crazy.

I saw that on the news one morning at the gym and immediately thought of the Wackers. That woman is mental! But it just goes to show you that it can and does happen...there doesn't really have to be an explanation other than people are crazy.

Yeah. I was glad I saw this. I think it demonstrates not only that these types of crimes can and do happen, but it also gives us a little profile of a personality type that may be similar to that of the Wacker's assailant.

Yeah. I was glad I saw this. I think it demonstrates not only that these types of crimes can and do happen, but it also gives us a little profile of a personality type that may be similar to that of the Wacker's assailant.

Did they ever mention the "beef" this crazy lady had with her neighbors?

Did they ever mention the "beef" this crazy lady had with her neighbors?

IIRC, the woman's daughter was playing with the neighbor's daughter. The neighbor's daughter poured nail polish on the crazy woman's child and that started the feud. I think the kids were about 5 years old at the time.

Just to add to the crazy neighbor discussion, I guess it's quite common. My aunt has a nutjob of a neighbor. My aunt and her husband were actually friends with the neighbor for a long time. However, something made the relationship sour.

Soon, the neighbor was spreading mean gossip about them to other neighbors. She even nearly hit my aunt with an ATV. It's amazing to me how some people can snap.

Just to add to the crazy neighbor discussion, I guess it's quite common. My aunt has a nutjob of a neighbor. My aunt and her husband were actually friends with the neighbor for a long time. However, something made the relationship sour.

Soon, the neighbor was spreading mean gossip about them to other neighbors. She even nearly hit my aunt with an ATV. It's amazing to me how some people can snap.

When I was a little kid in the 1970's we had a crazy guy in our neighborhood. He and his wife did not work, they lived off of disability payments and off of the proceeds from their many, many lawsuits. Filing frivolous lawsuits was this guys hobby, over time he managed to sue every single one of his neighbors for various reasons. One I remember was he sued his neighbors because their boys (friends of mine) were picking dandelions out of the yard and blowing the seeds away. The seeds floated and landed in crazy guy's yard so he sued over it. This of course was only one of dozens of lawsuits he filed.

We eventually moved away and I have no idea what happened to him.

We had a nut job neighbor when the kids were growing up. problems began over a partyline-yeah, remember those? we were all on the same one. Nut job loved to eavesdrop, leave her phone off the hook on purpose, and stick her radio up the the reciever at full blast when you were talking.

Then nutjobs son and my oldest became good friends.The son had an older sister too. time went on. Problems in nutjobs home resulted in the two teens were going to have to be removed and the judge over the case actually called me and asked if they could live with me or they were going to have to go to juvie as there were no foster homes with openings. he didn't want to do that so I agreed. the agreement was, I let them live with me, got no funds, and had no legal say over them, couldn't even take them to the dr.

These kids came to me literally with rags for clothes in grocery bags. The son was in need of medical attention. I began getting hang up calls and no one answering when my phone would ring. This was right before caller ID so I had a trace put on the phone. Turns out it was nut job.

Both kids drew a social security check from their father which obviously had not been used on them. So I called her and told her about the trace on the phone and cave her a couple days to get down to the judge and and make me the official legal guardian as long as they were in my home. And to get to the SS office and have the kids checks sent to me or I was pressing charges for the phone calls. She did. First thing I did was get the bo to the dr and get them some clothes.

These kids turned out good for what they grew up in and neither has anything to do with her and she is stil a nut job last I heard from her.

Wow, this stuff is more common than I thought.

I first saw this episode when I was 10 or 11, and just watched it for the first time since then. I have to say that from the first time I watched it, and now, I've pondered the thought that it could be the neighbors immediately next door.

I also researched satellite images, as someone previously mentioned, and it makes the neighbor theory more plausible. With the Wackers property being essentially on-top-of the neighbors and the vacant land on the other side, it seems to possible to me that the neighbors would want the Wackers removed so that their property could be more remote compared to the neighbors. It could also be, as previously stated, that they want to move in a friend or relative.

The writing on the wall "cheaper, but will do" also leads me to believe this is property related.

What public records could be researched to see what happened to the Wackers property after Bill and Dorothy passed? Also, perhaps Dorothy moved after Bill died in 1999?

I have a hard time believing someone would continue this kind of behavior for ten years to get the property, striking only occasionally with big violence (like an eight year gap between attacking Dorothy). I think this person probably enjoyed the harassment. Maybe it was someone mentally ill or one who just got his jollies harassing an elderly couple. I don't think the Wackers themselves had anything to do with it.

We had a nut job neighbor when the kids were growing up. problems began over a partyline-yeah, remember those? we were all on the same one. Nut job loved to eavesdrop, leave her phone off the hook on purpose, and stick her radio up the the reciever at full blast when you were talking.

Then nutjobs son and my oldest became good friends.The son had an older sister too. time went on. Problems in nutjobs home resulted in the two teens were going to have to be removed and the judge over the case actually called me and asked if they could live with me or they were going to have to go to juvie as there were no foster homes with openings. he didn't want to do that so I agreed. the agreement was, I let them live with me, got no funds, and had no legal say over them, couldn't even take them to the dr.

These kids came to me literally with rags for clothes in grocery bags. The son was in need of medical attention. I began getting hang up calls and no one answering when my phone would ring. This was right before caller ID so I had a trace put on the phone. Turns out it was nut job.

Both kids drew a social security check from their father which obviously had not been used on them. So I called her and told her about the trace on the phone and cave her a couple days to get down to the judge and and make me the official legal guardian as long as they were in my home. And to get to the SS office and have the kids checks sent to me or I was pressing charges for the phone calls. She did. First thing I did was get the bo to the dr and get them some clothes.

These kids turned out good for what they grew up in and neither has anything to do with her and she is stil a nut job last I heard from her.
That was really good of you. How old were they and how long did they live with you? Did the father ever try to get them back? Sorry to be nosy, just curious. You did a really kind thing and I wish more people were like you :D

Their bio father was a much older man and they had no contact with him- he lived out of state. Their step father whom they cared about was an alcoholic. A good guy when sober, but a mean drunk. That is why they were removed from the home. It was the end of the school year and the daughter was a senior and about to turn 18. I was to keep her till her 18th birthday, which I did. The judge emancipated her then and she went to live with her boyfriends mother.(they later married).

She and I are still in touch via facebook as she has moved out of state.

The boy was a year younger, and he stayed with us almost a year.

Even though the mom was crazy, these kids were like my own, I couldn't NOT be there for them. The boy stops in from time to time when he is in the area. It has been a few years though since he no longer has anything to do with the mom, he doesn't come home often.

The stepdad has been dead several years now.

I can't recall, but was it ever mentioned in the segment what Bill Wacker did for a living? If this was legitimate and his occupation revolved around something in the financial or law enforcement field, it would be all too easy to make bitter enemies. I could be reading too much into this, but it's something I have always thought about and considered.

When I was a little kid in the 1970's we had a crazy guy in our neighborhood. He and his wife did not work, they lived off of disability payments and off of the proceeds from their many, many lawsuits. Filing frivolous lawsuits was this guys hobby, over time he managed to sue every single one of his neighbors for various reasons. One I remember was he sued his neighbors because their boys (friends of mine) were picking dandelions out of the yard and blowing the seeds away. The seeds floated and landed in crazy guy's yard so he sued over it. This of course was only one of dozens of lawsuits he filed.

We eventually moved away and I have no idea what happened to him.

Sickening. Only a sociopath would pull stuff like that. Somebody keeps that up sooner or later they will do it to the wrong person and wind up with their house burnt down or else shot.

Sickening. Only a sociopath would pull stuff like that. Somebody keeps that up sooner or later they will do it to the wrong person and wind up with their house burnt down or else shot.


yep i aint taking no guff from some lawsuit happy neighbor

the thing thats always been a headscratcher for me is how none of the neighbors ever saw or heard anything. By the time of the UM episode airing it had been going on 10 years right? And it continued on until both died. No one heard or saw anything.

Ive never been one to believe it was teens or kids having a laugh and causing childish mayhem. The timeline alone rules this out. No teen is going to continue a decade plus long campaign of harrassment and terror.

But I also have a hard time thinking it was a neighbor trying to get them to leave or move away. Again, a decade plus campaign like that, would be taxing on the perpetrator, and the length of it, 10 years is a LONG time.

To continue on like that, continue doing this for years and years, is pretty much insane.

My parents live on a busy street, cars whizzing by day and night, and you hear people yelling and talking outside, all hours. I dont know how someone could do all this, and not make a sound that would be overheard or be seen by neighbors. It takes mere seconds to pull the curtains back and see what is outside. We all know how nosey neighbors can be. Or the fact over that 10 year span you'd think someone would be walking their dog, or coming home from work, or heading to the store, or walking around the block and would have seen something. What about in the warmer months, wasnt anyone out on their porches enjoying the warm weather, and see something?

But I also have a hard time thinking it was a neighbor trying to get them to leave or move away. Again, a decade plus campaign like that, would be taxing on the perpetrator, and the length of it, 10 years is a LONG time.It depends on where you live, but where I live some people do get harassed like that for reasons they sometimes don't even know. From having their animals poisoned to random vandalism, it isn't all too rare. And some people around here hold grudges over silly things for their whole lives, it just depends on the person.

While I'm not saying that was the case with the Wackers- it does happen.

the thing thats always been a headscratcher for me is how none of the neighbors ever saw or heard anything.

Where I live, it's not uncommon for people to not even know their neighbors. Since I don't know them, I don't assume that a car parked across the street is "suspicious," as it could belong to anyone on the block. When my neighbors across the street had their house broken into a few times, no one heard or saw anything. It's not completely far fetched.

I believe people close by do hear and even seen things, but rather not get involve by calling the police.

I believe people close by do hear and even seen things, but rather not get involve by calling the police or they just choose to ignore it. "What we don't see or hear we don't know ."

I live in So Cal where the houses are so close that you can hear your neighbor pee. :p I've never heard anything suspicious and if I did, I would have called the police. Growing up, my Dad's car was stolen twice (no one heard a thing) and my Mom's back car window was shot our 3 times (only heard it once). My brother's car was broken into at least 6 times, only one time did my brother hear (his room was on the 2nd floor, front of the house. He was awake when he heard it). When I'm in my house, my tv is on, an appliance is going, or I'm making some kind of noise. I'm honestly just not thinking about it.

Man, I want to live where you guys live. We've had the fire department called on us for making fried chicken. The guy across the street interrogates any service worker that comes to our house. The people next to us give us a list and description of how many people stopped by our house while we were on vacation. We will never get robbed, but I suspect the neighborhood knows what color underwear I'm wearing on any given day. :lol:

Man, I want to live where you guys live. We've had the fire department called on us for making fried chicken. The guy across the street interrogates any service worker that comes to our house. The people next to us give us a list and description of how many people stopped by our house while we were on vacation. We will never get robbed, but I suspect the neighborhood knows what color underwear I'm wearing on any given day. :lol:

That's crazy. This is exactly why I go out of my way to avoid anything other than a hello or goodbye with my neighbors.

Man, I want to live where you guys live. We've had the fire department called on us for making fried chicken. The guy across the street interrogates any service worker that comes to our house. The people next to us give us a list and description of how many people stopped by our house while we were on vacation. We will never get robbed, but I suspect the neighborhood knows what color underwear I'm wearing on any given day. :lol:

:lol: Do you live in Mayberry?

If there are neighbors that aren't in good terms with one another they will most likely turn the other way. I knew a neighbor that caused a gas leak in some one's home there was speculation that he may have caused it after confrontation he had with them just a week before it happen. The job he has could make it look more like an faulty accident then someone deliberately caused it. So neighbors follow the no snitching policy where they don't want to be next on the list.

Now that is some crazy s***. Thank goodness we haven't had anything like that go on. When I lived with my parents, we always got along with other families. The lady across the street at a house we lived at for 9 years started being nasty at the end of her stay there. She called the animal control on the neighbors, even though their dogs weren't doing anything. Her own dogs would run out and poop all over the yards of others. She called the city on one of the neighbors (a cop) for their RV being parked temporarily. Got them a ticket, for me a ticket for something stupid. She burned some bridges, but I still would have called the cops if I suspected something was going down at her house.

To continue on like that, continue doing this for years and years, is pretty much insane.

My parents live on a busy street, cars whizzing by day and night, and you hear people yelling and talking outside, all hours. I dont know how someone could do all this, and not make a sound that would be overheard or be seen by neighbors. It takes mere seconds to pull the curtains back and see what is outside. We all know how nosey neighbors can be. Or the fact over that 10 year span you'd think someone would be walking their dog, or coming home from work, or heading to the store, or walking around the block and would have seen something. What about in the warmer months, wasnt anyone out on their porches enjoying the warm weather, and see something?

The Wackers didn't live on a typical neighborhood block. Their house was on a curving two lane highway out in the country.

Here's an aerial shot of their street, with an arrow pointed at their house...

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Wacker1.jpg

They didn't exactly live out in the middle of nowhere but they were still spread far apart from their neighbors. They did have a neighbor right next door to their left but the property line is covered with trees that blocks the view of the house. If that neighbor ever pulled back their curtains, they wouldn't have seen anything.

The other side of the Wacker's house is just a big empty field and the homes across the street are on such big lots that you wouldn't see much even if you were sitting on your front porch in the summer.

In California, the Wacker property would have had at least 15 more houses on it. And still no one would have seen anything :lol:

I live in the same kind of area. I've lived here since the mid 90s. DH and I married in '79 and lived next door. Not one house has been built around us in all that time. We live on land that was homesteaded by his great-great grandfather from the government back in the 1800s. We like it his way and don't want it to change. Our houses are spaced about the same as in the Wacker photo.

However, I grew up in central FL. That is a whole other world! The house I gre up in was unrecognizable the last time we were down there. We had to turn around and drive by it again to make sure we were really seeing it! What used to be in the country in the middle of orange groves is now in the urban sprawl of Orlando!

So I suppose it just depends on how quickly(or not) an area is developing.

I can't recall, but was it ever mentioned in the segment what Bill Wacker did for a living? If this was legitimate and his occupation revolved around something in the financial or law enforcement field, it would be all too easy to make bitter enemies. I could be reading too much into this, but it's something I have always thought about and considered.
Anyone know bill's occupation or property records since he passed away??

Anyone know bill's occupation or property records since he passed away??

IIRC, the UM segment showed a photo of Bill and Dorothy and he was wearing a hat or a t-shirt with "RETIRED" on it. I don't think the UM segment ever mentioned an occupation.

The composite sketch of the guy who knocked on the Whacker's door and asked to use their phone looked a lot like me! :eek: Although, I would only have been 11 at the time that that happened. Sort of off topic, but, one thing that I find really strange is that even in this day and age with technology being what it is, people still knock on doors and ask to use the phone. I don't know what to think of that. If someone came to my door and asked to use the phone, I would feel uneasy to say the least, given that cell phones are so prevalent these days.

The composite sketch of the guy who knocked on the Whacker's door and asked to use their phone looked a lot like me! :eek: Although, I would only have been 11 at the time that that happened. Sort of off topic, but, one thing that I find really strange is that even in this day and age with technology being what it is, people still knock on doors and ask to use the phone. I don't know what to think of that. If someone came to my door and asked to use the phone, I would feel uneasy to say the least, given that cell phones are so prevalent these days.

That composite sketch was fairly generic, probably resembled a lot of people.

I myself stopped and ask to use someone's phone once, this was back in '07 or '08 well into the cell phone age of course. In that instance, it was because I had no cell phone service. There is a stretch of highway not far from where I live where you just can't get it. It might well be the last place in the country where you can't, but its true, haha.

So, it can happen.

Why is this topic about The Wackers the one that has more posts in alla the forum?

:confused:

Why is this topic about The Wackers the one that has more posts in alla the forum?

:confused:

Because we're all kooks.

Why is this topic about The Wackers the one that has more posts in alla the forum?

:confused:

It's an interesting case where people are really split on who they think the perp is.

Because we're all kooks.
:lol: :lol:

:lol: :lol:

This thread is a laugh. ;)

This thread is a laugh. ;)
:rofl:

You guys are awesome.

Why is this topic about The Wackers the one that has more posts in alla the forum?

:confused:
because it's a great case where we don't know (for sure) what happened. some say the Wackers did this to themselves and some disagree. some say that it was some weirdo and some say nope. the debates for this case is pretty large. I still think it was some neighbor who didn't like them and was really smart, but even that is hard to prove true just like it's hard to prove that the Wackers did this to themselves. sadly, (if they didn't do this to themselves) they will never see who the guy that did it is.

Has anyone found any old newspaper articles regarding the Wacker case? Newspaper articles are often more telling (case in point: the Chad Mauer case) and might help us learn more about this case. I'm sure this case must have made the papers back in the day.

What I am itching to know is whether or not these occurrences continued after the segment aired. And for how long?

I watched this segment years ago and have always thought about it.

I think I read somewhere that one of their grandchildren died, a grandson who practiced martial arts. This was a while ago and the specifics I do not exactly remember. It was the result of some health problem.

That doesn't add anything to the analysis, but I have always believed that this was the act of someone who was a mentally unbalanced individual with no life. You know, the guy who was never very smart or athletic. Never had any friends or a girlfriend/wife.

A hoax? Staging something for over ten years?

This was someone they knew. A friend of a friend, an acquaintance of an acquaintance.

When life beats you down and you feel you haven't accomplished anything, you begin looking for things to do to feel more important.

I will bet that this one "kook" really enjoyed being the "mastermind."I can confirm that these 'kooks' that you describe exist where I live and do much the same thing as I mentioned in a previous post in the thread. They don't go quite as overboard as the ones in the Wackers segment as far as attacking elderly people, but they harass in a very similar manner.

I simply don't think it was fake.

This was the act of someone they somehow knew. Whether it was an angry ex-son-in-law or some loner in the rural town with nothing to do....

It either was a relative/neighbor/friend or the wackers themselves. I dont buy the "lone nut" theory. To harass them for over a decade, continuously, isnt something strangers would do. For one, the risk of being caught, if it was a stranger, doing this for over a decade, would be enormous.

The idea that it was a bunch of teens, or people with nothing else to do, doesnt make any sense. Teens dont instigate a decade long harassment campaign.

Nor does the harassment seem random or "just because".

ex son in laws..we don't know when they were divorced and when the incidents began.perhaps the divorces occurred after bill's death.

I disagree. This could have been a loner who was mentally unstable. Doing this provided him with satisfaction. The loser became the mastermind.

It is possible. Think of the Zodiac Killer who sent threatening letters for years to satisfy his own ego.

Exactly. I don't understand how people can't comprehend how a guy could carry this out for over a ten year period. There are some seriously sick people out there.

I have a feeling that the truth about this case, one way or the other, is far less interesting than all the discussion about it.
BTW. There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY it could have been "Teens" since this harrassment went on for 10 years, the teen years don't last that long.

Exactly. I don't understand how people can't comprehend how a guy could carry this out for over a ten year period. There are some seriously sick people out there.


I think its possible yeah, but unlikely. Few people get their kicks that way. The main reason being its delayed, and not immediate. A decade plus of harassment is a long time.

All im saying is that it limits those who could have done it. Teens or people looking for a thrill are unlikely to have been the culprits.

These crimes just dont happen much. And I think the reasons are as I stated. Its not immediate. Plus although Im not discounting the horrific nature of the abuse Dorothy suffered, lets face it, most of this was creepy intimidation and threats and using fear to scare them. The theory most people suggest of someone trying to run the Wackers off the land, and leave the house, the motive doesnt ring true to what actually happened. Had the perpetrator really wanted to run them off the land they could have escalated it to a higher degree. I sure as hell would be worried by death threats, and wierd notes and tapping on windows, but if having them leave is such a priority, why sit through a decade plus of it? Why not escalate the tactics? A bunch of drunk and high teens arent going to do that for 10 years. Nor are adult thrill seekers.

Plus, I think as far as those who believe the Wackers themselves were responsible, I think people feel that way because of the complete lack of anyone other than the Wackers seeing the person responsible. Hell only Dorothy saw the person. And the stakeout that failed to see the suspect. Not one neighbor reporting seeing anything at all, during the stakeout and during all those years as well.

Plus, I think as far as those who believe the Wackers themselves were responsible, I think people feel that way because of the complete lack of anyone other than the Wackers seeing the person responsible. Hell only Dorothy saw the person. And the stakeout that failed to see the suspect. Not one neighbor reporting seeing anything at all, during the stakeout and during all those years as well.

While the stakeout didn't produce any eyewitness sightings of the suspect, other members of the family did hear the noise, and did see the note that the perp left. If the Wackers were making this up that would mean they would have gotten their daughters and in-laws to lie about the noises and the note. I just don't think it's likely at all that everyone in the family would go along with their "kook" parents.

While the stakeout didn't produce any eyewitness sightings of the suspect, other members of the family did hear the noise, and did see the note that the perp left. If the Wackers were making this up that would mean they would have gotten their daughters and in-laws to lie about the noises and the note. I just don't think it's likely at all that everyone in the family would go along with their "kook" parents.Exactly, it's not the type of thing you want to use to bring attention to yourself.

These things happen quite a bit in smaller communities, which is why I do believe their story. Especially as someone had something like this happen to a grandparent once long ago. While carrying it for years might seem unbelievable, there are many reasons why it could have went for as long as it did and why it stopped when it did. The problem is that I don't think we'll ever find out the reason it happened in the first place.

I recently re-watched this segment. I don't really think Bill Wacker perpetuated the attacks and break-ins anymore. I don't really think he hired anyone, either.

But the returned items really, really bother me a lot. I don't understand what that's about at all.

Exactly, it's not the type of thing you want to use to bring attention to yourself.

These things happen quite a bit in smaller communities, which is why I do believe their story. Especially as someone had something like this happen to a grandparent once long ago. While carrying it for years might seem unbelievable, there are many reasons why it could have went for as long as it did and why it stopped when it did. The problem is that I don't think we'll ever find out the reason it happened in the first place.

Yep, I agree with you, there was a guy in his mid twenties that was pulling the same stunt not to far from where I live back in the 1990s.

Nikolas-Did they catch him?

Nikolas-Did they catch him?

Yeah they did, it was a nice neighborhood when the majority of the residents were senior citizens in the 1980 up around the early 1990s. When most of them started dying off or were put into nursing centers or retirement homes by their parents or grandchildren there was large influx of lower income families moving in the neighborhood that were loud and caused a lot of trouble in the neighborhood to a point the the local police were there every week. Sometimes the parents would tell their kids to says vulgar things to a kid they saw walking pass their trailer, because they didn't like the way the kid look.

Sounds like those parents were a real good example to the kids. It's a shame when a quiet neighborhood goes wild.

Bill: "Why move? Why should we move?"

That to me, is a nagging statement. It's almost as if Bill is saying they have no reason to move. If what the Wackers say is true, their house was burglarized 3 times and Dorothy was assaulted twice, as well as all the harassing phone calls, I think that's all the reason in the world to move.

But adding to that, the Wackers wouldn't have had any knowledge of what the perp might have done in the future, if he existed. Bill wouldn't have known if the perp would have ended up killing Dorothy. Or stealing all of their furniture and belongings. Or torching the place, or what have you. And if the perp did all of those the things that the Wackers alleged, then it certainly wouldn't have been implausible that he would have escalated his campaign of terror.

And that is one reason why I have a tough time buying the Wackers story. What would Bill have said if this perp killed Dorothy? 'My wife is dead, but at least I wasn't scared off my property.' Eventually you have to ask yourself what is more important. Your safety and well-being or not being intimidated off your property.

For all of this alleged harassment the Wackers endured over a decade, the only thing they do to combat is install a porch light, which most porches already have. And one brief stake-out. That's weak in my opinion. You would think they would have invested in a fence, an attack/guard dog, an alarm system, weapons for protection (mace, etc.), caller ID. The Wackers did none of those things.

I agree, Wiseguy.I don't think caller id was available back then,but there was call tracing that could be done thru the phone co.

Regarding the Wackers moving away from this mess - personally, I have moved away from a neighborhood for a lot less than what the Wackers were going through, so I could see where a move in their case might be a good idea.

On the other hand, the Wackers were from a generation who bought their home and lived in it the rest of their lives, they didn't "upsell" like the younger generations have been doing. People from the Wacker's era make friends in the community, know their neighbors well, go to the same church for years.... so I can see why they might have the attitude that this is their home, and danged if their gonna let some idiot force them off their property. Also, moving isn't cheap and it didn't seem the Wackers had a whole lot of money to pay for relocating.

If they suspected a family member was doing this to them (the person kept getting their new phone number when they'd change it) I can also see where they'd think that the harassing relative would know their new location and the harassment would continue there.

Older folks have a tendency to be more brazen, if you will, more territorial and less politically correct. I think there are a fair number of old folks that would have waited until they caught the perp, if he exists, and killed him right then and there, if for no other reason that he was trespassing on their property. That's why the Wackers lackadaisical approach to the whole thing is suspicious.

My grandparents went through something that had a few parallels to this. They lived in Saginaw. They weren't stalked or harassed, but the neighborhood was getting worse. A kid threw a rock in their window, breaking glass. They moved to a trailer park catering mostly to the senior citizen crowd. Saginaw is in a rapid decline, btw.

Now I don't want to come across as real judgmental, but the Wackers would have had to figure this was a younger person doing this, and older folks have a tendency to not be huge fans of the younger crowd. I think at some point they would have had to figure that their neighborhood was being overrun by young deliquents, so that's another reason why I find it baffling they didn't move.

yes it sure is interesting that with all the harrassment going on,a rock wasn't thrown thru the window,or the property damaged in any way.at the most,there was 'knocking' on the side of the house.
dorothy was the only one to sustain any injuries...
items that were 'stolen' were returned,and all that was done inside the house was things were messed up,which was easily fixed.hmm..

Bill: "Why move? Why should we move?"

That to me, is a nagging statement. It's almost as if Bill is saying they have no reason to move. If what the Wackers say is true, their house was burglarized 3 times and Dorothy was assaulted twice, as well as all the harassing phone calls, I think that's all the reason in the world to move.

I took Bill's response as a question by a UM producer who most likely asked them, "Why don't you guys just move?" which is why he said "why should we move". Bill was an elderly guy who probably had a lot of pride and did not want to admit defeat. And using that logic, I could see why Bill would say that. And picking up and moving to a different home isn't exactly a smooth transition, or an easy thing to do.

For all of this alleged harassment the Wackers endured over a decade, the only thing they do to combat is install a porch light, which most porches already have. And one brief stake-out. That's weak in my opinion. You would think they would have invested in a fence, an attack/guard dog, an alarm system, weapons for protection (mace, etc.), caller ID. The Wackers did none of those things.

The reenactment shows Bill run out of the house with a gun, while Dorothy tries to stop him. They got the light, they had a dog, and a gun. I think the reason they didn't get more high-tech was because they were old school. Another thing we don't know (or I just can't remember) is how long or drawn out these attacks were. I know the Wackers claim they happened over a ten year span. But did the harassment go on on a monthly basis? Or was it peace and quiet for a year or two and then out of nowhere another incident? I don't think the segment clarifies this.

Another thing we don't know (or I just can't remember) is how long or drawn out these attacks were. I know the Wackers claim they happened over a ten year span. But did the harassment go on on a monthly basis? Or was it peace and quiet for a year or two and then out of nowhere another incident? I don't think the segment clarifies this.

Seems like someone here mentioned that it only happened once or twice a year over a 10 year period. If that's correct, it seems kind of odd that on the one night they decide to do a stake out, the rock wrapped with a note is thrown onto their porch.

wonder what happened after the segment aired?

Seems like someone here mentioned that it only happened once or twice a year over a 10 year period. If that's correct, it seems kind of odd that on the one night they decide to do a stake out, the rock wrapped with a note is thrown onto their porch.

Didn't the segment mention that the attacks/calls/knocks were escalating and happening over a two week period? I thought the knocks were happening every night which is why the Wackers had the place staked out.

Didn't the segment mention that the attacks/calls/knocks were escalating and happening over a two week period? I thought the knocks were happening every night which is why the Wackers had the place staked out.

Re-watched this tonight. According to the Wackers, the attacks/calls DID escalate, but the time span is never specified.

In the context of Bill and Dorothy's interview, though, I always had the impression these things happened on multiple occasions over a period of months. There's nothing to corroborate that in the segment, however.

Just thinking about that infamous stake-out. Of course, I'm pretty sure the layout probably wasn't perfectly recreated in the segment. Nonetheless, if we assume:

1. The driveway is on the east side, with Bill in the camper
2. Two individuals are in a vehicle facing the entire facade of the house with a full southern view
3. Two other individuals are indoors

...doesn't that leave a pretty blatant observational gap along the west and southwest? Isn't it then pretty possible for somebody to have approached the home from the southwest, hugged the west wall as he/she approached the porch, knocked, dropped the note, and egressed just the way he/she came in?

I don't really like to get too far in the weeds strictly with reenactments and making speculations solely based on them, but over time that kind of started to bother me.

Re-watched this tonight. According to the Wackers, the attacks/calls DID escalate, but the time span is never specified.

In the context of Bill and Dorothy's interview, though, I always had the impression these things happened on multiple occasions over a period of months. There's nothing to corroborate that in the segment, however.

Just thinking about that infamous stake-out. Of course, I'm pretty sure the layout probably wasn't perfectly recreated in the segment. Nonetheless, if we assume:

1. The driveway is on the east side, with Bill in the camper
2. Two individuals are in a vehicle facing the entire facade of the house with a full southern view
3. Two other individuals are indoors

...doesn't that leave a pretty blatant observational gap along the west and southwest? Isn't it then pretty possible for somebody to have approached the home from the southwest, hugged the west wall as he/she approached the porch, knocked, dropped the note, and egressed just the way he/she came in?

I don't really like to get too far in the weeds strictly with reenactments and making speculations solely based on them, but over time that kind of started to bother me.
if it was a stake-out,then how would a perp *know it was being staked out,and for that night only? it would be safe to assume they were hidden well,or why bother.
what would even make them think a perp *might strike on that particular night.
also,it seems odd that the incident occurred right as they were giving up for the night.IMO Bill saw an opportunity,and prob. planned that in advance,with the rock and note in his pocket.
And why just one night? if they almost got the perp,why not keep trying? could it be b/c Bill thought he'd 'proved' to the others that HE wasn't the perp?
In short,I think Bill was the one doing this all along.
I don't care to debate,these are just my thoughts.

All a stalker has to do is see there are people around the area from their hiding place to put two and two together and wait for the right moment. I think the same thing occurred in the Cindy James case.

If this was a thrill seeker, it was a golden opportunity for them.

All a stalker has to do is see there are people around the area from their hiding place to put two and two together and wait for the right moment. I think the same thing occurred in the Cindy James case.

If this was a thrill seeker, it was a golden opportunity for them.
they were hidden in a car in the driveway,and a small camper across the st. you'd need eyes in the back of your head to avoid everyone all at the same time.

they were hidden in a car in the driveway,and a small camper across the st. you'd need eyes in the back of your head to avoid everyone all at the same time.

Actually, I don't really think so. I think it could be done, especially if there was indeed some visual dead space no one could have covered well.

However, I do agree with you that the timing of the incident might be a little suspect, and if this was the one and only stakeout ever conducted, I would agree that's a point of interest.

Actually, I don't really think so. I think it could be done, especially if there was indeed some visual dead space no one could have covered well.

Yep. Bill was in the driveway, IIRC, and the other relatives were across the street. We don't know the exact location where they were parked, so there could have been a lot of blind spots someone could have snuck up on the house on. Especially if this was someone who knew the Wackers and knew they were planning on staking the place out.

this is by far one of the weirdest segments i have ever watched. Really just got done watching it now. I don't even know what to think, or what motive they could of have.
Were there any reports at all of these events continuing after the husband died.
Just something that bothers me about it, is why would the lady let the guy in her house who was asking to use the phone? After knowing people were attacking the house, and trying to get at them.
I know there is 60 pages of info in this thread, but seriously. Can someone explain to me any possible motive at all? The segment did not even come close to mentioning one.

this is by far one of the weirdest segments i have ever watched. Really just got done watching it now. I don't even know what to think, or what motive they could of have.
Were there any reports at all of these events continuing after the husband died.
Just something that bothers me about it, is why would the lady let the guy in her house who was asking to use the phone? After knowing people were attacking the house, and trying to get at them.
I know there is 60 pages of info in this thread, but seriously. Can someone explain to me any possible motive at all? The segment did not even come close to mentioning one.

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. No woman who is home alone is going to let a male, complete stranger in their house after their house has been burglarized, ransacked (including one as recent as a few months ago) and the guy is claiming his car broke down but it's not visible. And then I got a few "they're old, they're used to trusting people" type responses. That doesn't sway my beliefs one bit.

After a person becomes a victim of a crime, they are more likely to take added security measures, not less. During a decade of alleged harassment, the Wackers did nothing more than get a porch light which almost all porches already have. I don't believe their claims.

Another thing I found odd was that Dorothy never supplies the man with the disabled car a phone book or anything. Is he just supposed to know the phone number of a wrecker off the top of his head? not likely.

Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. No woman who is home alone is going to let a male, complete stranger in their house after their house has been burglarized, ransacked (including one as recent as a few months ago) and the guy is claiming his car broke down but it's not visible. And then I got a few "they're old, they're used to trusting people" type responses. That doesn't sway my beliefs one bit.

After a person becomes a victim of a crime, they are more likely to take added security measures, not less. During a decade of alleged harassment, the Wackers did nothing more than get a porch light which almost all porches already have. I don't believe their claims.

Another thing I found odd was that Dorothy never supplies the man with the disabled car a phone book or anything. Is he just supposed to know the phone number of a wrecker off the top of his head? not likely.

Yes no doubt. Not only that, no one seen any cars. They never seen anybody there. Just don't understand this case at all. It is too dramatically different types of crimes. One is stalking, and then the other is assault. Who brakes into a home, just to make a mess, never stealing anything. Who breaks into a home, to tie a woman up, which knocks her automatically.
Then leaves? Again no one seeing her.
If she was hit that hard, with what. What object? I am assuming there was some medical report on this case.
I loved how the woman in the story said, "who knows what he was saying, i never listen to people who are making phone calls, with my phone, that is their business'. It doesn't add up at all.

And those notes? They got that looked like they were written by a 10 year old. I don't get this case and all, i would of liked unsolved mysteries to do an update on it.
The woman lived many years after her husband, i am assuming she moved. If not, she must not of been harrased, if she ever was.

Would of love unsolved mysteries to of interviewed someone else, maybe someone who lived close by them.

This doesn't just sound like a random act. No one is going to continue to victimize the same person over and over. Unless it is very personal, he pissed someone off. But even that conclusion doesn't make any sense. There are just so many things they could of done to stop from being harrassed. For one thing, if they were truely harrassed over a period of decades, I would of least got a dog. I mean ****, at the very least. Dogs are the number 1 thing that can't steer a robber a person who just wants to make your house a mess away.
They could of got a security system. I know this was the early 1990's but I am sure there were out back then. They could of put in a surveillance camera, around their house. Again, if this was truely happening over a period of years, and they didn't want to move. There are just so many things they could of done to either catch the guy, or at least steer the guy away from their house.


Just makes no sense, I feel like written one of the relatives to see if they know what was happening back then. Because this is driven me a little nuts right now.

^they did have a dog, but it was one of those little, yappy toy dogs. Utterly worthless in keeping intruders away. They needed to make like Mabel Woods and put a dog out in the yard that "doesn't like people". :lol: A big guard dog that can do some damage.

Mabel Woods. I love that old lady.

Would the police dept that handled this case release any info,now that the Wackers have passed? I presume it would be a closed case,and so maybe it is worth contacting them? idk how this works.
But I really felt the LE detective in the segment was all but saying he felt it was them.He just wasn't allowed to come right out and say it.It was the most carefully worded statement I think I've ever heard.
Now I will say this again...I do think Bill was abusing Dorothy,and messing up the house during a rage attack.JUST because he had never been caught at these things before,doesn't mean he didn't do it.It could be he was getting dementia in his old age,or a temper problem (I know older ppl tell me it gets harder and harder to control your emotions with age),depression/anxiety,or any host of other things.I'm not saying he was a bad person.That isn't for me to judge.I am saying I think he was an abuser (for whatever reason) and a dishonest peron in trying to cover it up.Maybe he drank? Maybe he was on meds of some sort? We don't really know.But if he combined meds and alchohol,the results could have wrecked havoc on his mind.
As far as the attacks escalating...it seems they did.One of the later ones had Dorothy with a cracked skull,and the tie-up incident hurt her skull and jaw.(who gets a cracked jaw when being hit on the BACK of the head?)
Even so,abuse does not have to follow any typical sort of pattern for it to occur.I'm old enough to recall Lonnie Anderson stating that Burt Reynolds abused her,even though the abuse was infrequent.I don't think that was ever disspelled.Not all abuse follows an escalating type pattern.
Who would attack someone,tie her up,gather up items to take from the home...then decide...'oh you know what? I think I'll leave some graffiti on the wall stating the items I took are cheap but will do,for now'. Uh....yeah.(Now if you are the culprit, that is a great excuse for returning your OWN items,I might add.And of course,they were returned.).I also find it too convenient that the window was open and Dorothy was able to yell at the neighbors to get help.Yet they never heard or saw anyone.
I don't care to debate,just some thoughts.

Would the police dept that handled this case release any info,now that the Wackers have passed? I presume it would be a closed case,and so maybe it is worth contacting them? idk how this works.
But I really felt the LE detective in the segment was all but saying he felt it was them.He just wasn't allowed to come right out and say it.It was the most carefully worded statement I think I've ever heard.
Now I will say this again...I do think Bill was abusing Dorothy,and messing up the house during a rage attack.JUST because he had never been caught at these things before,doesn't mean he didn't do it.It could be he was getting dementia in his old age,or a temper problem (I know older ppl tell me it gets harder and harder to control your emotions with age),depression/anxiety,or any host of other things.I'm not saying he was a bad person.That isn't for me to judge.I am saying I think he was an abuser (for whatever reason) and a dishonest peron in trying to cover it up.Maybe he drank? Maybe he was on meds of some sort? We don't really know.But if he combined meds and alchohol,the results could have wrecked havoc on his mind.
As far as the attacks escalating...it seems they did.One of the later ones had Dorothy with a cracked skull,and the tie-up incident hurt her skull and jaw.(who gets a cracked jaw when being hit on the BACK of the head?)
Even so,abuse does not have to follow any typical sort of pattern for it to occur.I'm old enough to recall Lonnie Anderson stating that Burt Reynolds abused her,even though the abuse was infrequent.I don't think that was ever disspelled.Not all abuse follows an escalating type pattern.
Who would attack someone,tie her up,gather up items to take from the home...then decide...'oh you know what? I think I'll leave some graffiti on the wall stating the items I took are cheap but will do,for now'. Uh....yeah.(Now if you are the culprit, that is a great excuse for returning your OWN items,I might add.And of course,they were returned.).I also find it too convenient that the window was open and Dorothy was able to yell at the neighbors to get help.Yet they never heard or saw anyone.
I don't care to debate,just some thoughts.

I agree with you, it is much more logical that it would be the husband. I just can't buy the stories of some person, that was abusing them for years. That they didn't take any measures at all to improve their saftey. Not only that, the woman who claims someone just came into their house and tore it all up, let an unknown man into the house. Right, that is bull****. I don't buy that for a second. I think she knows who attacked her that night, but did not want to say.
At some point over all these times that they were attacked, or the house was tore up, someone in their 'hood would of noticed, something. But nothing was ever heard or seen.

My final statement is, if you were getting abused for years. Time after time. you are going to take action, to stop it from happening again, or have a course of action if something did.
For one, their kids should of told them to put a security system in. An alarm, and having the police automatcly called would of scared, or even catch the intruder if they ever came back. My obvious statement, a dog. A dog that barks, and barks loud when he hears or sees something fishy. It is not the dog biting that detours crime, it is the dog barking and making noise. Nothing. And finally a more drastic approach, but really an easy one to do. Put up vidoe cameras. Even in the early 1990's they had the technology. Spend a few hundreds to have enough evidence to catch these guys, but again nothing.

There inaction to do nothing, and just say. Well I aint moving, and to put up some porch lighT???? Tells me all we need to know about this case. If it wasn't her husband abusing her, it was someone in the family. The police have to of seen the medical reports, from the two times she was hurt.

That is a good idea about contacting the police, I don't know much about FOIA, but I am betting that filing through that would get me the records considering both parties are dead now. Or even contacting the living relatives.
Will gather up some info tonight to make some calls monday, and I will report back to you fellas.

They actually already owned a video camera. It was one of the items that was stolen and later returned. I thought they could have used that to try to catch the perpetrator on film but nothing was ever said about if they ever set it up and just let it record.

If it was a VHS recorder, the camera could have been set to "economy" mode and it would record all night without having to change tapes. If nothing suspicious happened, they could just record over the tape the next night.

If it was one of those cameras from the 60s, the film would have to be taken in to a place to be processed and using that kind of camera for surveillance would have been way to expensive.

A cheaper option would have been a home security system. If they couldn't afford one, you'd think their kids could chip in together and pay for it. My grandma had one during the late 80s and early 90s and she lived out in the boondocks in TN, so I know they were available at the time, even in remote areas.

They actually already owned a video camera. It was one of the items that was stolen and later returned. I thought they could have used that to try to catch the perpetrator on film but nothing was ever said about if they ever set it up and just let it record.

If it was a VHS recorder, the camera could have been set to "economy" mode and it would record all night without having to change tapes. If nothing suspicious happened, they could just record over the tape the next night.

If it was one of those cameras from the 60s, the film would have to be taken in to a place to be processed and using that kind of camera for surveillance would have been way to expensive.

A cheaper option would have been a home security system. If they couldn't afford one, you'd think their kids could chip in together and pay for it. My grandma had one during the late 80s and early 90s and she lived out in the boondocks in TN, so I know they were available at the time, even in remote areas.

Yeah it may have been a bit expensive for a video camera option. But if you were being harrassed as they said for years, and they said they would not move. You would do everything in your power to catch the man, or prevent it again.

It would be interesting the know the details of Dorothy's indoor attack...such as,did the items used in tying her up come from within the home itself? did the marker used for the graffiti come from the home? if so,then as in most criminal cases, that raises the odds that the person who did it also was someone from within the home.Attackers plan in advance and bring materials with them,they don't count on the items they need to just happen to already be there.

It would be interesting the know the details of Dorothy's indoor attack...such as,did the items used in tying her up come from within the home itself? did the marker used for the graffiti come from the home? if so,then as in most criminal cases, that raises the odds that the person who did it also was someone from within the home.Attackers plan in advance and bring materials with them,they don't count on the items they need to just happen to already be there.

I tend to think that the police officer interviewed in the segment believed the Wackers, and that they were not making anything up. They did bring up the possibility to Dorothy that maybe Bill was the one attacking her, but she denied that as a possibility. So that makes it seem like they were suspicious at first, but the officer interviewed makes no mention about not believing their stories, or "something doesn't add up", etc. I tend to think there was more evidence of an actual intruder than what was shown in the segment or the officer would have been more skeptical, IMO.

I tend to think that the police officer interviewed in the segment believed the Wackers, and that they were not making anything up. They did bring up the possibility to Dorothy that maybe Bill was the one attacking her, but she denied that as a possibility. So that makes it seem like they were suspicious at first, but the officer interviewed makes no mention about not believing their stories, or "something doesn't add up", etc. I tend to think there was more evidence of an actual intruder than what was shown in the segment or the officer would have been more skeptical, IMO.

Okay tell me this then. How can you explain the Whackers inaction.
They were being stalked, harassed, abused for years. Yet the only they do is add a light? If my husband/bf got beat the **** out of him, and hogged tied. I would do more to protective ourselves then a light. Like a security system, a dog, a gun, and again. A surveillance system.

to me their inaction, says everything in this case. That is something you can't explain.

Okay tell me this then. How can you explain the Whackers inaction.
They were being stalked, harassed, abused for years. Yet the only they do is add a light? If my husband/bf got beat the **** out of him, and hogged tied. I would do more to protective ourselves then a light. Like a security system, a dog, a gun, and again. A surveillance system.

to me their inaction, says everything in this case. That is something you can't explain.

The segment shows Bill running outside, gun in hand, after the perp knocks on the wall at night. He had a light, a dog, and a gun. That's action, IMO.

The segment shows Bill running outside, gun in hand, after the perp knocks on the wall at night. He had a light, a dog, and a gun. That's action, IMO.

from what i understand they have a little toy dog, that really isn't much. I think the person mentioned that above. To me, someone just doesn't randomly break into a persons house, sometimes steal stuff, sometims just make a mess, sometimes hit you over the head. I think i mentioned this too.
The fact of the inaction, and the fact she let some random guy into her house. After she was being harrased for years, makes no sense. ESPecially since her husband was not home at the time. You would think that would be when she would be most on guard.

To me, there are way to many things to think that this is an intruder not related to the family.

I thought the officer in the segment didn't believe them...esp. when he made the comment that 'that shouldn't be there' about the graffiti (as in,such perps just don't do that) and about the items being returned...'that doesn't happen,not once have we ever had stolen items returned'. or something to that effect.he was trying to say it without outright saying it,imo.
I totally think Bill staged the whole hideout incident,and he came prepared w a note,leaving it at just the right time when everyone was off guard..after they'd called it a night and no one was really watching.I think others were suspect of him,and he did it to 'prove' it wasn't him.
also,what perp would leave such small notes,and in an older person's style of writing? 'your lights are a laugh' isn't something a younger person would phrase that way.and you would think a perp would leave a large note that was noticible,not a tiny one that might get lost.(unless you wrote it yourself and knew where it was).
jmo.

ETA: the graffiti was done as an excuse for the 'stolen' items being returned later.someone was thinking ahead.if you staged that,you would want a reason for getting them back,wouldn't you? to me that's one of the biggest indications that Bill did it.

The segment shows Bill running outside, gun in hand, after the perp knocks on the wall at night. He had a light, a dog, and a gun. That's action, IMO.Yep, which is a perfectly apt reaction for the type of activity that was going on around their home. It's really the only way you can deal with that sort of situation.

This is a case I remember seeing when I was younger, and I was totally convinced (at the time) that it was "real" and the Wackers were really being harassed by some unseen evildoer...maybe even a ghost or something, lol.

However, now that I'm older and have been reading up on true crime cases for years, the "attacks" on the Wackers really just don't make sense to me. Stolen items that are conveniently returned, a stakeout that *just misses* the mysterious note-writer, Dorothy letting a strange guy in her house after they'd already been messed with....

My possible theories:

-The Wackers were just doing this for some "wacky" thrill

-Bill was abusing Dorothy and this was some weird playing-out of that behavior

-There really was some harassment, and the Wackers were lying about not knowing who could/would do this to them

All of that being said, I'm really enjoying reading this thread :) Definitely one of the classics of UM's heyday!

I'm sorry but I just can't believe that for some unknown reason, Bill and Dorothy would just randomly ransack their house, grafitti it, and get the police involved just for kicks. Wouldn't this be extremely tiring for an elderly couple to constantly "burglarize" their house, then clean it back up only to do it again? Makes absolutely no sense to me. What were they gaining?

not if they had motive,thecars.I think the incidents were staged to cover the real problem,which was rage and abuse by Bill.Recall that he never got hurt..only Dorothy did.And I think he messed the house up during rage attacks.I've seen that happen...ppl tearing up their own furniture and stuff.
The graffiti was an excuse to return the 'stolen' items,which of course happened.I can't see anyone bothering to attack someone,tie her up,steal items and then bother to leave graffiti on the wall.They'd get the heck out of there.like police said..it makes no sense.that shouldn't have been there.it doesn't fit the crime.
jmo though.

And don't be sorry! You are entitled to your opinion. :)

I'm sorry but I just can't believe that for some unknown reason, Bill and Dorothy would just randomly ransack their house, grafitti it, and get the police involved just for kicks. Wouldn't this be extremely tiring for an elderly couple to constantly "burglarize" their house, then clean it back up only to do it again? Makes absolutely no sense to me. What were they gaining?

to me it is much more likely, that it was someone in the family doing it. then some unknown person. they would of moved on, or got arrested from doing it to someone else, if they were doing it for years.

the key thing is to no one ever saw anybody, after all these years, and times. no one ever saw any car, any person.

and again, their inaction, of not taking it seriously, i think is key. the wife is home alone, someone had broken in to their house many times before. But again, she lets some unknown guy into her house. right.
then she claims, oh i don't listen to no ones phone calls. BS. If the guy is right in the next room in a small house, you are going to listen even if its accidentally.

You know what I think is the absolute scariest thing about this case?

Either:

-Someone really was harassing innocent old people for no reason

OR

-The Wackers hid something bad THEY did to piss someone off that badly

OR

-The Wackers really did make it all up in some bizarre bid for attention


Any of those options = major wtf!!!

You know what I think is the absolute scariest thing about this case?

Either:

-Someone really was harassing innocent old people for no reason

OR

-The Wackers hid something bad THEY did to piss someone off that badly

OR

-The Wackers really did make it all up in some bizarre bid for attention


Any of those options = major wtf!!!

Agreed.

-The Wackers hid something bad THEY did to piss someone off that badly

You know, that thought had crossed my mind. The segment did say Bill was retired. I wonder what kind of work he did and if he ever pissed off someone at his job. Of course, that's all assuming what the Wackers said was true.

not if they had motive,thecars.I think the incidents were staged to cover the real problem,which was rage and abuse by Bill.Recall that he never got hurt..only Dorothy did.And I think he messed the house up during rage attacks.I've seen that happen...ppl tearing up their own furniture and stuff.
The graffiti was an excuse to return the 'stolen' items,which of course happened.I can't see anyone bothering to attack someone,tie her up,steal items and then bother to leave graffiti on the wall.They'd get the heck out of there.like police said..it makes no sense.that shouldn't have been there.it doesn't fit the crime.
jmo though.

And don't be sorry! You are entitled to your opinion. :)

I still don't see this as an option. Dorothy was physically assaulted twice. That doesn't scream spousal abuse by Bill. There two isolated incidents when the police were called. Would Bill really want the cops to get involved and possibly connect the dots, see through the charade and arrest him? Seems too risky, IMO. Plus she was found hogtied in her kitchen during the first attack by neighbors. Where was Bill during all of this?

They probably wouldn't continue to draw attention to themselves by making up the notes, pounding on the walls, the phone calls, etc if they were just covering up for spousal abuse.

They probably wouldn't continue to draw attention to themselves by making up the notes, pounding on the walls, the phone calls, etc if they were just covering up for spousal abuse.

Exactly. I don't see how ransacking your house and then calling the police to come investigate would in any way, shape, or form be an intelligent way to cover up spousal abuse.

Exactly. I don't see how ransacking your house and then calling the police to come investigate would in any way, shape, or form be an intelligent way to cover up spousal abuse.Nor would going on national television.

You know what I think is the absolute scariest thing about this case?

Either:

-Someone really was harassing innocent old people for no reason

OR

-The Wackers hid something bad THEY did to piss someone off that badly

OR

-The Wackers really did make it all up in some bizarre bid for attention


Any of those options = major wtf!!!

Ultimately, I think this case involves either an old couple who lost their minds. OR a close friend or relative who had a major vendetta and issue with the wackers.

The wackers may not have deserved to be harassed like that, but I think the suspect or perp had CRYSTAL CLEAR motives and intensions. You dont harass someone for over a decade for no reason at all.

the harassment seemed clearly aimed at getting them to leave. The harassment never escalated beyond a certain point. Murder didnt seem like it was the motive. Why didnt the suspect or perp just kill the wackers?

Few if any criminals from outside the wackers circle are going to spend over a decade harassing them. This was a neighbor, a relative, or the wackers themselves. there is no other option. this was deeply personal. The suspect felt bill or dorothy did something to them, a real or imagined slight.

Ultimately, I think this case involves either an old couple who lost their minds. OR a close friend or relative who had a major vendetta and issue with the wackers.

I am inclined to agree. I'm currently leaning towards "the wackers did it themselves," but in my opinion, IF it wasn't them, it had to have been someone with a personal vendetta against them.

At one point I thought maybe it was some local teenage boy who had a really weird way of getting his kicks, but since the harassment allegedly occurred for so many years, my "weird local teen" theory probably doesn't hold up since the punk would likely grow out of it or move on.

I really think some college film students should do a documentary on this case. So many unanswered questions!

I still don't see this as an option. Dorothy was physically assaulted twice. That doesn't scream spousal abuse by Bill. There two isolated incidents when the police were called. Would Bill really want the cops to get involved and possibly connect the dots, see through the charade and arrest him? Seems too risky, IMO. Plus she was found hogtied in her kitchen during the first attack by neighbors. Where was Bill during all of this?
i think he was the one who took the items,tied her up and left.he made sure to leave the window open as well.also notice she wasnt gagged...she was able to yell at the neighbors.i think bill injured dorothy and they needed to make it look like someone else did it bf seeking medical attn.just bc he did it doesnt mean he didnt regret it and didn't want to get her help.it doesnt mean dorothy wouldnt cover for him,either.this would have been embarrassing to them both.
also......................would dorothy let someone in who was carrying rope? i think these items came from the home,and like in any crime.............that significantly raises the odds of the perp being someone in the home.(for that matter..............i wonder if said perp came w a marker to write on the wall as well).

so said perp: leaves car down st.,walks to house with rope,risks being seen (although no one sees him,not even n-bors dorothy yelled to),asks to use phone (knows bill isnt home beforehand,apparently),thanks dorothy and pretends to leave but then notices she has turned her back in another room (and doesnt make sure he left), then thinks: hey,i'll just bonk her over the head,(with what?), hurt her jaw as well,tie her up and take a few things.but then he notices the things are cheap,so he leaves a note on the wall,implying they will do-for now.that is all too convenient an excuse for returning them later.
would a perp really be so lucky? that is one lucky dude.anyone who did that would not bother scribbling a note on the wall...theyd just get the heck ourt of there.
the note was twofold: to make it look like someone really did enter the home and to have an excuse for the items being returned.(which they were).
jmo.

They probably wouldn't continue to draw attention to themselves by making up the notes, pounding on the walls, the phone calls, etc if they were just covering up for spousal abuse.
we only have their word for it that calls and pounding occurred.just to add to the story,imo.i think the tiny notes were concocted to make it seem a perp was really there.who would leave a small note in a crack on the porch if they really wanted someone to find it?

we only have their word for it that calls and pounding occurred.just to add to the story,imo.i think the tiny notes were concocted to make it seem a perp was really there.who would leave a small note in a crack on the porch if they really wanted someone to find it?
Again, there would be absolutely no reason to make things like that up if you were covering for spousal abuse. Who were they trying to fool? The viewers of Unsolved Mysteries? If they had already fooled the police into not arresting the husband for abuse in your scenario, why would they continue to make up these childish notes and calls etc? That would only cause the police to keep coming back, and that wouldn't be what you want.
If you have to work to hard to make a theory work, it probably isn't a good one. These type of attacks seem like they were done by someone who wanted to harass the Wackers without being seen, hence the childish nature of most of the attacks. They do not seem like the type of thing that you'd make up if you husband was beating you. Sure, they could have been making it up for attention, but even that doesn't make sense. You are not going to get much attention from making up stupid stuff like that.

Again, there would be absolutely no reason to make things like that up if you were covering for spousal abuse. Who were they trying to fool?
They HAD to get Dorothy medical attention.They couldn't just walk into an emergency room with Dorothy having a cracked skull/jaw injuries etc without it pointing to someone else.Being injured in her own home,they had to make it look that way.It's the same way with most staged crimes...they are staged in light of what they really are.Because the person staging them knows exactly what they are,and so then stages them that way.An attack by another is staged just that way,only attempting to point to someone else..it's not staged as an accident.So they couldn't just say...Dorothy fell down the stairs.They knew police could tell the difference.
And I'm not working hard to make it work...I'm only unraveling ALL the hard work the Wackers did to make it appear there was someone *else doing things to them.One thing a guilty person will do is to work hard to make it seem he/she isnt guilty.That's what I think the Wackers did here...they overkilled.

I haven't seen this segment in quite a while.

Who's idea was it for the Wackers to go on UM?

Was all this weird stuff going on, no one could figure out what was happening, so their children encouraged them to go on TV for help?

Were Bill and Dorothy Wacker UM watchers and decided to tell their story to a national audience? Were they doing this to themselves for attention and then the opportunity to be on TV brought them even more attention?

What was their stated intention for going on the program? Were they asking for help finding the perp or were they just wanting to tell everyone about a bunch of bizarre and inexplicable events that they experienced?

I haven't seen this segment in quite a while.

Who's idea was it for the Wackers to go on UM?

Was all this weird stuff going on, no one could figure out what was happening, so their children encouraged them to go on TV for help?

Were Bill and Dorothy Wacker UM watchers and decided to tell their story to a national audience? Were they doing this to themselves for attention and then the opportunity to be on TV brought them even more attention?

What was their stated intention for going on the program? Were they asking for help finding the perp or were they just wanting to tell everyone about a bunch of bizarre and inexplicable events that they experienced?They probably wanted to scare off the perp that was harassing them. There was really little else they could do to put a stop to it, I figure.

But again, I just want to mention that while the Wackers are an extreme example, harassment like this does occur in small towns and can continue on for years. Just because a sick kid gets older doesn't mean they won't become a sick adult.

Ultimately, I think this case involves either an old couple who lost their minds. OR a close friend or relative who had a major vendetta and issue with the wackers.

The wackers may not have deserved to be harassed like that, but I think the suspect or perp had CRYSTAL CLEAR motives and intensions. You dont harass someone for over a decade for no reason at all.

the harassment seemed clearly aimed at getting them to leave. The harassment never escalated beyond a certain point. Murder didnt seem like it was the motive. Why didnt the suspect or perp just kill the wackers?

Few if any criminals from outside the wackers circle are going to spend over a decade harassing them. This was a neighbor, a relative, or the wackers themselves. there is no other option. this was deeply personal. The suspect felt bill or dorothy did something to them, a real or imagined slight.

^ This, times a thousand.

I've read through this entire thread more than once since I've been here. I've considered ideas and held opinions that I've dismissed completely, then picked up and considered again before dismissing them yet again. But I think this post pretty well sums up what I have finally determined.

I do not think the Wackers did this to themselves.

Whomever did it is someone very close.

Whomever did it felt something deeply personal about the couple.

And I honestly don't think we're ever going to know who it was, or why it happened.

If it were someone who held something deeply personal against them,would they really return their items? It seems to me it would be much more frustrating to them to just keep them,seeing as they had them already.(which I don't believe...I think Bill took them and just needed an excuse to get them back in the house).Which he took the time to do,with the note on the wall.jmo.

If it were someone who held something deeply personal against them,would they really return their items? It seems to me it would be much more frustrating to them to just keep them,seeing as they had them already.(which I don't believe...I think Bill took them and just needed an excuse to get them back in the house).Which he took the time to do,with the note on the wall.jmo.

The perp may have seen that they weren't scared enough to leave, so he returned the items out of fear of being found with them in his/her/their possession. Two elderly people would not continue this odd behavior for over ten years without having a clear cut reason. The police could not substaniate the claim that Bill was the one doing it, and that's usually a good indicator that there was no evidence tying him to the incidents.

The perp may have seen that they weren't scared enough to leave, so he returned the items out of fear of being found with them in his/her/their possession. Two elderly people would not continue this odd behavior for over ten years without having a clear cut reason. The police could not substaniate the claim that Bill was the one doing it, and that's usually a good indicator that there was no evidence tying him to the incidents.
just because they couldn't prove it doesn't mean he didn't do it.and well,yes...I guess abuse and covering it up could qualify as odd behavior.or however you want to look at it.
But I think Bill wanted his items back after having hidden them,and he couldn't just risk (what if he died?) them being found by anyone else...that would be too obvious...so they just silently 'returned'.just as the note said.(I guess perp saved up enough to buy something better than cheap) :)

just because they couldn't prove it doesn't mean he didn't do it.and well,yes...I guess abuse and covering it up could qualify as odd behavior.or however you want to look at it.
But I think Bill wanted his items back after having hidden them,and he couldn't just risk (what if he died?) them being found by anyone else...that would be too obvious...so they just silently 'returned'.just as the note said.(I guess perp saved up enough to buy something better than cheap) :)

Why wouldn't Bill just go to a pawn shop and pawn the items off, or sell them at a yard sale or flea market, or simply get rid of them to help pad his story? Admitting that the perp returned the items would have drawn more suspicion on him in the eyes of law enforcement.

Why wouldn't Bill just go to a pawn shop and pawn the items off, or sell them at a yard sale or flea market, or simply get rid of them to help pad his story? Admitting that the perp returned the items would have drawn more suspicion on him in the eyes of law enforcement.
apparently he wanted to keep them,so much so that he even thought it out beforehand w the graffiti excuse.Perhaps these were items he'd had for awhile,had been in the family,or whatever.It's not like you can really get enough at a yard sale or pawn shop to equal the value of what you have,or to get enough from them to go out and buy new ones.
I don't think he really knew much about true crime to think this one through...I think he just assumed police would beleive him.
That makes more sense than someone wanting to frustrate the Wackers,and so they returned their stolen items.(?) makes no sense.
I would really like to know more details of this case though!

I would really like to know more details of this case though!

I hear ya! In particular:

When did the Wackers first tell someone else (a family member, maybe) about the incidents?

Were the Wackers known to have any ill-will with any neighbors?

Did they have any estranged family members?

I hear ya! In particular:

When did the Wackers first tell someone else (a family member, maybe) about the incidents?

Were the Wackers known to have any ill-will with any neighbors?

Did they have any estranged family members?
agreed.also the 'stranger in the house' incident.did the items used to tie up Dorothy,and the marker used to write on the wall, come from within the home? what did police think of this incident?
if someone comes into your home to attack you,they don't wait to see if you're going to turn your back on them.once they get inside,they will close the door and get down to business.you've already seen their face,and there is nothing more for them to hide.no need to waste time pretending to talk on the phone,writing on the wall,or whatever.they will usually just pull a gun or knife on you,go thru the house to see if anyone else is home,and get right to the point.I think a real incident would have involved something of the sort...possibly minus the head injury and just tying up AND gagging Dorothy,robbing the house and leaving ASAP.

Bill was not home during the first attack on Dorothy. I'm assuming that he legitimately had an alibi during the time in question, or else police would have focused on him more. And to top it all off, why would Dorothy go out of her way to hide abuse when she had the perfect opportunity to escape the abusive relationship by telling the cops it was Bill all along? Makes no sense.

It doesn't mean it was an alibi that could be collaborated.And they did focus on him by asking Dorothy if she thought it could be Bill.
But without her cooperation,they was likely nothing else they could do.Abuse victims will often sympathize with the abuser (esp. if it's a spouse) and refuse to turn them in.

But I am really tired of debating.I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.The thing about debates is that they rarely ever change anyone's mind,and so it seems a waste of time.

They probably wanted to scare off the perp that was harassing them. There was really little else they could do to put a stop to it, I figure.

But again, I just want to mention that while the Wackers are an extreme example, harassment like this does occur in small towns and can continue on for years. Just because a sick kid gets older doesn't mean they won't become a sick adult.


Ive seen this theory discussed for years. I dont understand it. The "teen kid" theory. Its ludicrous. Yes, we all know teens are capable of doing silly things. And doing pranks. But to continue it for over a decade? And the threats and violence. This wasnt some teen kids getting drunk and looking to TP some house for kicks. Ive never heard of teens doing something like this, to this extent, for a decade plus. Ever. It just doesnt happen. Theres absolutely no prescedent for it. In fact, the reverse is pretty much fact. The teen years are years of acting rebellious and wild. But most people grow out of that. "Oh they are just teens/kids", is a frequent statement made about teens acting up.

The teen theory is the most ridiculous theory in the whole thread. For one, theres no evidence for it. At all. And two, its laughable on its face. The harassment clearly had a purpose. It wasnt just for kicks. It wasnt just for no reason. The perp clearly had a mission. I think the one that makes the most sense is, if it was someone other than the wackers, that the perp wanted them off the property, or the wackers wronged this person. The harassment was almost certainly personal. Or percieved by the perp as being personal.

Ive seen this theory discussed for years. I dont understand it. The "teen kid" theory. Its ludicrous. Yes, we all know teens are capable of doing silly things. And doing pranks. But to continue it for over a decade? And the threats and violence. This wasnt some teen kids getting drunk and looking to TP some house for kicks. Ive never heard of teens doing something like this, to this extent, for a decade plus. Ever. It just doesnt happen. Theres absolutely no prescedent for it. In fact, the reverse is pretty much fact. The teen years are years of acting rebellious and wild. But most people grow out of that. "Oh they are just teens/kids", is a frequent statement made about teens acting up.

The teen theory is the most ridiculous theory in the whole thread. For one, theres no evidence for it. At all. And two, its laughable on its face. The harassment clearly had a purpose. It wasnt just for kicks. It wasnt just for no reason. The perp clearly had a mission. I think the one that makes the most sense is, if it was someone other than the wackers, that the perp wanted them off the property, or the wackers wronged this person. The harassment was almost certainly personal. Or percieved by the perp as being personal.I have no idea who it was, I'm just pointing out that sick people don't suddenly stop being sick just because they get older. Saying that 'if they were teens they would have grown out of it' holds no water when there's no evidence that it 'always' happens.

The only thing I'm certain of is that the Wackers didn't make it up. Sure, they could have, but I don't think they did.

That's a lie.

Everyone knows Dorothy "Dot" Wacker planned and plotted the whole thing for attention.

I really hope this isn't "akook" or "Sadie Magee" back from the grave.

it is impossible to really come up with anything about this case because the UM segment doesn't give much information. They never mention Bill or Dorothy's background. For all I know, Bill could have betrayed someone and this is them getting their revenge, served in a war and left someone behind to die, and this is their family getting revenge, fired someone from his company and this is a revenge scheme because of that. One of them could have abused a kid and this kid is now getting their revenge, this could be a guy that was humiliated in school by them, or maybe they hit someone's kid while driving and it was found not their fault and the parent is out for revenge. We just don't know.

I never get when people say, "They should have moved" Um, MY house. When you build your home and established a living in a town, ya don't move :/

In my opinion, the Whackers are doing this to themselves.

I feel that most people could at least hazard a guess as to who had been terrorizing them over a period of ten years. The Whackers' inability to at least suspect someone in their social circle seems abnormal.
I'm imagining a scenario where daily life with the Whackers is very dramatic. I never realized what some people were willing to put themselves through for sympathy and attention until I lived next door to a drama addict. This person also inflicted injury upon themselves in order to garner attention and veracity to a story that went nowhere. There was a host of other manufactured problems as well.

I used to see this story as a frightening "it could happen to anyone" scenario, but now I see it as a story that doesn't add up.

This segment originally aired in 1994, and covered a time period between 1984-1994. Back then, it may have been inconceivable for a lot of people that two people could have faked this and would have been so desparate for attention that they would have resorted to this kind of thing.

Nowadays, in the age of reality tv, where everyone from A-list celebrities to D-list celebrities to people who have become famous by sheer virtue of the fact they have their own reality show (Honey Boo Boo anyone?) and the onslaught of hoaxes devised by attention-seeking, fame-loving drama queens (The balloon boy hoax, for example) and suddenly the notion of the Wackers faking this as a means to get attention doesn't seem so inconceivable anymore.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%BCnchausen_syndrome

Thank you!!! Finally, somebody else who gets it...I've been preaching that for years here and people think I am crazy...The common denominator for everything here is the wife...She made this all up...Seems quite obvious to me...Isn't that the simplest explanation consistent with the facts?

...Isn't that the simplest explanation consistent with the facts?


Absolutely. What convinced me is when all the family put a close watch on the house all evening, and yet still the tormentor was apparently able to leave a note on the porch undetected. :rolleyes: Either the guy has supernatural abilities or at least one of the Wackers was faking the whole thing.

I think its vastly more likely that a bored elderly person or persons would go looking for attention than some master criminal could torment them (for no reason whatsoever) and evade detection for years on end.

I too feel it was an inside job. Too many incidents where the attacker was able to sneak on the property, make the attack and leave undetected. But when they did the stakeout and still saw nothing, that was it for me.

Definitely an inside job. If it wasn't one of the Wackers it had to be a family member. But I would put it on mrs. Wacker since she is the one who was supposedly attacked and claims to have actually seen one of these tormentors.

It always bothered me that during the surveillance, Bill was alone in the trailer in the driveway while his two sons in law were in a van across the street. I've always been curious as to whose idea it was for Bill to be by himself, rather than to be accompanied by one of the SIL. Dorothy had already been the victim of two assaults; why expose Bill to a similar risk?

Who had knowledge about the upcoming stakeout? The harassment doesn't seem to have been occurring on a daily basis, so it's a curious coincidence that the stalker decided on the same day to throw another note onto the porch. Would like to have known more about the family dynamics prior to the attacks: any teenage grandchildren, divorces, or deaths.

Dorothy Wacker could not have been doing this all by herself. Whether or not anyone wants to believe that the Wackers were making the whole thing up for attention is up for debate (I personally don't believe they were involved at all), but it's impossible for Dorothy to have done this by herself. First of all, it would be near impossible for her to hurt herself in a way that resulted in "skull lacerations" and then hogtie herself in the kitchen. The biggest factor in proving she wasn't doing this herself was the stakeout. She was inside with her daughter-in-law the entire time. She didn't knock on the wall. She wasn't the one who left the note on the porch. She didn't make it all up herself. This Münchausen syndrome theory doesn't fit with the known evidence.

Dorothy Wacker could not have been doing this all by herself. Whether or not anyone wants to believe that the Wackers were making the whole thing up for attention is up for debate (I personally don't believe they were involved at all), but it's impossible for Dorothy to have done this by herself. First of all, it would be near impossible for her to hurt herself in a way that resulted in "skull lacerations" and then hogtie herself in the kitchen. The biggest factor in proving she wasn't doing this herself was the stakeout. She was inside with her daughter-in-law the entire time. She didn't knock on the wall. She wasn't the one who left the note on the porch. She didn't make it all up herself. This Münchausen syndrome theory doesn't fit with the known evidence.

Seems to me the stakeout is good proof it WAS Dorothy...The place was being watched, nobody else was around except, of course, Dorothy again...She's the only one that's there during every single event...

[QUOTE=Sundance]Seems to me the stakeout is good proof it WAS Dorothy.QUOTE]


Yep. For that note to be found in the stakeout and no one to see anyone leave it, either:

a) The Wackers tormentor has the magical power to turn himself invisible; or
b) The Wackers are doing this nonsense themselves.

Seems to me the stakeout is good proof it WAS Dorothy...The place was being watched, nobody else was around except, of course, Dorothy again...She's the only one that's there during every single event...

No. Dorothy was inside with her daughter-in-law when the knock on the wall happened. Dorothy could not possibly have done this since the knock came from the outside. And the note was found on the porch. Dorothy never left the house during the stakeout. Meaning she couldn't have left the note on the porch.

I just remember the last time I saw this episode. Mr. Wackier seemed so sincere...maybe I posted that a ways back.....

No. Dorothy was inside with her daughter-in-law when the knock on the wall happened. Dorothy could not possibly have done this since the knock came from the outside. And the note was found on the porch. Dorothy never left the house during the stakeout. Meaning she couldn't have left the note on the porch.

How do we know where everybody was during all of this time? Because of a one minute "reenactment" on Unsolved Mysteries? We have no way of knowing where anybody was at anytime...Dorothy never left the room? Never went to the bathroom? The kitchen? I would highly doubt Dorothy and her daughter-in-law held hands and stared into each others eyes during this entire 'stakeout'...I would assume it went on for hours giving Dorothy ample opportunity, and movement throughout...

How do we know where everybody was during all of this time? Because of a one minute "reenactment" on Unsolved Mysteries? We have no way of knowing where anybody was at anytime...Dorothy never left the room? Never went to the bathroom? The kitchen? I would highly doubt Dorothy and her daughter-in-law held hands and stared into each others eyes during this entire 'stakeout'...I would assume it went on for hours giving Dorothy ample opportunity, and movement throughout...

This actually weakens your own argument as well. If we in fact have no way of knowing where anybody was throughout the entire stakeout, you cannot then deduce Dorothy had to have dropped the note when someone wasn't looking, just as Cars can't be completely certain the reenactment was totally accurate. It's fine to have an opinion about what's most likely, but citing ignorance of every single action taken by every single person during that period of time doesn't bolster your position against his.

Part of UM's charm (and creepiness factor) was that the majority of the time, reenactments were shot at the exact crime scene locations. But this segment was not part of that norm. A completely random house in a different neighborhood was used to film all the reenactments for the Wacker's segment. I'm sure Billy and Dorothy probably wanted it that way, so they could tell their story without showing their house.

This was the Wacker's actual house...

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/WackerNEW1_zpse091a4bf.jpg

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/WackerNEW2_zps9ac3eaaf.jpg

There used to be another tree and a huge bush in their front yard but they're gone now. That makes me wonder about where all the family members were for the real stakeout. On Google street view, I positioned myself on the driveway across the street from the Wacker's home (which is where it was said Bill and his son-in-law were hiding in their car) but the tree in the front yard blocks the view of about 90% of the house. In the nighttime, I don't know how you can see anything.

Also, the reenactment gives you the impression that the Wacker's house was close to their neighbors but the other homes on their street are actually on HUGE lots and they are spread far apart.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Wacker1.jpg

It also doesn't help matters that there's a huge empty field right next to their house. If a stalker wanted to sneak on their property, it wouldn't be that hard.

I just finished going through all 64 pages of this thread, and all I have to say is...WOW! This is by far the most interesting thing on this message board, and the Wacker case may be the most compelling segment that Unsolved Mysteries ever produced. There should be a movie!

This actually weakens your own argument as well. If we in fact have no way of knowing where anybody was throughout the entire stakeout, you cannot then deduce Dorothy had to have dropped the note when someone wasn't looking, just as Cars can't be completely certain the reenactment was totally accurate. It's fine to have an opinion about what's most likely, but citing ignorance of every single action taken by every single person during that period of time doesn't bolster your position against his.

If this was the only instance in which anything happened, then yes, you're right...However the point was larger, being that Dorothy was the only one present during EVERY event (even alone sometimes)...She's the common denominator...

If this was the only instance in which anything happened, then yes, you're right...However the point was larger, being that Dorothy was the only one present during EVERY event (even alone sometimes)...She's the common denominator...

Well actually you can prove Dorothy wasn't the one knocking on the wall because she and her daughter-in-law were sitting in the living room when it happened. They looked at each other, and the daughter-in-law was the one that used the radio to call Bill and the others to report the noise. So that most certainly was not Dorothy.

Part of UM's charm (and creepiness factor) was that the majority of the time, reenactments were shot at the exact crime scene locations. But this segment was not part of that norm. A completely random house in a different neighborhood was used to film all the reenactments for the Wacker's segment. I'm sure Billy and Dorothy probably wanted it that way, so they could tell their story without showing their house.

This was the Wacker's actual house...

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/WackerNEW1_zpse091a4bf.jpg

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/WackerNEW2_zps9ac3eaaf.jpg

There used to be another tree and a huge bush in their front yard but they're gone now. That makes me wonder about where all the family members were for the real stakeout. On Google street view, I positioned myself on the driveway across the street from the Wacker's home (which is where it was said Bill and his son-in-law were hiding in their car) but the tree in the front yard blocks the view of about 90% of the house. In the nighttime, I don't know how you can see anything.

Also, the reenactment gives you the impression that the Wacker's house was close to their neighbors but the other homes on their street are actually on HUGE lots and they are spread far apart.

http://i922.photobucket.com/albums/ad64/andy80_bucket/Wacker1.jpg

It also doesn't help matters that there's a huge empty field right next to their house. If a stalker wanted to sneak on their property, it wouldn't be that hard.


I don't know if it's just years of wear on the house, but I'm kinda shocked to see it. My first thought (and pardon my French) was: "what a sh*thole."

Anyone else get that vibe?

Considering the google map view of the house was twenty something years after the segment was filmed, I'm not shocked at the condition.

I think their could have been a house next to them on the right but was torn down.

Part of UM's charm (and creepiness factor) was that the majority of the time, reenactments were shot at the exact crime scene locations. But this segment was not part of that norm. A completely random house in a different neighborhood was used to film all the reenactments for the Wacker's segment. I'm sure Billy and Dorothy probably wanted it that way, so they could tell their story without showing their house.

This was the Wacker's actual house...

There used to be another tree and a huge bush in their front yard but they're gone now. That makes me wonder about where all the family members were for the real stakeout. On Google street view, I positioned myself on the driveway across the street from the Wacker's home (which is where it was said Bill and his son-in-law were hiding in their car) but the tree in the front yard blocks the view of about 90% of the house. In the nighttime, I don't know how you can see anything.

Also, the reenactment gives you the impression that the Wacker's house was close to their neighbors but the other homes on their street are actually on HUGE lots and they are spread far apart.

It also doesn't help matters that there's a huge empty field right next to their house. If a stalker wanted to sneak on their property, it wouldn't be that hard.

Great work, Dynoguy! :) I'm a huge geek with Google Earth and piecing these things together as well, glad I'm not the only one! Given that residential and rural areas change the least over time, I'm sure that's exactly the way it looked in 1984-1993 (albeit with a little less wear) and the area hasn't been developed or anything since.

I've also long believed the "attacker" (if one exists) is a family member; even the very first time I saw the segment, the stakeout scene pretty much nailed it in my mind. If we take the entire segment at face value as for being how it actually all went down, that's the only theory that makes any sense.

Is/was there any information of a family grudge or anything?

I've also long believed the "attacker" (if one exists) is a family member; even the very first time I saw the segment, the stakeout scene pretty much nailed it in my mind. If we take the entire segment at face value as for being how it actually all went down, that's the only theory that makes any sense.

Is/was there any information of a family grudge or anything?

The only thing I recall right now about a grudge (not necessarily family, tho) was in an actual note that the Wackers had received and was shown on the segment.

The note said something about "getting even". IMO, those words indicate a grudge (if this is not a hoax), but who held the grudge? Neighbors? Family?

Another thing discussed upthread that I thought was interesting is that the harassing events only happened about once or twice a year over a period of ten years. The Wackers said that leading up to the night they did the stake out, things had been happening more frequently, but they did give a time frame.

If they weren't being harassed on a much more frequent basis, then it sure seems odd that on the night they decide to do the fairly short stake out, they hear thumping on the house and find another note. That sort of makes it seem like one of the people involved in the stake out was the harasser or the hoaxer.

If it wasn't the Wackers or a family member, the only other thing I can think of is that a nearby neighbor could have been watching the Wacker's house, observed the amateur stake out, and decided to pull another one of their stunts with a bigger audience for a bigger thrill. But IIRC, that would be the first time there were other witnesses besides the Wackers. If that's right, then it's another odd thing.... to change up a 10 year pattern of harassment, and for the first time, have several other people present when leaving the note, and greatly increasing the chances of getting caught.

I just remembered that when Dorothy was attacked by the guy who came in to use the phone, she was knocked unconscious, tied up, and some of their stuff was stolen.

When she regained consciousness and got help from the neighbors and her husband came home, they discovered the "cheaper but will do" note written on the wall.

That whole situation seems absurd, especially when they'd had break ins and ransackings before, and then while recovering from surgery, she lets a stranger into her house to use the phone. But the thief wastes valuable time writing notes on the wall? What's that all about?

Can you think of any other crimes where notes were written on the walls of the victim's house?

The only ones I can think of right now are the Manson murders, the somewhat copycat MacDonald murders, and maybe a couple cases I've heard about over the years where someone wrote something in lipstick on a bathroom mirror.... can't remember enough about that to pinpoint what cases they were and kind of crimes were involved.

So do petty thieves and old lady bashers stop to write notes on the wall or do they get the heck out? Is the note on the wall in the Wacker's case believable or does it make the whole thing look more like a hoax?

I have mentioned it before, but I always got the feeling that, one way or another, the situation was far less mysterious than portrayed on Unsolved Mysteries.

I have mentioned it before, but I always got the feeling that, one way or another, the situation was far less mysterious than portrayed on Unsolved Mysteries.

Exactly! It typically is...Looking into these stories, that was the case a lot of the time...Remember, there's no show unless it stays 'mysterious'...

I watched the episode again, and I'm starting to come around to the idea that this case didn't involve strangers. Still haven't decided what was going on tho... grouchy neighbors, attention seeking behavior, their own kids or relatives harassing them...

This whole thing started in 1984. They'd had three break ins where their house was ransacked, and by the third time, they finally called and reported it to police.

Then about six months later, in 1985, Dorothy was home alone, recovering from heart surgery. A man comes to the door saying his car broke down and he needs to use the phone. She lets him in, he uses the phone, then attacks her, knocks her unconscious, ties her up, steals a gun, video camera, watch, and police scanner. Before leaving, he writes, "cheaper but will do" on the wall.

For several years, the Wackers got weird phone calls that include no one saying anything on the other end of the line, heavy breathing, and detailed physical threats. They change their phone number several times but the caller is always able to get the new number and continue the harassment.

Someone leaves notes on their property saying things like "your lights are a laugh", "getting even", and "ha ha". (I actually had to look at a map to see how far Massillon OH is from Circleville OH, thinking the cases might be connected cuz didn't the Circleville write use that infamous "Ha Ha" line too?) The notes look like they are written with the opposite hand than the writer normally uses and it appears to be an effort to keep the person's handwriting from being recognized. Very few people who are stranger to their victims worry about concealing their handwriting. Only someone who is afraid it will be recognized feels the need to disguise it.

Not too long after their property was stolen, the items start being returned. Now if this was a scared teenager, I could see them being afraid of possessing stolen property, maybe they couldn't sell the stuff, or were afraid to sell it and get caught, so dropped the stuff off back at the Wackers house.

But this wasn't teenagers. The Wackers said it was the man in his 20s who attacked Dorothy and then stole their things. I don't think he's going to return them to the victims and risk the police finding his finger prints on those items. A scared teenager might not think of that, but an adult who's a violent enough criminal to attack and tie up an old lady isn't going to take the risk of getting caught just to return the items..... IMO, of course, because we all know there are some really stupid criminals out there! lol But this returning of the items is a rare thing to have happen.

So then, about 8 or 9 years after Dorothy was first attacked by the phone call guy, she's out in her yard at night while her dog is doing his business. She's attacked again, so severely that she has to go to the hospital.

Did the phone call man come back nearly a decade later for another attack? Why? She survived the last attack and can ID him. If she survives this next attack or even dies, the police already have the suspect's sketch and that's who they're going to be going after first. It's hard to believe that he would come back and attack her again after nearly 10 years of just doing petty phone call/note writing stuff.

The criminal acts in this case don't make sense if they are being perpetrated by a stranger or outsider. It seems that the only way all this weirdness make any sense at all is if the Wackers or someone close to them is involved.

It's hard to believe that he would come back and attack her again after nearly 10 years of just doing petty phone call/note writing stuff.

The criminal acts in this case don't make sense if they are being perpetrated by a stranger or outsider. It seems that the only way all this weirdness make any sense at all is if the Wackers or someone close to them is involved.

Agreed. If these acts were in fact committed by a relative stranger pulling mostly petty stuff, the perpetrator would seem to be a criminal anomaly.

I watched the episode again, and I'm starting to come around to the idea that this case didn't involve strangers. Still haven't decided what was going on tho... grouchy neighbors, attention seeking behavior, their own kids or relatives harassing them...

This whole thing started in 1984. They'd had three break ins where their house was ransacked, and by the third time, they finally called and reported it to police.

Then about six months later, in 1985, Dorothy was home alone, recovering from heart surgery. A man comes to the door saying his car broke down and he needs to use the phone. She lets him in, he uses the phone, then attacks her, knocks her unconscious, ties her up, steals a gun, video camera, watch, and police scanner. Before leaving, he writes, "cheaper but will do" on the wall.

For several years, the Wackers got weird phone calls that include no one saying anything on the other end of the line, heavy breathing, and detailed physical threats. They change their phone number several times but the caller is always able to get the new number and continue the harassment.

Someone leaves notes on their property saying things like "your lights are a laugh", "getting even", and "ha ha". (I actually had to look at a map to see how far Massillon OH is from Circleville OH, thinking the cases might be connected cuz didn't the Circleville write use that infamous "Ha Ha" line too?) The notes look like they are written with the opposite hand than the writer normally uses and it appears to be an effort to keep the person's handwriting from being recognized. Very few people who are stranger to their victims worry about concealing their handwriting. Only someone who is afraid it will be recognized feels the need to disguise it.

Not too long after their property was stolen, the items start being returned. Now if this was a scared teenager, I could see them being afraid of possessing stolen property, maybe they couldn't sell the stuff, or were afraid to sell it and get caught, so dropped the stuff off back at the Wackers house.

But this wasn't teenagers. The Wackers said it was the man in his 20s who attacked Dorothy and then stole their things. I don't think he's going to return them to the victims and risk the police finding his finger prints on those items. A scared teenager might not think of that, but an adult who's a violent enough criminal to attack and tie up an old lady isn't going to take the risk of getting caught just to return the items..... IMO, of course, because we all know there are some really stupid criminals out there! lol But this returning of the items is a rare thing to have happen.

So then, about 8 or 9 years after Dorothy was first attacked by the phone call guy, she's out in her yard at night while her dog is doing his business. She's attacked again, so severely that she has to go to the hospital.

Did the phone call man come back nearly a decade later for another attack? Why? She survived the last attack and can ID him. If she survives this next attack or even dies, the police already have the suspect's sketch and that's who they're going to be going after first. It's hard to believe that he would come back and attack her again after nearly 10 years of just doing petty phone call/note writing stuff.

The criminal acts in this case don't make sense if they are being perpetrated by a stranger or outsider. It seems that the only way all this weirdness make any sense at all is if the Wackers or someone close to them is involved.

Agreed. What's interesting (and I think I brought this up some pages back in this thread) is that UM only covered in detail what happened at the very beginning (i.e. the first burglaries and Dorothy's assault) and the then-very recent (Dorothy's outside assault and the stakeout) but were super vague about everything in-between, except for some phone calls and notes.

Do we seriously think nothing major happened between 1985 and 1993? That makes it even less likely that this was a random stranger or acquaintance harassing them. If the story about the guy coming in to use the phone in '85 was legit, then it's extremely unlikely he'd stick around for 8 years just to make some phone calls and then brazenly attack Dorothy even worse the next time.

The "stakeout" would've been the perfect occasion and cover for one of the very family members there that night (or perhaps someone really close to them?) to sneak in that note. UM presented the case very mysteriously, but nothing else makes sense. Particularly since their new changed phone numbers were always found out, and this was in the pre-Google/social networking and even pre-internet days, period.

While I like coming at this from every angle, I don't think it's a plausible theory that Bill & Dorothy were making this up "for attention". Maybe if it were just the burglaries (which could explain the returned items) and phone calls, that could've been believable, but once it got into severe assaults, and over a 9-10 year period up to the UM airing (maybe even longer? Bill lived another 5 years), that's a huge stretch.

And I never bought the UM presented theory that it was a random stranger or a neighbor with a grudge. While we don't know their past (although do we know what either of them did for a living?) it's pretty implausible they'd have made that kind of an enemy! Especially when the long term goal didn't appear to be murder, but simply to make their lives miserable.

I'm fairly convinced it was a neighbor or a family member. In a small town either are just as possible as each other.

I also don't see a stranger doing this.

The criminal acts in this case don't make sense if they are being perpetrated by a stranger or outsider. It seems that the only way all this weirdness make any sense at all is if the Wackers or someone close to them is involved.

I actually think that there may be more than one person involved in these attacks. No I don't think there's some sick group of people working together who are doing harm to the Wackers for God knows what reason. But I do think that the first physical attack happened the way Dorothy described it. I think that the attacker was the one ransacking their house the prior times. When the fourth appearance (first physical attack) happened, I don't think the guy expected Dorothy to be home. Hence why he attacked her and tied her up. Either for out of fear that he will be arrested for attempted murder if the stolen goods are found on him, or if he was having trouble selling them, or even if he had some sort of remorse, he returned the items. Now at this point, I'm assuming there was some sort of local coverage of the attack somewhere. The Wackers were elderly people. Usually the prime target for crank phone calls. It could have been a family member calling them, or a friend of the family making the calls. Young teenagers, most likely. Nothing related to the attack, but somehow Bill and Dorothy assume it's the same guy.

Now here's where things get kind of fuzzy with the 2nd attack. The UM segment makes it seem like Dorothy was attacked from behind with not facing her attacker. I really doubt that after nearly 10 years this guy would show up again and actually time his attack to strike when Dorothy was out in her backyard letting her dog out. What luck to be able to know when Dorothy would be outside alone! Which makes me think this 2nd attack was by someone who knew the Wackers, possibly a neighbor. Neighbors can become very aggressive with each other for the most mundane of reasons. Perhaps Bill and or Dorothy upset a neighbor over something trivial, that caused them to use the initial attacks as a cover to harass them? A neighbor would also be able to watch the activity in the Wacker house and know when Dorothy was home alone, when she let her dog out, the stake out, etc.

I still don't believe they were making it up.

I do think that the first physical attack happened the way Dorothy described it. I think that the attacker was the one ransacking their house the prior times. When the fourth appearance (first physical attack) happened, I don't think the guy expected Dorothy to be home. Hence why he attacked her and tied her up. Either for out of fear that he will be arrested for attempted murder if the stolen goods are found on him, or if he was having trouble selling them, or even if he had some sort of remorse, he returned the items. Now at this point, I'm assuming there was some sort of local coverage of the attack somewhere. The Wackers were elderly people. Usually the prime target for crank phone calls. It could have been a family member calling them, or a friend of the family making the calls. Young teenagers, most likely. Nothing related to the attack, but somehow Bill and Dorothy assume it's the same guy.

Excellent points, and I never quite thought about it from that angle. That's the only thing that makes sense as for why the stolen items were returned. The local coverage, if any, would also explain why the prank calls and notes started some time later.

This first guy's involvement probably only extended to the first 3 ransackings and the attack on Dorothy. UM always tried to make it as mysterious as possible, but I'm sure the phone calls and notes were from someone else.

Remember about the phone calls too, their daughter Kathy said: "They've changed their phone number several times, and whoever's harassing them has come up with the number. How they found it I have no idea."

Now here's where things get kind of fuzzy with the 2nd attack. The UM segment makes it seem like Dorothy was attacked from behind with not facing her attacker. I really doubt that after nearly 10 years this guy would show up again and actually time his attack to strike when Dorothy was out in her backyard letting her dog out. What luck to be able to know when Dorothy would be outside alone! Which makes me think this 2nd attack was by someone who knew the Wackers, possibly a neighbor. Neighbors can become very aggressive with each other for the most mundane of reasons. Perhaps Bill and or Dorothy upset a neighbor over something trivial, that caused them to use the initial attacks as a cover to harass them? A neighbor would also be able to watch the activity in the Wacker house and know when Dorothy was home alone, when she let her dog out, the stake out, etc.

Yeah, the later attack (and the stakeout) are where things get much more disputable to me.

Not sure how relevant this is, but the segment made it seem like they lived in a suburban neighborhood, but their real house was on a rural route kinda street with just a few houses around. That makes it harder to think it was some neighbor with a grudge. Not impossible of course, but I can't see what the motive could've possibly been, or if they'd had any previous beefs with anyone.

I agree with you about that, whoever attacked Dorothy the 2nd time, and harassed them from 1985-1993, may have used the first run of burglaries and the initial attack, as a cover.

This is one of the most interesting/baffling cases ever.

This seems like a revenge type situation. Perp was at some point wronged by the Wackers (at least that's how the perp sees it) and has an axe to grind. Perp also gets his kicks out of it.

Another thing that should be taken into consideration about this case: back in their heyday, it was extremely hard to get your case featured on UM. I've read numerous true crime books where an unsolved homicide, or missing person's loved ones reached out to UM, but due to their huge flooding of people trying to get their case presented, many were turned down. Obviously, the "stranger" or more "mysterious" the case got UM's attention quick. However, consider the case of Debi Whitlock. I don't know if this was ever a full segment or just a special alert, but it took Debi's mother over two years before UM would even agree to come out and "research" the case. They had field producers travel out to these towns, do a little background investigation, and then determine whether or not it was worth their time and money to film a segment. Now had there been even the smallest bit of evidence that the Wackers were making everything up, would UM really want to waste their time AND money on a case that was a clear fake? It's very doubtful.

I have come to the conclusion that UM made this story up and the Wackers are actors lol

This seems like a revenge type situation. Perp was at some point wronged by the Wackers (at least that's how the perp sees it) and has an axe to grind. Perp also gets his kicks out of it.

Yeah, but one point that commonly gets overlooked is that the main incidents happened a good 8 or 9 years apart. The bulk of the bad stuff seemed to happen in the beginning (initial burglaries in 1984/85 and the assault on Dorothy by the dude coming in to use the phone in '85) and again picking up steam in 1993, where Dorothy was severely assaulted the second time, and the "attacker" struck during the family's stakeout.

I very very highly doubt the random guy who attacked her in 85 stuck around and did the very same thing 8 years later, as well as made all those prank phone calls, lol.

I do agree about the revenge bit, and all that makes sense to me is a disgruntled family member (very possibly one of the sons in law on the stakeout), though, who knows what the motive could've been?

. Now had there been even the smallest bit of evidence that the Wackers were making everything up, would UM really want to waste their time AND money on a case that was a clear fake? It's very doubtful.


Resurrection Mary? Rain Boy? Tallman's Ghost? Psychics? Jeffrey MacDonald: Final Appeal? Bigfoot?

Resurrection Mary? Rain Boy? Tallman's Ghost? Psychics? Jeffrey MacDonald: Final Appeal? Bigfoot?

Rain Boy was actually pretty convincing. Ghosts/Bigfoot/etc. are intriguing to people and it's the perfect "mystery" because it can't be solved or unproven. And Jeffrey MacDonald's story alone is more compelling than an elderly couple being harassed...a guy "could" be in prison for the murder of his family while the "real killers" got away.

I've read numerous true crime books where an unsolved homicide, or missing person's loved ones reached out to UM, but due to their huge flooding of people trying to get their case presented, many were turned down.

So the Chair Of Death was more necessary than all all the other homicide and missing cases?

Now had there been even the smallest bit of evidence that the Wackers were making everything up, would UM really want to waste their time AND money on a case that was a clear fake? It's very doubtful.

The Wackers story may not have been a clear fake, but I still think that it was an inside job. The harasser took so many risks and never got caught. The stakeout was a huge red flag.

The Wackers story may not have been a clear fake, but I still think that it was an inside job. The harasser took so many risks and never got caught. The stakeout was a huge red flag.

Yup. Just ask yourself, objectively, what is more likely:

a) that a master criminal can arrive without warning in the middle of Ohio, and harrass and assault a couple for years for no apparent reason, without being detected once or leaving any usable evidence over that entire time, OR
b) a bored, retired elderley person or couple may engage in a little fantasy in order to inject a little exitement and drama in to their lives and get attention from family.

Yup. Just ask yourself, objectively, what is more likely:

a) that a master criminal can arrive without warning in the middle of Ohio, and harrass and assault a couple for years for no apparent reason, without being detected once or leaving any usable evidence over that entire time, OR
b) a bored, retired elderley person or couple may engage in a little fantasy in order to inject a little exitement and drama in to their lives and get attention from family.I've seen both happen around here. Although in a), it wasn't a stranger but someone related to the person in question.

So the Chair Of Death was more necessary than all all the other homicide and missing cases?

Of course not. The show creators said they used these "filler" segments simply to change the flow of the show. They figured a show with 5 segments involving mysterious deaths or missing persons would be somewhat depressing to viewers, so they added the lost loves and other tedious segments to somewhat counteract that.

I went through and reread all 65 pages in this thread. And it's split into two camps: those who believe the Wackers, and those who don't and think they're making it all up. A few thoughts:

-Both Dorothy and Bill would have to have been on this. One could not be making it up without the other. Both were away and returned home together each time their house was ransacked. Both were home when the repeated knocks came on their walls in the middle of the night. Both were home during the stakeout. And Dorothy could not have been the one knocking on the walls during the stakeout, because she was inside with her daughter at the time. The daughter (IIRC) says this in her brief appearance in the segment. She says something along the lines of looking at her mother and saying, "did you hear that" and then getting on the walkie talkie to alert her husband about the noises they heard. So it can't be one without the other.

-Assuming the Wackers are indeed victims, whoever ransacked their house did so while they were both away. Perhaps he knocked on the door the first three times (to make sure no one was home) before breaking in and stealing the items. Then, he did the same thing the fourth time, but didn't expect Dorothy to answer the door so he made up the ruse of having car trouble. His reason for assaulting her could be a number of reasons: angered because she was actually home, hindering his plans, his fear of her making the connection that he was the one responsible for the previous ransackings, or even a personal vendetta against the Wackers for some unknown reason.

-I still believe it's entirely possible that the first attack (and the three prior break-ins) were committed by one guy, while the other later attack and harassment was picked up by another person/s and used under the pretense that they were all being done by the same guy. Think about it. The segment says that the photo of the attacker was widely distributed in the area, so there had to be some local gossip going on about who this guy was and what was going on with the Wackers. Someone, who held some sort of grudge against the Wackers, could have used this information to help their plans to attempt to get them to move away from the area (for whatever reason they had to do so).

-If this attacker was a neighbor or a relative, wouldn't this make the whole "blind spot in the stakeout" more plausible? A relative would know their property fairly well, as would a neighbor. Plus, isn't it logical that Bill and/or Dorothy would have talked to their neighbors and asked them if they saw or heard anything during these incidents? And isn't it possible that one or both mentioned the stakeout idea to a neighbor during one of their conversations?

-The prank phone calls are probably not connected to the attacks, the notes, or the banging on the walls. The UM segment didn't specify whether or not Dorothy believed the caller to be the same person, but this very well could have been someone close to the family (they kept changing their number several times) who were just goofing off prank phone calling them.

-A lot of people have criticized the Wackers lack of doing anything after the attacks/episodes. But the reenactment shows Bill with a gun after hearing one of the knocks on the wall episodes. And the security lights are a pretty standard thing that people get on their houses to prevent break ins or intruders. I see them all over my neighborhood.

-Someone brought up earlier in this thread that Dorothy was a lifelong member of her church. If they were perpetuating a hoax, why would she risk being shunned by not only members of her community, but also the members of her church?

-Looking at the satellite photos of the property shows a large field between the Wackers house and their neighbor's house. Perhaps a property line dispute could be another motive in this case, if it is in fact the work of an angry neighbor. Not to mention that the backyard looks to be surrounded by a wooded area. Seems like this isn't your typical suburban neighborhood where there's a house and a yard every 20 feet. Getting away undetected would be easier under these conditions.

Yeah, but one point that commonly gets overlooked is that the main incidents happened a good 8 or 9 years apart. The bulk of the bad stuff seemed to happen in the beginning (initial burglaries in 1984/85 and the assault on Dorothy by the dude coming in to use the phone in '85) and again picking up steam in 1993, where Dorothy was severely assaulted the second time, and the "attacker" struck during the family's stakeout.

I very very highly doubt the random guy who attacked her in 85 stuck around and did the very same thing 8 years later, as well as made all those prank phone calls, lol.

I do agree about the revenge bit, and all that makes sense to me is a disgruntled family member (very possibly one of the sons in law on the stakeout), though, who knows what the motive could've been?

Yeah the random attacker idea is absurd. To believe some random person attacked the wackers then continued to harass them for 9 years plus is bordering on mentally insane thinking. It just doesn't happen. This wasn't some neighborhood teens, this wasn't some random kook. This wasn't just something done for fun. it was either the wackers themselves or someone with a clear motive and problem with the wackers.

Hi everyone,

I've never even seen this segment but I just finished reading all 66 pages. :crazy: I have only two comments that I didn't see addressed:

1. Somebody mentioned this post (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=1381553&postcount=1) and said they were unable to follow up with the person. I Googled that username and found somebody in Ohio using the same username for Twitter (https://twitter.com/sommersbdlr), so even though the post is 11 years old I believe somebody could contact him (Ross Sommers) via Twitter or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/campaigners) (I think this is him...?) and try to see what info he was alluding to in his original post.

2. This story reminded me a lot of the Courtney Kuykendall (http://www.techhive.com/article/133630/article.html) tale from about 7 years ago, although that was a much higher tech version involving cell phones. The big similarity is the pounding on the outside of the house in the middle of the night and the sneaking suspicion that it was an inside job/hoax.

Interesting info cherryblues. Thanks for sharing that!

[QUOTE=cherryblues]Hi everyone,

I've never even seen this segment but I just finished reading all 66 pages. :crazy: I have only two comments that I didn't see addressed:

1. Somebody mentioned this post (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=1381553&postcount=1) and said they were unable to follow up with the person. I Googled that username and found somebody in Ohio using the same username for Twitter (https://twitter.com/sommersbdlr), so even though the post is 11 years old I believe somebody could contact him (Ross Sommers) via Twitter or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/campaigners) (I think this is him...?) and try to see what info he was alluding to in his original post.

Did anyone contact this guy? I'd love to know what his hunch is!

[QUOTE=cherryblues]Hi everyone,

I've never even seen this segment but I just finished reading all 66 pages. :crazy: I have only two comments that I didn't see addressed:

1. Somebody mentioned this post (http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showpost.php?p=1381553&postcount=1) and said they were unable to follow up with the person. I Googled that username and found somebody in Ohio using the same username for Twitter (https://twitter.com/sommersbdlr), so even though the post is 11 years old I believe somebody could contact him (Ross Sommers) via Twitter or Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/campaigners) (I think this is him...?) and try to see what info he was alluding to in his original post.

Did anyone contact this guy? I'd love to know what his hunch is!
I wouldn't get too hopeful about it.

I don't use Twitter and it looks like he hasn't used it since 2012 or so, so I'm not sure how easy it would be to contact him that way (do you just send a tweet with his name and hope he notices?).

I finally saw this segment last night. I actually jumped from my seat and shouted "yes!" when the segment started (I recognized the still image of the house from researching this thread). It's funny, I had used this thread to create my own mental image and the show didn't quite "match" what I'd imagined.

The main thing I came away with, and I may be quite naive, is that Bill seems totally honest in his interviews and Dorothy seems VERY suspicious. However, I could be completely misreading her (and this thread may have influenced me). Something just seems off or inauthentic during her interviews. I don't get that vibe from Bill at all. He seems perplexed, she seems mischievous.

Having said that, I tend to agree that both of them would have to be involved if it were real. Minor inconsistencies in the re-enactments could account for some of the more unbelievable aspects of the case.

Then again, I still want to know what that Ross guy has to say. I sent him a message on Facebook but it will probably sit unread in his "Other" folder since we're not friends. (Edit: Just realized I could send him an e-mail from his post, so I've tried that too.)

One last thing - somebody posted that the composite of the attacker looks just like the police officer discussing the case, only without glasses, and I couldn't see the cop without cracking up. :lol:

One last thing - somebody posted that the composite of the attacker looks just like the police officer discussing the case, only without glasses, and I couldn't see the cop without cracking up. :lol:

I never noticed that, but it really does look like him! :lol:

Yeah the random attacker idea is absurd. To believe some random person attacked the wackers then continued to harass them for 9 years plus is bordering on mentally insane thinking. It just doesn't happen. This wasn't some neighborhood teens, this wasn't some random kook. This wasn't just something done for fun. it was either the wackers themselves or someone with a clear motive and problem with the wackers.
i still cant see how they did this to themselves. it just seems hard, now, i still think it was a neighbor, someone they knew who did this and my guess is (for
whatever reason) the motive is they just dont like older couples around and wanted to scare them off, but i dont think this is random. if this was random, then how did this guy pick his target? and how did they always get the Wackers' numbers and manage to not get seen when knocking?? i think this person knew the Wackers.

The repeated calls despite changing numbers and pounding on the side of the house are both similar to the 2007 case I posted earlier, but everyone seemed very quick to blame the teenage girl at the center of all the "harassment". Now I'm wondering if she saw this episode and felt inspired!

That said, it would be easiest to explain the calls and pounding by suggesting neither actually happened. I know UM showed someone else in the room during the re-enacted stake-out pounding but we already know it wasn't filmed in their actual house so they may not have striven to match the scenario exactly.

The repeated calls despite changing numbers and pounding on the side of the house are both similar to the 2007 case I posted earlier, but everyone seemed very quick to blame the teenage girl at the center of all the "harassment". Now I'm wondering if she saw this episode and felt inspired!

That said, it would be easiest to explain the calls and pounding by suggesting neither actually happened. I know UM showed someone else in the room during the re-enacted stake-out pounding but we already know it wasn't filmed in their actual house so they may not have striven to match the scenario exactly.


the wackers case is radically different. The harassment in this case went on for over a decade. The idea it was some teenage hoodlums is insane thinking and completely wrong. No teen is gonna harass some old couple for 10 plus years.

This harassment had clear motives, known to the perp. This wasn't some "kids "tp"ing some house on drunken dares type stuff.

It goes way deeper than that. The perp(s) had clear beef and issues with the wackers.

The extent of the harassment is why the consensus seems to be that it's easier to believe that the calls, theft, and pounding were all fabricated by the Wackers rather than someone tormenting them for a decade without capture. Only the physical "attacks" on Dorothy seem to be rooted in some truth.

The extent of the harassment is why the consensus seems to be that it's easier to believe that the calls, theft, and pounding were all fabricated by the Wackers rather than someone tormenting them for a decade without capture. Only the physical "attacks" on Dorothy seem to be rooted in some truth.

What motive would the Wackers have in making some aspects of their story up, if the attacks did indeed (and they obviously did) happen?

What motive would the Wackers have in making some aspects of their story up, if the attacks did indeed (and they obviously did) happen?


For attention, and to add a little drama and excitement to the humdrum retiree life.

Its a game of percentages. What is more likely - that these people were making up stories? Or that some unknown assailants could harrass them for over a decade with no motive, never once being seen or leaving any usable evidence?

That's about as likely as a group of hippies entering a tiny apartment, slaughtering an entire family and causing some minor injuries to the father, and then leaving without leaving any evidence that they were ever there!

For attention, and to add a little drama and excitement to the humdrum retiree life.

They could have just joined a bridge club instead of clubbing their spouse over the head and tying her up to make their story more believable.

Making stuff like this up for fun isn't typical elderly person's behavior.

They could have just joined a bridge club instead of clubbing their spouse over the head and tying her up to make their story more believable.

Exactly. I actually believe it's far more likely someone was systematically harassing them than the notion that an elderly couple (likely physically limited as it is) would stage multiple house ransacks and at least two physical attacks simply because they were "bored". Many retirees find ways to keep themselves fulfilled and busy--they garden, they craft, they travel. They typically don't bop their spouses upside the head.

It's actually, IMO, borderline absurd to think a retired couple would go through all of this trouble (they actually did get law enforcement involved on several occasions, thereby risking their chances of getting caught even more) over a ten year span because they wanted "attention".

I've said this before, but it probably bares repeating since I don't expect most folks to read the entire thread....

I have a strong belief that the "Wackers did it" theory is the work of UM fans who have watched the segment too many times, and zeroed in on points from the re-enactments that are impossible to verify.

It's kinda like the "Rob did it" crowd in the Angela Hammond case.

It is frustrating in any event.

It's actually, IMO, borderline absurd to think a retired couple would go through all of this trouble (they actually did get law enforcement involved on several occasions, thereby risking their chances of getting caught even more) over a ten year span because they wanted "attention".


It is no more absurd to think that than to think some random psycho would harrass them (for no reason whatsoever) for a decade and in that entire time never once get caught, never once be seen by another person or, indeed, ever leave behind any evidence of any nature whatsoever.

It is no more absurd to think that than to think some random psycho would harrass them (for no reason whatsoever) for a decade and in that entire time never once get caught, never once be seen by another person or, indeed, ever leave behind any evidence of any nature whatsoever.

Doesn't have to be a random psycho, it could be someone known to the Wackers with a personal grudge. It's not uncommon for neighbors to get into it over trivial matters and go to extreme lengths to get revenge.

Doesn't have to be a random psycho, it could be someone known to the Wackers with a personal grudge. It's not uncommon for neighbors to get into it over trivial matters and go to extreme lengths to get revenge.

This is what I think is most likely. I never thought it was someone who just wanted to mess with a couple of elderly people. I always thought that this was someone within Bill and Dorothy's family or someone close to it.

There were plenty of people who sought attention from the public by making up stories about ghosts and aliens in the 80s/90s - if the Wackers story was a hoax it would be a lot less strange than those IMO.

There were plenty of people who sought attention from the public by making up stories about ghosts and aliens in the 80s/90s - if the Wackers story was a hoax it would be a lot less strange than those IMO.

A lot of the people were seeking to sell their stories, that doesn't fit in with the Wackers at all. They involved law enforcement first, before appearing on UM, which also so happens to be the only media outlet it seems the Wackers reached out to. Doesn't sound like much fame seeking, does it?

A lot of the people were seeking to sell their stories, that doesn't fit in with the Wackers at all. They involved law enforcement first, before appearing on UM, which also so happens to be the only media outlet it seems the Wackers reached out to. Doesn't sound like much fame seeking, does it?

Actually, that's what I find odd about the explosion of ghost/alien stories from that era (that I can only assume were mostly fabricated or intentionally exaggerated)... people seemed to want to tell these stories publicly only for the attention (not money), without concern that they could be considered silly/crazy in the long run. Just regular folks who wanted their 15 seconds back when the mainstream media was the only outlet.

It wouldn't be surprising to me if the Wackers only intended to get attention from locals originally (hence contacting local LE).

I'm not convinced either way on the hoax theory, but it does seem slightly more plausible to me than the alternative.

It wouldn't be surprising to me if the Wackers only intended to get attention from locals originally (hence contacting local LE).

But this would be crazy to do, if they were in fact making everything up. Not only would Bill (or Dorothy) had to have viciously attacked Dorothy, they also would need to make sure their stories were the same, have alibis for the dates when Dorothy was home alone, etc. One crack in their story and that would have garnered suspicion that they were making it up. It would have folded like a house of cards from there.

I think this is one of the few threads to reach 1,000 posts here. And here come 1,000 more.

Self-edit: Now that was weird, seeing a 4-digit number in the post count. A surreal moment on the forum for me.

There doesn't have to be any attacks...If Dorothy was crazy and doing all of this (which I think she was) there wouldn't have to be anybody attacking anybody else...She is the common denominator here...When anything happened, she was there...

There doesn't have to be any attacks...If Dorothy was crazy and doing all of this (which I think she was) there wouldn't have to be anybody attacking anybody else...She is the common denominator here...When anything happened, she was there...

The original, first attack was legit, wasn't it? I mean, no one really doubts that, do they? (Forgive me; haven't seen this segment in years).

I wonder if the first attack really did happen, and maybe she got kind of addicted to the attention and excitement that it brought into her life? Kind of like Munchensen Syndrome. I think it is possible that one of the attacks could have been legitimate, but the later harassment was made up.

It's a clear case of Munchausen

I think Rob Shafer attacked the Wackers.

What motive would the Wackers have in making some aspects of their story up, if the attacks did indeed (and they obviously did) happen?


either scenario, whether a person doing it for 10 plus years, or the wackers themselves, that person/people are completely insane

I think Rob Shafer attacked the Wackers.

:lol:

I think Rob Shafer attacked the Wackers.

I think it was the drugged-out hippies who killed Jeffrey MacDonald's family.

I think Rob Shafer attacked the Wackers.With his accomplice, Dale Kerstetter.

With all that money, they could torture an old couple for years and just pay off the cops/neighbors. Not to mention we all know how diabolical a schemer Kerstetter is.

Case solved.

I heard Charles Holden saw the assailant heading toward the Wacker home, but didn't "do anything about it."

I heard Charles Holden saw the assailant heading toward the Wacker home, but didn't "do anything about it."

"Megadeth" showed up as they were leaving, and informed them that their cigarettes... "they're bad for you."

"Megadeth" showed up as they were leaving, and informed them that their cigarettes... "they're bad for you."

Right after Joe Jones got done dumping Su Ya Kim's body, he approached the Wackers for $20 to become their personal security.

After examining Dorothy after the attack, Dr. Fahmy Malak determined she smoked the equivalent of twenty marijuana cigarettes and ruled her injuries accidental. Case closed!

(Actually, David Dowaliby is obviously a viable suspect. Just look at the honker on that composite sketch.)

Patricia Stallings began poisoning Dorothy shortly after her return from the hospital.

I heard Charles Holden saw the assailant heading toward the Wacker home, but didn't "do anything about it."

Charles Holden drove the assailant to the Wackers house! Fry him!

If neither one of the Wackers were involved, then this is one of the most interesting, baffling cases of all time.

None of the family members ever spoke out in later years? Wonder how long it did continue.

Just re-watched it again yesterday. I find it curious that the Wackers always, and I mean always picked up the items and notes left on the porch with their bare hands. I could understand that in the beginning since they didn't know what they were, but you think they would learn after the 80 millionth time not to handle them with their bare hands so as not to destroy any fingerprints on there.