Does anyone remember the story about the wackers. An elderly couple being terrorized by intruders. They would not move and could never find a trace of evidence who was doing all this to them. It is probablly one of the older ones. Late 80's early 90's.

yes, I remember that one. I personally think that the husband is responsible for the whole thing.

It aired originally in 1994. I saw it on Lifetime not too long ago. I really didn't know what to think of the case.

I have went nuts with curiousity wondering what happened with this case. I know its very possible that they both are deceased now. I even emailed the Stark Co. Sheriff's Dept. a few days ago to inquire about whether there was an arrest, but haven't received anything back.

Ninja Man you really think the husband did it? Why what the motive be. My favorite part was "Your lights are a laugh". I still crack people up telling them that when they have survaliance lights.

The more appropriate question is "what would anyone else's motive be?" Why would anyone waste time tormenting an elderly couple who had no known enemies? Furthermore, notes were found on the deck after people had been watching the situation closely. The husband is one of the only ones who could have put them there. There are no clear answers, but it seems that the husband was a little too phony during the interview for me to believe him.

I think Bill Wacker is right it was just soom Koock. I bet he got a kick from it. Man he had some classic quotes. I doubt he did it though. Anyway classic case, someone should write a book about it.

If it wasn't Bill himself, then I wonder if it might have been either their son or son-in-law who was harassing them? It just seems odd that the thug managed to bang on the house and escape undetected even with the younger men watching!
If they've left this world, I hope they were able to find out who was behind it and why!

I think Bill Wacker is right it was just soom Koock.

Intriguing

Self edit. Damn, and it was rather clever, too. But without the preceeding and quoted reference point, deleted from cyberspace, this post is just another excuse to share the orange shorts.

It may not necessarily be Bill, but I do think it is or was somebody close to the Wackers. Perhaps a relative or close friend or neighbor. I reached that conclusion on two points. First, it had stated that the Wackers had changed their phone number several times, but the calls kept coming, which would most likely mean the Wackers (perhaps unknowingly) kept giving out their phone number to the perpetrator or perpetrators. Second, it was stated that the handwriting on the notes that were written appeared that it was done with the opposite hand the writer would usually use, implying that the writer wanted to hide their idendity. That would probably mean that the Wackers would recognize the handwriting had it been written with the hand the writer usually writes with.

We do know that the first attack on Dorothy was by somebody she did not recognize. There are several possibilities here. It could be the perpetrator himself, or it could be an unrelated incident, or it could have been somebody hired by Bill.

Whatever the case may be, I agree with some of the previous posts that it is hard to believe the perpetrator(s) did this stuff for a decade without ever being caught. One has to wonder if it was something supernatural. I have no idea what the motives could be.

Given the Cindy James case can we rule out Mrs. Wacker? Just asking...?

Given the Cindy James case can we rule out Mrs. Wacker? Just asking...?

Now THAT'S an interesting theory...

You think she would hit herself over the head and tie herself up?

Good question Ako...

Well Cindy James according to some people did a lot of weird stuff to herself.. .Mrs. Wacker seemed pretty nice but...

Whose to say she didn't tie herself up like Cindy James allegedly did, and :::just hypothetical here::: a)while tying herself up either fell and hit her head accidenty, b)after tying herself up intentionally fell and hit her head or c) faked the head injury

I read somewhere that Munchausen by Proxy (where parents make their children sick or claim their children are sick to gain attention) predominately is found in mothers (women) what about hypocondria?...

I'm not sure what really happened to the Wackers but it seems plausible if we can think it was Mr. Wacker we can't rule out Mrs. Wacker because she appeared to be a victim of a violent crime which is where I was going by the Munchausen.... maybe an intruder/Mr. Wacker really did hit her in the head... whose to say Mrs. Wacker didn't like the attention so much/feared being alone so much that she didn't continue the ruse in order to find some piece of mind???)

The fact that so many people were watching the house, like the Cindy James case leads me to believe it was somebody very close to the Wackers or one/both of the Wackers themselves who were involved.

Like Cindy James this is another good case that raises a lot more questions that it will every answer:confused:

I think this is a story of a lonely old couple who wanted some attention. Instead of volunteering their time to a worthwhile cause, they decided to "be the victims" of some horrible person. I think they were both in on it and loved every bit of attention they got.

Good to see this thread up and running again. :cheers:

Anyhoo, I still can't get over the clever escape the stalker made when all the family members were watching the house, knocking on the door and fleeing without being seen. Maybe it was Sam Fisher from "Splinter Cell". He's known to lurk in the shadows and move undetected. ;)

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y77/BigTMan/531girlsone.jpg

This case was on today. This is one of the more bizarre cases I have seen on UM. This seemingly lovely elderly couple is assaulted, harassed and tormented for over ten years by an unknown person. Looking in the re-enactment at how they staked out their own house there was a blind spot there. It wasnt a big one but I can see how the guy could get in there and get out without being seen. I did consider that Bill Wacker was some how involved. Either he did it himself or he hired someone to do it. But what would his motive be? I think this is why he was eliminated as a suspect. They couldnt find a motive for him to do it. It is curious how no neighbors or anyone else saw anything. I do think it is likely the Wackers knew this guy or knew someone that knew the guy. Whomever it was sounds like they have some mental issues, but they arent stupid. They got away with it for so long. But whoever it was would steal stuff and then return it. That is what is strange. The notes in crayon. Why would the Wackers be targeted? That is what I cant figure out. Bill Wacker died in 1999 but apperantly Dorothy is still alive.

I'm so excited this case was on today! I've waited my whole life to see this segment and finally I get the chance to! I have it recorded on my VCR and I will watch it later tonight. This is great news!

I'm so excited this case was on today! I've waited my whole life to see this segment and finally I get the chance to! I have it recorded on my VCR and I will watch it later tonight. This is great news!

I'm glad you'll finally get to see it Mr. Fuji. :)

You know a good portion of posters (like I) feel that Bill and Dorothy Wacker were both victims and a few have indicated they think Bill Wacker is guilty. A plausible scenario in my opinion is that the harasser could have been one of their neighbors. Of course its not known what type of motive they would have had but that makes as much sense as anything else. That would explain why the perpetrator would be able to sneak in and out in a blind spot as he would be very familiar with the area and probably knew ahead the night the Wacker's and their family were sitting in the driveway. That would also explain why none of the neighbors reported seeing anyone suspicious in the area, no one would have thought twice about seeing a neighbor walking near the Wacker home.

Well I just dont think Bill Wacker did this nor had anything to do with this. What I think is an interesting possiblity is this. You know how when the assaults on Dorothy always happened when Bill wasnt around? I think the person that did this knew Bill wasnt going to be around and attacked Dorothy at these times to make it look like Bill did it or to make it look curious that they happened when Bill wasnt there. I think it was someone that the Wackers knew but didnt suspect. It seemed in hearing the Wackers talk that they didnt suspect it was someone they knew. I think that was a good point on crystaldawns part that it very well could be a neighbor. Why this neighbor would have such a deep seeded hatred of the Wackers I have no idea.

What I find so odd about this case is whoever was doing this was able to torment this couple for 10 years & noone ever saw a thing. That just seems really fishy to me.

I can honestly say I'm torn on this. I'm a little inclined to agree with AKook (I finally got the joke about that name) who is sure that Bill is guilty. But the question of motive keeps coming up and I just can't find a motive for Bill to do it. It just seems so implausible that someone else could do all of that stuff without ever getting caught, plus the fact that he returned all of that stuff. That seems like a likely story; possibly Bill waited a while and realized he wanted the stuff back so he invented some story about finding it on his porch.

Here's another one of my theories: Unsolved Mysteries made the whole damn thing up as a ratings ploy. Maybe this case is just too darn weird to actually be true.

This campares to the Cindy James case. If it was just some Kook, then the suspect, whoever it was, would have had to be pretty 'good' at what they were doing, not to be found out. Likewise the Cindy James case. I don't believe Bill Wacker could've been staging it. Why start after being married forty-some years and living together all that time? Like Bill Wacker said, "What it comes down to is that he gets his kicks out of this. A Kook."

RIP Bill

The Wacker story came on Lifetime again yesterday (or maybe the day before, it is on my TIVO). This case is quite simple.

When Bill Wacker was sitting at the table being interviewed on the segment, his wife was sitting quietly beside him. When Bill said something to the effect of "why should we be scared or move away from here" I noticed his wife was smirking, very subtly, but noticeably if you watch it back. Of course, she could be smirking at his histrionic behavior and his laughable (no pun intended) usage of the now infamous word "kook," but I took it more as a smug smirk, like "hey we are fooling all of you imbeciles and having a hoot doing it." As a result of this and the fact that no one has ever been caught, seen, heard, smelled, sensed via ESP or remote viewing, I feel that the only alternative is that Bill AND Dorothy are in this as a publicity stunt. This would explain the fact no one has ever been seen, it would explain the skepticism of the neighbors, and it would explain why supposedly "stolen" items were returned. Returned items are very convenient if they were not stolen in the first place. ;)

As for those who think Bill was in on it solo, this seems doubtful since it would imply that his wife really was attacked, tied up, beaten etc... Why would she stay complacent in this when she knows obviously who the culprit is?

...and to think it all started from letting a stranger inside to use the telephone...let that be a lesson to everyone. the whole thing kinda reeks of a hoax. either by the Wackers themselves-or at the very least the producers
of UM used a little creative license to concoct a story that may be
only partially based on real events. I just dont think the Wackers got the police involved enough.

Well this case is truly bizarre as I said. Ohio seems to be a place where a lot of strange and scary things happen. Similar to Washington state in that regard. I dont know what it is. I dont think the Wackers made this up. I mean you guys base that they made up based on the fact that Dorothy smirked a little during the statement. The police and paramedics were called. Remember it said Dorothy was put in the hospital with skull lacerations. Clearly someone assaulted her unless you are suggesting she assaulted herself. Basically, I dont understand why at their ages, they looked like they were in their late 60's, early 70's at least. Why would they all of a sudden have this sudden need for publicity? Why after almost 50 years of marriage would Bill just decide to start attacking his wife? It doesnt add up that they would just start doing this one day.

The man who was the sheriff of Stark County at the time of the Wacker segment on UM, Bruce Umpleby died in office in August of 1999. If you want to contact the sheriff or the sheriff's office for more information. The Sheriff currently is Timothy Swanson and he served on the sheriff's department during the whole time the Wacker thing was going on. Here is a site with more info on him it even surprisingly has his home address.

http://www.starkdemocrats.com/bio.php?name=Timothy+A.+Swanson

I just cant see the husband doing that to his wife. I mean why would he do that.

The Wacker story came on Lifetime again yesterday (or maybe the day before, it is on my TIVO). This case is quite simple.

When Bill Wacker was sitting at the table being interviewed on the segment, his wife was sitting quietly beside him. When Bill said something to the effect of "why should we be scared or move away from here" I noticed his wife was smirking, very subtly, but noticeably if you watch it back. Of course, she could be smirking at his histrionic behavior and his laughable (no pun intended) usage of the now infamous word "kook," but I took it more as a smug smirk, like "hey we are fooling all of you imbeciles and having a hoot doing it." As a result of this and the fact that no one has ever been caught, seen, heard, smelled, sensed via ESP or remote viewing, I feel that the only alternative is that Bill AND Dorothy are in this as a publicity stunt. This would explain the fact no one has ever been seen, it would explain the skepticism of the neighbors, and it would explain why supposedly "stolen" items were returned. Returned items are very convenient if they were not stolen in the first place. ;)

As for those who think Bill was in on it solo, this seems doubtful since it would imply that his wife really was attacked, tied up, beaten etc... Why would she stay complacent in this when she knows obviously who the culprit is?Excellent observations. I too noticed Dorothy's little smirk when I watched it yesterday. Also, the cop mentioning that he has never seen a case where a gun was returned to the scene of the crime. That simply never happens.

I live only a few blocks from the Wackers, and if you had a chance to see that neighborhood, you'd see how difficult it would be for strangers to just waltz in and terrorize people with impunity.

I'm more convinced than ever it was an inside job.

Well I just cant believe the Wackers did that or knew who did it. Do you think it could have been a relative of theirs? What do you know about the Wackers? I am assuming you met them. Bill passed away in 1999 but I am assuming Dorothy is still alive because I couldnt find anything on her. I am assuming it is a small town they lived in. Did they eventually move?

As someone said, Dorothy was taken to the hospital at one point due to injuries by this supposed attacker. It is possible that the man who used the phone was an isolated incident, and she happened to be a suitable victim for a robbery as he saw it. It could be that the Wacker's fell victim to a non-sequitar line of reasoning, that is their conclusions do not follow from their premise. Just because she was attacked by a stranger once does not mean he is responsible for the notes and the ransacked house. However, I feel that they are involved in this themselves for a publicity stunt, and it is likely Dorothy's injuries were not a result of an attack at all but perhaps of a fall or some other previous injury. Even though the neighbors found her tied up, it is possible she and Bill staged that incident.

it is telling that no one, to my knowledge, ever came forward and recognized the composite drawing of the blonde haired man. Presumably if they really were being harassed, it would be from someone in the neighborhood who had easy access to their house on a whim. If no one recognized the drawing, it is unlikely this face represented any real person.

I think I'm 50/50 on this one. On one hand it seems so unlikely that Bill would be in on it given how long he had been married to Dorothy, but the more I think about it, the more Bill's actions seem fishy. Here's some new things I just thought of:

-Hovalash had a good point about thinking Bill didn't get the police involved enough. That reminded me that Bill waitied until the third time his house had been burglarized to contact the police. I think most everyone would be calling the police the first time around. Also, why did they just do one stakeout. Since they had gotten close during the first stakeout (perpetrator came around just after it ended), why not do more?
-Bill wouldn't even entertain the idea of moving. I can kind of see where's he's coming from a little bit, but if a loved one of mine had been attacked twice (not to mention all of the other stuff they put up with), I would at least consider moving, if not definitely move.
-I kind of touched upon this in an earlier post, but the main reason I think The Wackers knew who was doing this was due to the perpetrator calling, even after they had changed their phone number several times. Unless they kept having their phone number listed, which would seem unlikely given what was happening to them, the person calling almost certainly would have had to get the number from the Wackers

I don't think it could be Bill, really... To suddenly do something like that... And surely other people would have to be involved. How do you get someone to do that?

"I'm looking for someone to help torment my wife."

I really don't think so.

has the weird stuff stopped ? Or is it still going on ?

has the weird stuff stopped ? Or is it still going on ?

If it has stopped, maybe it stopped before he died. Maybe it's still going on, though. If it stopped around the time he died, well... that would be very telling.

If it's still going on, that would be sick. Not only was she old then, but she's even older now... That segment was pretty old.

Sorry to bring back this exhausted topic, but did anyone else think it was weird that seconds after the Wackers surveillance ended (when they had various family members staked out in the neighborhood), the rumple was heard and the note was left: "Get the message?" It may or may not be Bill Wacker, but I believe it's got to be somebody close to the Wackers, perhaps somebody in their immediate family.

It was DB Cooper, plain and simple.

Damn! And all this time I thought it was Bonnie Wilder!

somebody awhile back mentioned that Dorothy Wacker smiled at one point when Bill was talking. I hadn't noticed it before, but I just rewatched the segment yesterday, and they were right. SHE IS SMILING! I think this case just took yet another turn.....

Damn! And all this time I thought it was Bonnie Wilder!

:wasntme:

It was Richard Floyd McCoy, plain and simple.

Finally someone typing sense

Finally someone typing sense

Well, they are one in the same. :D

I really want to know what's going on with Dorthy.This is a very strange case.

Last edited by Tony Ballesteros : 01-19-2007 at 43:21 PM.

Last edited by Tony Ballesteros : 01-19-2007 at 43:21 PM.


:confused: :confused: :confused:

:confused: :confused: :confused:

I was hoping you could explain it to me

Well this case I just dont know. The more times I watch it the more I dont know what the heck was going on. I mean I have a hard time believing both of them were in on it mainly because why would a woman Dorothy's age subject herself to such violent injuries just to draw attention to herself? I dont want to believe Bill had anything to do with it however I do acknowledge it is possible that he was doing the injuries to her or even just as bad is that he could have been contracting the job out and paying someone else to do this to her and call their house and bang on the sides and stuff. However I sthill think what was probably the case was someone was tormenting them although the motive behind it is unknown to me unless the guy was just doing it for kicks as Bill had suggested. Bill Wacker died in 1999 but I do believe Dorothy is still alive.

I think I might have touched upon this previously, and I don't want to seem unsympathetic, I have a lot of sympathy for the Wackers (unless they staged this whole thing), but did anyone else think they didn't respond enough? I mean, a solid decade of incidents (2 attacks on Dorothy, 3 burglaries, and who knows how many threatening notes and phone calls). Bill only reports one of the burglaries, has only one surveillance, and installs that security light, which I knew wouldn't work as soon as he mentioned it, and sure enough. They refused to move, didn't report the first two burglaries, it must not have occured to them to get an answering machine so they could screen the calls, or put a video camera somewhere out in the front yard so maybe they can figure out who's doing this, and they stopped the surveillances just as they were getting close. All of these things combined lead me to say that I will go on record right now and say this is the most baffling mystery on UM that I have seen. Is it just me?

Well while it is unusual that he didnt call the sheriff until the 3rd time, how big were the previous burglaries? Were they ran sackings as well? Or was just an item or two taken? If it was another ran sacking than that is unusual that they wouldnt call the cops after the first one. Yes they didnt install a video camera or things like that but some of those robberies occurred in the 1980's and video camera's were still not common place in a lot of places in this country. Plus the Wacker's were from an older more trusting of people generation. Maybe they thought if they didnt report the burglary the problem would go away? Maybe they thought it would get worse if they called the cops? That is still weird that they didnt call the cops but there are possible reasons why they didnt. It is also possible Bill was paying someone to do this to his own wife and to his own home to give the impression it was a burglary. The part of a gun being returned after it was stolen, very, very unusual indeed as the sheriff said he had never had a gun returned to a victim after it was stolen. If you notice a lot of these attacks occurred when Bill was not home. So it is possible that he was indeed paying someone to do this on his wife. Although I do not really understand what his motive would be for doing that. That is why I wont say he did that or was involved because I cannot for the life of me understand what someone's motive would be to do that after being married so long. These attacks were escalating in violence though it seemed so I dont know what to think here. Very strange indeed.

Well if it did all stop when he passed on it either means he was the one doing most of it in partnership with other people or the malice was directed towards him and the best way to get to him was by attacking his wife and once he died it was mission accomplished or the theory I am leaning towards that she was in on it with somebody else for whatever reason- the main reason I say that is if you watch the segment when he is ranting on she starts smirking which is pretty odd behaviour if you have been assaulted by unknown assailants twice and he certainly seemed to be the one who was getting more worked up about it, perhaps she wanted a divorce or to move to another house as if I remember it correctly the threat was to move away and she thought that would be the best way to achieve it and once he had passed on there was no need for it to continue any longer, great segment and story though whatever really happened there

You know, I am still torn on this one. I would probably be more inclined to believe that the Wackers either one of them or both of them staged the whole thing. However the injuries to Dorothy were pretty severe and I have a hard time believing someone would put themselves through skull fractures just to stage some incident to get a new house or to get a divorce or to draw attention to themselves. I mean that isnt saying they couldnt have staged it but I have a hard time believing that Dorothy would put herself through all that on purpose.

Anyone think that somebody could have come up through a tunnel, a la the tunnel burglars segment? That's the only way I can think of that somebody could have eluded capture for so long, assuming Bill Wacker is innocent. I think this case baffles me more than any other.

One of my favorite cases....very glad I have this one on tape. I was quite surprised that they never caught the guy responsible. And as for the husband did it theory, do you really think he would knock out his own wife, especially at that age. And it wouldn't make sense that all of them made it up for ****s and giggles, especially at their ages.

Wacker, Wacker, Wacker, Wacker.....I just like saying it.

Christopher

It is possible he would, maybe they liked the attention the media afforded them.


One of my favorite cases....very glad I have this one on tape. I was quite surprised that they never caught the guy responsible. And as for the husband did it theory, do you really think he would knock out his own wife, especially at that age. And it wouldn't make sense that all of them made it up for ****s and giggles, especially at their ages.

One of my favorite cases....very glad I have this one on tape. I was quite surprised that they never caught the guy responsible. And as for the husband did it theory, do you really think he would knock out his own wife, especially at that age. And it wouldn't make sense that all of them made it up for ****s and giggles, especially at their ages.

I COMPLETELY agree with you. Bill Wacker seemed genuinely devoted to his wife from what I saw and I certainly can't see him assaulting and terrorizing her just for a little bit of attention.

I basically agree with all of you who think they were BOTH in on it for the attention.

Apart from mrs Wacker's now famous grin, there were things said like "the suspect never surfaced" and the detective said something like "none of the neighbors were able to tell us anything that would even make us believe there was somebody there".

Maybe I'm wrong, but my gut feeling tells me the Wackers just fabricated the whole thing, maybe to "get their kicks".

Cases like this are all in the minute details. If you noticed, after Bill installed his security light, he receives a note that says "your lights are a laugh." I don't know about you, but for someone to use the word "laugh" as a noun indicates that that person is of an advanced age, certainly too old to be someone in their 20's or 30's. I am 28 and I NEVER hear anyone but people 60+ use the phrase "that is a laugh." I am quite sure that young people in 1985 did not use that phrase either. Since crimes like this are almost always committed by young adult males, and since that note does not fit the vernacular profile of such a person, I think it is a good possibility that Wacker himself wrote that note.

Factor that in with the smirking of his wife during the segment and with the fact that even though he and several family members were staking out the house -- and still did not see the supposed perp -- I think you have a good case for an inside job here. What are the chances that this supposed criminal would happen to hit on the very night they were staking the house out? Further, what are the chances that none of the 3 or 4 people watching the house from all angles would not see a knock on the front window? Either they were blind or the whole thing is a hoax. I vote for the latter.

I wonder where in Stark county this takes place. I live in stark county and have lived here since i was 7 ( I was young when this case happened). I currently reside in Canton of Stark County, but I think someone might have mentioned a while back that this may have been in the Massilon Area, which is also in Stark. I should ask my parents and see if they remember seeing this story in the Repository ( our Local newspaper). This is the first case that i know on Unsolved Mysteries that is this close to home.

Well here goes Thissuat with another of his crackpot theories. I mean if you ask him anyone ever convicted of a crime is guilty. As we can see by that theory it is bogus and frankly a bunch of crap.

Why is it so unbelievable to you that the Wackers were terrorized? I do not get this and never have why you view this as so impossible?

I do admit it is possible that either one or both of the Wackers are involved. However for a person to sustain skull fractures just for "kicks" is pretty sick and frankly unlikely for a person to go that far for an obsession just to draw attention to themselves.

This message really doesn't deserve a reply, but I'll bite anyway.

If you want to call me a "crackpot" or more fittingly in this case a "kook," then you must call a good number of people on this board the same. There seem to be a good number of people who have posted on this case that agree with me. Further, the police in the segment seemed, ummm, a bit skeptical of the whole story themselves.

I do admit it is "possible" that the Wackers were being terroized by an unknown assailant, it's just that I find it less likely than the scenario I present. You admitted in your post that my theory was possible. So we can mutually agree that they are both plausible. I have my opinion on which is most likely and you have yours.

If you want to attack any argument I make, attack it on its merit alone; that is, attack it point by point and please refrain from attacking me with ad hominems. Doing this just makes you look like you have some personal vendetta, and thus you lose credibility (at least with me).

It isnt anything personal at all, for you to imply it is, is outrageous to say the least. However I am attacking your particular opinion and I did that on the merits or so I think. However it is not personal and I want to make that clear right now. You know what you are talking about, even if I dont agree with it and I do respect you for that.

Fair enough, kadr. I just didn't see any attack on my argument, I just saw you calling me a "crackpot" and suggesting that most of my opinions are "crackpot theories." Sorry if I misconstrued the meaning of your post.

Take care.

sorry again for bringing up this much talked about case, but I just thought of something else that throws just a tad more suspicion on Bill Wacker.

Notice how all of the incidents occur during the daytime, when Bill is awake? It would seem to me that if some unknown person were doing these things, they would do them at night when the risk of getting caught goes way down.
The perpretators would have the advantage of darkness, plus a head start as it would take time for the Wackers (not to mention any neighbors) to wake up.

Unless this is just the most brazen criminal ever on UM.

Well some of the incidents did occur at night. Dorothy was attacked once at night, Bill was home supposedly in the living room. Unless of course he was the one that attacked Dorothy.

But I dont think he did. I dont know, it is just for some reason I just dont believe Bill did that to his wife. I also cannot believe that those two were both in on it together as part of some scheme to draw attention to themselves with no monetary gain involved. I mean someone isnt going to take skull lacerations and beatings for that, especially not an elderly woman like that just for the fun of it.

With the attack during the day and the vandalism during the day it always occured when Bill wasnt home and the vandalism's occured when Dorothy and Bill were both gone. This honestly is just the most bizarre case or certainly one of the most bizarre I have ever seen and I have no idea what to think of it, there are certainly so many questions here and no answers.

What about the time that they stayed in the camper? I can't remember if Bill was the only one in the camper but if so his two relatives were in a car close by watching the front of the house. How could Bill have gotten past them to throw that rock on the porch when that was precisely the area they were watching? Remember we're talking about an elderly man not some young guy who could easily run away.

Crystal,

I think that this very fact that the surveillance didn't work doesn't help the Wackers, but rather makes their story sound even more unbelievable. How can a person walk through all that surveillance (at least 3 people with radios) and a security light without being seen? The house is maybe 20-30 ft. from the street and it appears well lit. I can think of three scenarios:

1. The Wacker surveillance was shoddy and all of them fell asleep or were drunk.
2. The person who did it was the superhero named "Hollow Man."
3. The Wackers made the whole scenario of surveillance up (just like they made up the rest of the story).

#3 seems to be the simplest explanation.

Stranger things have happened perhaps, but I see no reason to believe anything was going on at that house other than a con game. It has been a while since I have seen this segment, but I don't think the injuries were too severe (though it seems I remember a fracture of some sort). At any rate, Mrs. Wacker was never hurt too severely in all the times she was attacked. It wouldn't be too difficult to fake such injuries. I don't recall her ever being in an ICU or having extended stays at the hospital (though I admit a memory lapse here). There are people out there who fake injuries (or other illnesses) and this phenomenon is known to the medical community as "Munchausen Syndrome." It is a documented disorder and is not unheard of.

I have no way of knowing if she faked the injuries or not, but the evidence presented by UM leads me in that direction. Either that or someone she knew did this to her and she didn't want to incriminate them. The latter possibility is perhaps even more chilling than an unknown perpetrator.

Thanks for reviving the infamous Wacker thread, Cyrstal! ;)

Take care.

How does a person fake skull lacerations? I dont think she faked her injuries at all. I mean come on Thissuat, you arent serious with that theory? I think it sounds a little absurd. I mean I could accept the theory that you think Bill was inflicting the injuries on his wife or paying someone else off to inflict the injuries. But to suggest Dorothy faked her own injuries? I mean she had skull lacerations or fractures and broken ribs I believe as well. How do you fake that?

wiseguy,

All apologies. I hope my knee caps will remain intact. If not, at least please refrain from having your soldiers "wack" me. (pun was intended). ;)

Kard,

Everything I have seen leads me to believe that this was either faked or Mrs. Wacker knows the perp and is afraid of talking. Sorry, but I see nothing based on the segment that points towards anything else. No witnesses ever saw anything in all the years (even though the physical attacks took place in daylight). No fingerprints, no forensics--nothing but a story from the Wackers. Interestingly, the "family members" whom supposedly helped the Wackers pull the sluething act did not appear on camera for the segment. I wonder why?

If some unknown man was really doing this to them, then this man must have lived across the street. How else could anyone monitor that house 24/7? How could an alleged criminal know when Bill was away so that he could attack Mrs. Wacker, know when both of them were away so he could steal items only to bring them back later, know what time to knock on the window, know when to leave written messages etc.? It would be next to impossible unless someone had a vantage point where they could watch the house for most of the day. I assume no neighbors fit the description of the alleged attacker, so I find the whole scenario absurd.

Self-inflicted injury sounds insane to the sane, but it can and does happen. As I said, it is perhaps more likely that Bill (or someone else she knew) did this to her, but either way the scenario of a crazed prankster is just a fairy tale in my opinion.

If there is ever testimony put forth that a John Doe harbored an old grudge against the Wackers and this John Doe was an ex-con, then I might entertain the possibility that this John Doe was really stealthy and a great prankster with a violent streak. If there is ever a witness who comes forward and says "Hey, I saw a guy running from the Wacker's house on the day one of the attacks happened," then I might listen. I am sure the police checked out such possibilities, and, after looking at all the evidence (and they certainly know more than any of us), the police seem just as convinced that it was a hoax (or at least they gave a strong impression of that).

Do we really need to go over this one yet again!? :lol:

Yes, we do need to go over it again. This is not the last time it will come up.

Do we really need to go over this one yet again!? :lol:

I only kept bringing it up as I kept thinking of new ideas to mention. I really don't like repeating stuff, and I tried to avoid it as much as possible, but it is necessary in some cases like if somebody asks a question.

I consider this to be one of the all-time classic UM cases. On one hand, it's hard to believe Bill Wacker would have anything to do with this as he had been married to Dorothy for 50 years and they were living a relatively quiet existence. But on the other hand, there are a number of things that the Wackers say or do that just don't add up. Dorothy's smirk for example. Plus, I gotta wonder how an alleged perpretrator could harass them daily for 10 years and get away with it.

I do have a hard time believing that Dorothy attacked herself though. In one instance, she was tied up. Very difficult for someone that age to tie themselves up like that.

I think I may have touched upon this in a post of mine awhile back, but didn't get very far into it: I do have a problem with something Bill says at the start of the segment. He says "Why should I move, why should we move?" Goodness, they're harassed daily for 10 years, yet he says they have absolutely no reason to move? Doesn't add up, IMO.

This sketch of the supposed intruder is very plain looking, which leads me to believe it would be very difficult to find him. Nothing distinctive looking about him at all. a lot like Tom Johnson in that regard.

Well this is one of those cases I feel strongly about and in a million years you guys will never convince me Bill Wacker was responsible for any of it. I think sometimes people forget that we're talking about elderly people. Not to knock elderly people of course, but realize their senses (i.e. hearing, seeing) are not as keen as younger people so it would be much easier to sneak around their house leaving notes and breaking in. Elderly people are less suspicious of strangers and also tend to be more trusting than the rest of us (since the time they lived in you could be) so they're more likely to leave their house unlocked and let people in to use the phone. I think that should be a very important factor when you think about who may be responsible for these tauntings. Not to mention I really don't think Bill Wacker would have been clever enough to perpetrate all these things and not once be caught or even be in a suspicious place when it happened. Do you guys really think that Dorothy was in on it (and getting physically assaulted too as they did take her to the hospital) and do you think that Bill Wacker's wife and family would support him and participate in the segment if they had any thought in their mind that Bill was responsible? To say that Bill Wacker is guilty in my opinion goes against logic on so many levels. Once again you have to ask yourself what is the most logical reason for these happenings....someone out "for kicks" (sorry I couldn't resist that) trying to terrorize a poor elderly couple or that Bill Wacker spent decades being a loving and kind husband and then one day just decided he'd would start to terrorize and assault his wife (right after heart surgery no less) for no reason.

Bill Wacker had nothing to do with it. He is a victim.

Bill Whacker had nothing to do with it. He is a victim.

Exactly. And we still do not know who assaulted Dorothy Wacker in the first place... who was the young man who came to use their phone?

Hey Crystaldawn, you and I agree. I liked what you had to say. To be honest as I said earlier on page 5, how could a person fake skull lacerations? I mean I just have a hard time believing Dorothy Wacker would be in on it and letting some unknown person whether it was Bill or someone else beating the crap out of her like that. I mean these were serious even life threatening injuries with the skull lacerations. Also that one time when Dorothy was hogtied, you cannot hogtie yourself. I dont know, I am with Crystaldawn on this one, I think it is just a serious of circumstances prevented the guy from being caught and it is amazing how some people just are not willing to accept that these people were victimized.

I guess Hollow Man really was on the loose in Ohio. ;)

I guess Hollow Man really was on the loose in Ohio. ;)

You know I hear thats where he was from originally...;)

Hey Crystaldawn, you and I agree. I liked what you had to say. To be honest as I said earlier on page 5, how could a person fake skull lacerations? I mean I just have a hard time believing Dorothy Wacker would be in on it and letting some unknown person whether it was Bill or someone else beating the crap out of her like that. I mean these were serious even life threatening injuries with the skull lacerations. Also that one time when Dorothy was hogtied, you cannot hogtie yourself. I dont know, I am with Crystaldawn on this one, I think it is just a serious of circumstances prevented the guy from being caught and it is amazing how some people just are not willing to accept that these people were victimized.

It's totally possible that Dorothy had an accident in her home, like slipped in the stairs or something like that, like Crystaldawn said (btw I hope you don't hate me for disagreeing with you :lol:) , they are elderly people, and elderly people are more prone to injure themselves if they fall. And if she did, they could have used that as evidence to backup their story; "We're not just making this up, this guy did attack Dorothy in her home you know!". Just a thought...

I looked for this segment on my TiVO while ago and I must have deleted it. Can anyone tell me if any neighbors or family members of the Wackers came on the segment to back their story up?

The truth is most likely nobody will ever know, it would be interesting to learn what happened in the years after the segment aired and somebody said Bill Wacker passed on- did it stop then? it may well all have been true, the most likely scenario would seem to indicate a family member being involved- how would the perpetrator know about the one blind spot when the trap was set? why did none of the neighbours see anything? many of us will be suspicious, after all if you are under siege from persons unknown why if you are an elderly woman on your own would you be willing to let a total stranger into your house without a care in the world?


Hey Crystaldawn, you and I agree. I liked what you had to say. To be honest as I said earlier on page 5, how could a person fake skull lacerations? I mean I just have a hard time believing Dorothy Wacker would be in on it and letting some unknown person whether it was Bill or someone else beating the crap out of her like that. I mean these were serious even life threatening injuries with the skull lacerations. Also that one time when Dorothy was hogtied, you cannot hogtie yourself. I dont know, I am with Crystaldawn on this one, I think it is just a serious of circumstances prevented the guy from being caught and it is amazing how some people just are not willing to accept that these people were victimized.

Well first Wiseguy, you couldnt be more wrong. A. ) I didnt totally dis regard everything you or anyone else that thinks an elderly couple for no apperant reason would fake such dramatic stuff to draw attention to themselves had to say.

B. You are right in that I cannot technically prove that the Wackers were victims. No need to be a smart aleck about it. I thought we were past this, I called a truce with you to be civil and apperantly you wanted to take the gloves off again so I will be more than happy to do the same. Again, you are right that I cannot prove that the Wackers were victims but since you cannot prove that they were not victims I do not think you have any more right to go about arrogantly jousting that they were faking it.

C. By the way thanks for the smart aleck comment of calling me closed minded as well. I do not think I am closed minded of course, I think anyone that really knows me can disprove that theory. It is just when I think someone has their head up their you know what, I call them out on it and am not afraid to do so. Just because I have a tendency to believe in people does not make me the bad guy.

Also, in regards to the Wackers, I think people are either unable or unwilling to take into account they are from a past generation. It used to be you could actually help a person out, let them into their house, etc without having to worry about them attacking you or taking advantage of you or stealing, etc. It wouldnt even have entered this generations minds that such a thing could happen.

I didnt totally disregard anything the opposing view had to say, it is called disagreeing with you or anyone else on this forum has the perfect right to do. Just because I dont agree with you doesnt make me this horrible, close minded person which you seem to imply that I am.

I simply was stating an opinion which you not surprisingly took out of context in a desperate attempt to debunk and discredit me. I guess from now before everything I type I will say "This is my opinion, it is not necessarily fact, just my opinion from what I have seen from a segment of Unsolved mysteries."

I will give you a nickels worth of free advice. When I see something you post, no matter how stupid or arrogant or wrong I may think it is, I certainly dont have the nerve to go out of my way to paint you as a know it all even though you seem to think you are. So do me a favor, dont do it to me okay? I was stating my mere opinion, if you dont like or agree with it, that is your perfect legal right, in the future, I will ask you to respectfully restrain yourself from replying to my posts period and I will do the same with yours. Deal?



Also again Wiseguy, you are being a wiseguy, but not reading everything I was saying. I did say earlier in this thread that I believed it to be possible that it was an inside job although I personally do not agree with that theory. But of course it is possible! It is also possible the sky is pink and Bush is a smart president and it is possible that Mel Gibson is not an alcoholic and etc. I mean come on.

Also I didnt do it, I dont hate you for disagreeing with me. You presented your side in a civil manner without being a jerk about it so I have no reason to dislike you. While I see what you are saying, that Dorothy being elderly could have fallen and that caused the injuries, I simply do not agree with that. I think regardless of whether it was an unknown person or Bill that Dorothy was physically assaulted.

I looked for this segment on my TiVO while ago and I must have deleted it. Can anyone tell me if any neighbors or family members of the Wackers came on the segment to back their story up?

The only one I remembered being interviewed besides Bill and Dorothy was one of their daughters. They did say that their daughters and I believe two of their son-in-laws did help in the "stakeout" so I assume that means they believed and supported them.

Well I see tempers are flaring again. This is one of those cases that seems to be heated like the Jeffrey MacDonald case. I know a lot of people don't agree with my opinions on this case and thats perfectly fine, I welcome the debate. If some of us can't discuss it without arguing though its probably best if you just don't post on the thread.

It has been a long time since I have seen this segment, and I only remember seeing it once or twice, so I really can't give my opinions on it. Is there somewhere online where I could view it again? I remember it being a very interesting case, but I don't want to go stating any opinions about it until I've been able to view it again.

It has been a long time since I have seen this segment, and I only remember seeing it once or twice, so I really can't give my opinions on it. Is there somewhere online where I could view it again? I remember it being a very interesting case, but I don't want to go stating any opinions about it until I've been able to view it again.

Well direct links aren't allowed to that website where you can view UM segments online so your best best would be to do a search on that website.

Ah, I see what you mean. ;) Thank you very much, crystaldawn.

Hey wiseguy, well I am not being cocky here, I am being serious, I found your response to what I said impressive, although I didnt agree with all of it. I do apologize for the name calling, that did go to far and I do apologize for that, it was wrong and immature. However I think that you mis understood me in some things.

Like when I said things like in my opinion Ladner didnt kill himself, that is what I said, I dont see what is so wrong with that. I mean I wasnt trying to offend people when I said the Wackers were victims, that is what I think they were.

Sometimes I type things wrong, if you took offense, which I dont know why you would, I am sorry for that but I never intended to cause offense to you or anyone else with that opinion. I was merely stating an opinion. But I also think that one big area where you got it wrong was alleging I started the argument or at least that you didnt start it. You clearly were starting something, because you decided to call me close minded.

Now it was wrong for me to call you various names, again I apologize for that, but I feel you also went too far in calling me close minded. I can be close minded at times in the sense that once I form an opinion I usually stick to it.

However I do consider other people's opinions, just because I dont agree with them sometimes doesnt mean I dont agree with them. I can be abrasive at times and I have an uncanny knack for being my own worst enemy.

As for the quotes you took, a lot of which were taken out of context, that is just how I talk. I tend to type how I would talk in a conversation. Like when I said cut the crap, that is what I would say if Space Invaderz and I were talking face to face, I dont see what is so bad about that.

Also Space Invaderz and I do disagree a lot but I try to be civil there, and SI and I usually get along although we disagree quite often but I have nothing personal against SI or Thissuat for that matter. I did apologize to Thissuat earlier in this thread, I did go too far in calling him a crackpot, I knew it and I apologized for it.

Now, once again I will apologize to you, I will probably re frain from posting in response to your posts in this thread in the future since it seems to be a sour subject. However I will respond to posts of yours in other threads. I do agree with you in the Jule Caylor case for instance, and I am sorry this got personal, I think we both contributed to it becoming that way, I will be more civil to you in other threads so it is more pleasant for everyone involved and I look forward to talking with you about other cases you are a smart person that brings a lot to the board.

I just re-watched this case for the first time in a long time on crystaldawn's DVDs volume 2.

At first, I would be inclined to agree with those who have suggested that the incident with the guy who stopped by to make a telephone call was unrelated to the rest of the incidents. 10 years is a long time. But, there are two problems: 1) if it was an unrelated, random robbery, why was the stuff returned, piecemeal, over the next several months? And 2) what was up with the graffiti written in crayon on the Wacker's wall: "cheaper, but will do"?

The second part still mystifies me --- I can't imagine why anyone would write such a cryptic phrase (I even looked at the possibility it was an acroynm for something else, and it's interesting to note that, but for a missing "K," you can spell Bill Wacker out of the letters in the phrase, though you are left with h, p, e, r, u, t, d, and o) --- but the first part strongly suggests that the robbery either 1) never happened or 2) was orchestrated by someone who knew the Wackers.

My best guess is that it was one or both of their sons-in-law, perhaps hiring a third party and working in cohoots. The children here would be the only people with a sensible motive: perhaps they were attempting to force the Wackers to sell and move in with one of the children's families, and in this way gain access to the cash from the sale of the house. This would even give some rational meaning to that first bit of graffiti: any history of crime drives the value of a property down, but, if the house was worth a decent amount of money before the "incidents," it would sell for "cheaper," but for the purposes of the family of one of their daughters, it "will do." It would also help to explain how the "surveillance" was cracked. Perhaps one of the sons-in-law planted the note well before any sounds were made, then did whatever he needed to do to appear to be participating in the surveillance, and finally was able to slip away from his station at the last minute just long enough to make some bangs, and then appear on the front porch with the rest of the family, leading them all to find his note while he blamed the entire incident on a disappearing "kook."

That's a stretch to explain the graffiti of course, but, like I said, if I had a guess, one or possibly both of the two sons-in-law, perhaps without the knowledge of his wife/their wives (or, then again, perhaps with her/their knowledge), was attempting to force them to sell the house and move in with his family, and hoping to then gain access to whatever cash the Wackers got from the sale. I wonder if the police ever looked into any debts either of the sons-in-law might have had.

At first, I would be inclined to agree with those who have suggested that the incident with the guy who stopped by to make a telephone call was unrelated to the rest of the incidents. 10 years is a long time. But, there are two problems: 1) if it was an unrelated, random robbery, why was the stuff returned, piecemeal, over the next several months? And 2) what was up with the graffiti written in crayon on the Wacker's wall: "cheaper, but will do"?.... My best guess is that it was one or both of their sons-in-law, perhaps hiring a third party and working in cohoots. The children here would be the only people with a sensible motive: perhaps they were attempting to force the Wackers to sell and move in with one of the children's families, and in this way gain access to the cash from the sale of the house. This would even give some rational meaning to that first bit of graffiti: any history of crime drives the value of a property down, but, if the house was worth a decent amount of money before the "incidents," it would sell for "cheaper," but for the purposes of the family of one of their daughters, it "will do."

I think this theory makes the most sense of any offered so far. If the Wackers were making the whole thing up, it seems highly unlikely they would have thought of such a strange touch.

Interestingly, if you search for the phrase "cheaper, but will do" on Google, not that much comes up. But one of the things that comes up is a site whose short description on the search results page mentions "cheaper but will do" and then "wacker." When I tried to go to this site, however, it is one of those "your computer is filled with viruses! Let us help by downloading our helpful malware software!" sites. Probably the short description on the search page is based on some metatags chosen to help people find the site, but it's a strange coincidence that someone chose the Wackers and that phrase. It's unlikely the phrase coupled with the name Wacker was picked up by some bot, since the phrase and name don't otherwise show up together in Google. Some UM junkie, perhaps.

Regardless of their age though, if you were living in fear of threats and your husband is out of the house and you are alone you would not let a total stranger into your home.


[QUOTE=kadrmas15]Also, in regards to the Wackers, I think people are either unable or unwilling to take into account they are from a past generation. It used to be you could actually help a person out, let them into their house, etc without having to worry about them attacking you or taking advantage of you or stealing, etc. It wouldnt even have entered this generations minds that such a thing could happen.

It is believable to me that the Wackers are victims, but I have thought of a couple more unanswered questions:

1. As much as I love Unsolved Mysteries, they were notorious for leaving out some crucial details, and I believe this is one of those instances. I'm really curious to know exactly how the stakeout went. We don't know where Bill and his sons-in-law were when they heard the "bump, bump, bump, bump" Then Stack says something like "the perpetrator found a blind spot." This would indicate that not only did the perpetrator knew that they were holed up in a vehicle nearby, but knew which vehicle they were in. If they were on stakeout for several hours (which it seems like), that would probably indicate that the perpretrator was in the area the whole time, but had to wait for his opportunity. Waiting all that time just to throw something on the porch is going an incredibly long distance to put one self in a situation where they really don't gain anything out of it. This would mean that this criminal is one of the most brazen and smartest ones ever on UM IMO, and is also the one that goes to the greatest lengths.

2. At the beginning of the segment, Dorothy apparently makes enough noise (when she's tied up, and has something covering her mouth) to alert the neighbors. It must be extremely difficult to make that amount of noise when one is tied up. So it appears that the neighbors have remarkable hearing. Yet when the neighbors are asked if they heard anything, they haven't. The houses appear to be pretty close to each other, so it seems that if there was a loud "bump, bump, bump, bump" that the neighbors would hear it also, but they don't. Nor do they hear any noises the perpretrator would make. They seem to transition from remarkably excellent hearing to remarkably poor hearing.

3. I agree that older people would be more trusting, but the Wackers house had already been ransacked once or twice when Dorothy's first phsyical attack occured. A house ransacking would put most people on guard, and they would be particularly careful who they let in the door. It is even more peculiar that Dorothy would let the guy in when his truck is not in sight, why wouldn't he go to neighbors that are in closer proximity to his truck?

bizarre case: no apparent motives, no suspects, not much evidence.

1. As much as I love Unsolved Mysteries, they were notorious for leaving out some crucial details, and I believe this is one of those instances. I'm really curious to know exactly how the stakeout went. We don't know where Bill and his sons-in-law were when they heard the "bump, bump, bump, bump" Then Stack says something like "the perpetrator found a blind spot." This would indicate that not only did the perpetrator knew that they were holed up in a vehicle nearby, but knew which vehicle they were in. If they were on stakeout for several hours (which it seems like), that would probably indicate that the perpretrator was in the area the whole time, but had to wait for his opportunity. Waiting all that time just to throw something on the porch is going an incredibly long distance to put one self in a situation where they really don't gain anything out of it. This would mean that this criminal is one of the most brazen and smartest ones ever on UM IMO, and is also the one that goes to the greatest lengths.

I agree, Wiseguy, but this is a point I raised earlier. Bill was allegedly in the camper parked in the driveway and his relatives were in a van across the street. As I mentioned in a previous post, it would be impossible for anyone to know Bill and friends were staking the house out unless that person had a vantage point of the house that would allow them an almost constant (and concealed) point of view. Since no neighbors fit the description of the alleged attacker, then this scenario must be ruled out. As far as I am aware, the house is surrounded by other houses. There are no close-by concealment areas.

As you say, this "perpetrator" must have been extremely stealthy and brilliant or he was the invisible man. ;)

And there is no motive or suspects because something that doesn't exist cannot be found.

I still want to know if any of the relatives of the Wackers came on the segment to tell the story? How about neighbors? I don't recall any, but it has been a while since I have seen the segment.

I agree, Wiseguy, but this is a point I raised earlier.

I still want to know if any of the relatives of the Wackers came on the segment to tell the story? How about neighbors? I don't recall any, but it has been a while since I have seen the segment.


You talked about the topic of the stakeout, I just expanded on it.

To answer your question, I rewatched the segment yesterday, and none of the actual family members or neighbors were on the segment. There were a couple of actors portraying a daughter and a neighbor, but they were non-speaking roles.

Oh hello!! What's my name doing in this week's "Melrose"?!?! I'm not due untill next week when I steal Kellie away from Josh who is fighting with Megan.... :lookaroun

To answer your question, I rewatched the segment yesterday, and none of the actual family members or neighbors were on the segment. There were a couple of actors portraying a daughter and a neighbor, but they were non-speaking roles.

Just as I suspected. No one came forward to back their story. Thanks Wiseguy.

To answer your question, I rewatched the segment yesterday, and none of the actual family members or neighbors were on the segment. There were a couple of actors portraying a daughter and a neighbor, but they were non-speaking roles.

Actually there is an on camera interview during the segment with the Wacker's daughter. She talks about how they keep changing their phone number and these people are able to get it.

Actually there is an on camera interview during the segment with the Wacker's daughter. She talks about how they keep changing their phone number and these people are able to get it.

Oh I do recall that now, it must have been brief though.

To me, this case screams Munchausen Syndrome and old folks looking for attention/sympathy. Not to come off crass, but older folks (and little kids) have been known to over dramatize (and you could even go as far as saying brag about) aches and pains and various trials and tribulations in life. I think Bill and Dorothy just really "kicked it up a notch" and got all the way to UM with their shenanigans.

"Why should we move?" WHY? I mean, come on, if some "kooks" really were terrorizing you to this extent, you get the hell away. I don't care how proud you are and are unwilling to let anyone force you to leave, after awhile the fight is just not worth it, and any sane person gets the hell out of the situation.

Okay I just watched this segment very very interesting.

I would like to believe the Wackers I couldn't possibly believe they both fabricated all this. I believe that if anything one of them fabricated it by themselves be than the husband or wife. I can't imagine it happening together, you don't just go after 40 years of marriage...hmmm life is getting a bit boring....how about we fabricate a huge story about people breaking into our house and leaving strange notes....yeah right!
So therefore IF one of the Wackers did make up this story for 10 years i'd have to believe that they are going a little looney and maybe they do really believe it is happening.
My very own Grandpa who is 85 years old tells us of this guy who prowls around her house when she is gardening. She also mentioned a strange note someone left her saying something and stolen something and then later returned it a few months after. We never saw that note. She has also been robbed twice when she was out gardening, even though she says she locks her doors everytime she goes out yet these two times she forgot and the intruder got in and knew exactly where she keeps her money in her room and got it then managed to run out before anyone could catch him. She has also said that this guy has watched her from outside sometimes and she has seen him.
Yet she doesn't seem to be fazed by that yet she is an 85 year old lady living in a house by herself. Even if some weird guy was watching me from outside the house i would be **** scared and i'm 22! I would at least call my closest relative or girlfriend. She told my parents about it like a week or 2 later.

Now do I believe my very own grandma? Well yes i do, but some of those things don't ad up. One of the main reasons i do believe her is that she doesn't make these stories up all the time. Many of those things happen like 2 years apart. You would think if she was making them up she would do it more regularly. If she did happen to be making these things up i'd imagine that she is just going a little crazy in her old age and thinking these things are happening to her.
Anyway what i'm trying to say is that maybe just maybe one of them were going a bit looney. I can't really explain the head injuries but that's just a thought.

Let's say they didn't do it though, you would have to think maybe the intruders are getting from underground somehow i don't know. I found it very weird how the Mrs. Wacker could not remember what the unknown guy was saying on the phone? Surely she would have overheard what he was saying whether it was strange or not. Plus why didn't they look at the phone records to see if that call was actually made? Or was it too late once they identified that the husband was a possible suspect?

Also why didn't they get the old guy to write in his opposite hand to the hand he writes with. They may have been able to identify if the handwriting matched.

If i think of anymore points i'll mention them later.

-Ben

I thought either it was indeed the husband or someone in the family....bottom line there was one part of the segment to me that gave this away....the night they set up the entire watch party outside and the culprit still somehow managed to sneak a note onto the back porch of the house....there is no way that the suspect could have been anyone else in my opinion or they would have been caught, they had to know there was a watch party setup and they were already in place long before, only the family could have known this.

I thought either it was indeed the husband or someone in the family....bottom line there was one part of the segment to me that gave this away....the night they set up the entire watch party outside and the culprit still somehow managed to sneak a note onto the back porch of the house....there is no way that the suspect could have been anyone else in my opinion or they would have been caught, they had to know there was a watch party setup and they were already in place long before, only the family could have known this.

I always wondered what the police thought of this case. The officer interviewed didn't really seem to have an opinion, or at least he didn't share it on camera.

This is such a weird case but I have to agree with the masses here, I don't think that someone would launch multiple attacks like that on themselves. But, I do think that they know more than their telling! For instance, when Mrs. Wacker was tied-up and attacked by the "unknown" assailant, why didn't she file a police report or able to give an accurate description? And there is a lot of things that could be done even back then. Tape recordings, alarm systems, tapping the phone & tracing the calls etc. why wasn't any of that done? I think they know the person who is doing this, and keep unwittingly giving them their "unlisted" telephone number, and I think it's someone who has an axe to grind, but who? Who would have so much against an old couple that they would orchistrate such harassment? What could they have done to this person to cause them to attack them like that? Maybe it's a neighbor who is doing this; but I can't figure out what someone would have to gain by torturing and old couple?

This is one of my favorite UM cases just because it is so odd. I wish there would be some kind of update. I know one of the forum members lives not too far away from where they live. I think Mr. Wacker died years ago but his wife is still alive. I'd like to see the house where everything happened. I travel alot for work and we have an office in Wooster, OH, which is not far from the Wacker home.

Here's a theory I've been throwing around. I'm not sure if this has been posted here before or not, but if so I apologize. What if the first initial attack/harassment on the Wackers was geniune, and they reported it to the police and they got media attention, etc. Maybe then either Mr or Mrs Wacker liked the amount of attention they were receiving from the incident and started planning their own faked harassments/attacks to keep receiving attention. Maybe it wasn't to keep getting attention for themselves, but to keep the story in the news/relatives attention so they would keep looking for the original attacker, so that no one would forget about the case or allow it to go cold.

I don't know, its a long shot and just a theory, but I'm just throwing it out there.

And, of course I mean no disrespect to the Wackers or anyone that they are related to, this is just an idea. I wonder if the attacks stopped after Mr. Wacker died? I really hope this is a case that is updated or at least profiled when the new Unsolved Mysteries appears on TV.

When I first watched the segment, the thought of the Wackers creating this whole thing didn't even enter my mind. But after subsequent viewings, the Wackers story just didn't add up.

If you were Mrs. Wacker, would you let someone in to your house months after your house was burglarized for the 3rd time in the span of a year? Would you let him in when he claims his car broke down, but there is absolutely no sight of the car? Wouldn't it make sense that he would go to the nearest house for a phone? Would you let the stranger in when you're alone and female? Would you turn his back on him like Mrs. Wacker did?
None of that makes any sense.

Also, during the span of an entire decade, all of the following are true.

1. No one ever sees the man.
2. No one ever hears the man.
3. No one recognizes the man when his composite sketch surfaces.
4. No one recognizes the car, or for that matter, even sees the car that allegeldy broke down the day he allegedly attacked Mrs. Wacker.

The odds are just overwhelming, here.

Also, isn't it a little weird that Bill Wacker never has any bones about going out and facing the intruder(s)? I mean, does he think he's going to be able to put up much of a fight against this person? And shouldn't he be concerned about his safety after what they allegedly did to Mrs. Wacker?

There's a composite sketch of the attacker? I wasn't aware of this... Does anyone have a link to a picture of this alleged attacker? I haven't seen the segment in several years, so its possible that it was profiled on UM but that I just do not remember it.

Hmm, well maybe. But remember he carried a pistol outside so it wasnt like he, an elderly man would be fighting this mysterious man with his hands. Also, when Mrs. Wacker supposedly let the mysterious man in her house she probably figured it wasnt the burglar because the burglar had only broke into their house when they were not home. I also have a hard time believing that Mrs. Wacker as part of this scheme to draw attention to herself would submit to willingly having her skull fractured. But that is just my opinion.

One thing I have conidered is whether or not Bill Wacker was involved in these attacks on his wife. I suggest this because it seems Bill was always convienently gone when h is wife was attacked meaning that either Bill himself was attacking her or Bill was having someone else attack her while he was elsewhere for an alabi or an unidentified third party for no appearant reason was attacking the Wackers.

Hey Wiseguy love the new Di-Biase icon, maybe I might change mine to Handsome Harley Race:lol:, anyway you pretty much echoed my thoughts that I said on this case some while back- I could see no way that if you had been terrorised in this manner for so long that you would just let a total stranger into your house and let them wander around while you have your back turned to them.

I thought it was more likely she was doing it to get at her husband, but who knows maybe they were both just looking for attention, maybe he was the mastermind, maybe he or whoever hit her did it too hard- being that age she would be pretty frail and hard to judge how hard to hit her, but yes I think somebody in their family must have been involoved as well.

I just watched this segment again for the first time in a long time. . .

Just like Cindy James -- somehow the "assailant" knows when the surveillance is on and strikes right after it ends. Awfully convenient.

I think it was either real (not likely) or they were both in on it. I don't think Mr. Wacker did it alone.

I realize he has no reason to do it. But I also have elderly relatives who do weird stuff the older they get. I had a great uncle who seemed normal as can be, until he died and we went through his house. Let's just say you think you know a person, and the mind does weird stuff when you get old.

Has there ever been more info on this?

^ I've always thought that Cindy James was being stalked by someone. I think someone in that segment mentioned that whomever was after her was trying to "gaslight" her and make her go insane. I believe in her case either she was being attacked by someone or she was being gaslighted by someone who eventually succeeded in their goal of making her go off the deep end and cause physical harm to herself eventually resulting in her death.

In the case of The Wackers, I just don't know what went on there. Like you mentioned Todd, you can never know what goes through someone's mind all of the time and we as an audience certainly can't use the UM segment as a basis for judging the mental state of either of the Wackers be it a positive or negative review.

I will say this if the Wackers were somehow involved in this entire incident with Dorothy being attacked, I think they all were involved in it...Bill, Dorothy and their family. The only reason I can see is publicity although there are probably other reasons we could all conjur up depending on how much mental imbalance we want to attach to this family.

^ I've always thought that Cindy James was being stalked by someone. I think someone in that segment mentioned that whomever was after her was trying to "gaslight" her and make her go insane.

In the case of The Wackers, I just don't know what went on there. Like you mentioned Todd, you can never know what goes through someone's mind all of the time and we as an audience certainly can't use the UM segment as a basis for judging the mental state of either of the Wackers. . .

Good points, Dante.

It is tough because we see a segment and want to make our own conclusion, but in 15 minutes we rarely get "all the info." I watched a 48-Hours Mystery a few weeks back and I thought it was pretty straight forward. But even in the hour-long show, they omitted a ton of stuff which makes the case not so clear.

I can't imagine if I or my family was being stalked and no one believed us. That would be scary.

But I also know people could go "crazy" and do odd stuff. The saddest thing is that these people need help, too, and probably never get it. If you were mentally ill enough to stalk yourself, it's sad that it probably never treated for the real illness it is.

Selfishly I'd like to know what happened to Cindy James and the Wackers, but I'd really like them solved for the sake of their families who will always live with the questions.

When I first saw this segment many, many moons ago. I had a hard time believing that they were doing it themselves.

That said, I sort of believe someone in the family had something to with it. One can only speculate at the reason(s) behind it.

By far the most disturbing segement of UM yet. I was left baffled by who or why someone would torment these two old folks. I would like to place blame on the husband but he seemed as fearful as his wife. In the line of the Cindy James case, where I honestly feel that she knowingly hurt herself, the Wackers were a bit to old for the drama they cased. It didnt help matters that all the stuff went down late at night, and all those awful notes and such. But what really scared the bejesus out of me was when the wife was attacked...OMG! I almost went my night pants. And what was with all those times the phone numbers were changed and yet still being given out. FREAKY!

One other thing, I think someone wanted to force the oldies off their land or something of that nature, due to something that wasnt covered in the UM case.

I'm willing to bet that they knew more than they were telling. I remember watching this for the first time when I was about 9 and I knew even then that there was no way all this could just be a coincidence. Anyone know of any sort of update of this case besides that Mr. Wacker died?

Anyone know of any sort of update of this case besides that Mr. Wacker died?

Not really. I emailed the Sheriff's Dept. there a year or so ago asking but never got a reply.

I think they were either crazy or there family member's were
doing it to them .Cause when they set that "sting" up and all that stuff happened when they had 2 way radio's, hidding in trailors.. come on it's one of the family member's or the whole family is completly Wacked out...

Awesome thread as the Wacker case always baffled me. I wonder if Mrs. Wacker (if she is still alive) lives in the same house and when/if the harassment stopped?

Not really. I emailed the Sheriff's Dept. there a year or so ago asking but never got a reply.

Hey CD, I miss Walter Rice :D

Hey CD, I miss Walter Rice :D

:lol:

Well this is one of those cases I feel strongly about and in a million years you guys will never convince me Bill Wacker was responsible for any of it. I think sometimes people forget that we're talking about elderly people. Not to knock elderly people of course, but realize their senses (i.e. hearing, seeing) are not as keen as younger people so it would be much easier to sneak around their house leaving notes and breaking in. Elderly people are less suspicious of strangers and also tend to be more trusting than the rest of us (since the time they lived in you could be) so they're more likely to leave their house unlocked and let people in to use the phone. I think that should be a very important factor when you think about who may be responsible for these tauntings. Not to mention I really don't think Bill Wacker would have been clever enough to perpetrate all these things and not once be caught or even be in a suspicious place when it happened. Do you guys really think that Dorothy was in on it (and getting physically assaulted too as they did take her to the hospital) and do you think that Bill Wacker's wife and family would support him and participate in the segment if they had any thought in their mind that Bill was responsible? To say that Bill Wacker is guilty in my opinion goes against logic on so many levels. Once again you have to ask yourself what is the most logical reason for these happenings....someone out "for kicks" (sorry I couldn't resist that) trying to terrorize a poor elderly couple or that Bill Wacker spent decades being a loving and kind husband and then one day just decided he'd would start to terrorize and assault his wife (right after heart surgery no less) for no reason.

Amen, CD.

I just can't see this couple doing all this. Why would a man physically assault his wife of over 50 years to the point of almost death? Just to get some attention? I don't think so.

I think that it's someone close to them. Someone brought up the point that the handwriting on the graffiti was written with the opposite hand, an obvious attempt to cover up the handwriting. Someone close to them will also have their phone number when it is changed. It's sad that a family member, neighbor, or another person close enough to the Wackers to terrorize them for a decade w/o getting caught.

Hopefully, someday, this mystery is solved.

Just saw this case today. I thought the intruder must've been pretty good to have left a note on the porch while the house was under surveillance. He must've noticed the van and other details that were different from other nights.

I also thought it was funny how Mr. Wacker ran to his porch with his revolver when he heard a noise. I was thinking he was going to be so paranoid that he'd shoot any random thing walking on the sidewalk. :lol:

When I first watched the segment, the thought of the Wackers creating this whole thing didn't even enter my mind. But after subsequent viewings, the Wackers story just didn't add up.

If you were Mrs. Wacker, would you let someone in to your house months after your house was burglarized for the 3rd time in the span of a year? Would you let him in when he claims his car broke down, but there is absolutely no sight of the car? Wouldn't it make sense that he would go to the nearest house for a phone? Would you let the stranger in when you're alone and female? Would you turn his back on him like Mrs. Wacker did?
None of that makes any sense.

Also, during the span of an entire decade, all of the following are true.

1. No one ever sees the man.
2. No one ever hears the man.
3. No one recognizes the man when his composite sketch surfaces.
4. No one recognizes the car, or for that matter, even sees the car that allegeldy broke down the day he allegedly attacked Mrs. Wacker.

The odds are just overwhelming, here.


It sounds funny to say, but people who were born in eras gone by are on a different wavelength.

the Wacker's reminded me of my inlaws, who were born in the mid to late 20's.

Their mindset was very much different.
For one thing, they honesty believed that since they were incapable of doing terrible things, much less even thinking about them, that they assumed the rest of the world thought and felt as they did.

they didn't distinguish between those they knew and were close to and those who were strangers. To them, everyone was alike pretty much.

My mother in law would have done the same thing as Mrs. Wacker.
She often left the room when someone was on the phone, if a stranger, she would no doubt have extended the same courtesy.
She has several gold necklaces, and other valuable jewelry, which she often wears openly.

In fact, my father in law, who owned a classic car that he kept in really nice condition - liked to drive it around, even to neighborhoods that we warned him to stay out of.

When we warned them to be more careful, especially when people get killed for their things, we were told.......

"Well, we worked hard for everything we have, and we have a right to show it off if we want to!. when you work hard for something, people respect that and don't steal it"

We'd end up sitting on pins and needles whenever they went out alone.

Another time, and this freaked us all out, Dad, who'd been out driving, came in the house and told us to come outside and meet someone.
Naturally, we thought it was an old friend of his he hadn't seen in awhile.

Turns out it was a complete stranger who started following dad around while he was driving.
Well dad noticed, but since he was on his way home anyway, decided to just ask the guy what he wanted when he got there.

AAAAHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

the guy told us he really liked dad's car and was following him to see if he'd be interested in selling it.
Dad just chuckled and said no, he liked it too much.

We made mental notes of this guy's appearance, his make and model of car, and his license plate, just in case.
But dad just laughed and seemed pleased to make a new friend.

From out perspective, this dude now had our address, saw our other cars, and pretty much got a headcount of who else lived there.

We were nervous and apprehensive, and really lit into dad afterward, but he just laughed us all off and called us scaredey cats.
He told us we were silly for locking the windows and doors that night just because that guy liked his car.

Oh yes, and they never locked their front door either.

I know that's wildly off tangent, but see what I mean?

Those of that past era also believe that intruders will be intimidated if you only just come out and get face to face with them - that if you tell someone to leave you alone, well, they just do it.

Experience can cause people to change their ways.

My dad grew up in the Depression where few people had cars. So if you had one and saw somebody needing a ride, you gave them one. He was always in the habit of picking up hitchhikers until two guys he picked up started giving each other the eye as if to wonder when to jump him. Dad then proceeded to drive so wildly they begged to get out of the car! Always after that, he told us not to hitchhike ourselves, or to pick up hitchhikers--advice I almost always follow.

Does anyone know if this case is still available online or not? I know direct links are not allowed, so if someone could please message me.

The UM website is being updated so it's no longer there. If anyone can accommodate me, I hold a civilian position in a federally run law enforcement agency, and I can try to use my pull in that regards to find out whatever happened with this case. If I receive permission, I'll post my findings.

Thanks

http://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/gong.gifhttp://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/threadsucks.gifhttp://reeelapse.com/images/smilies/gong.gif

This has always been a personal favorite segment of mine...but unfortunately it's not on any of the DVD's that have been released nor is the segment available online. Wish there was a way to see it...if anyone knows I'd appreciate it.

But I don't think it's possible that the Wackers could have been doing that to themselves. When Dorothy smiles, I think that was her way of smiling at Bill just being Bill. Just telling people how he feels and making no bones about it...that's the impression I got from her smile. Now there is no evidence that this person exists other than the word of the Wackers, but if you take a look at the other side of the coin I think it's highly unlikely that the Wackers would be seeking attention, the only thing to gain from publicity is money and I don't think they sought any monetary consumption for their claims. Plus if Bill Wacker wanted to harass his wife, why didn't he just have her killed? Wouldn't it be cheaper to hire someone to kill her instead of paying the same guy for over ten years to continually harass her?!!? That just doesn't make sense. And then there's the children...why on Earth would any child do this to their parents? I doubt the Wackers were well off to where they had loads of money that would be distributed in the event of their deaths, but if the kids wanted money, again why not just pay someone to kill them? The only two possible scenarios are that this guy is a complete stranger (unlikely, considering the harassment has been going on for ten years), or it's someone that the Wackers know. I think it was someone they knew, but not necessarily related to them. Maybe it was a neighbor who wanted the Wackers off their property for whatever reason and they started ramsacking the house. Or perhaps Bill Wacker was right when he said it was just "a kook". Or maybe a cook.

Every time I watch this segment, the more I believe Bill Wacker staged the entire thing, with the help of some third party.

wiseguy182 has already brought up the "meat" of the evidence---no one sees the assailant, no one recognizes his vehicle, he always manages to "slip away" just when everyone thinks he's about to be caught. Although I've certainly seen individual tenacity, I find Mr. Wacker's chutzpah towards this alleged unknown harasser to be extremely suspect. If a brilliantly elusive individual was able to not only ransack the Wacker home multiple times, attack Mrs. Wacker, and manage to never once be identified, I personally find it hard to believe anyone---no matter how "ballsy"---would be as brazen as Bill Wacker seemed to be after a decade of these incidents. Especially regarding his wife's attack---why would he want to risk his wife being harmed (possibly fatally) again? The reluctance to involve police also sends up huge red flags to me.

If it is true that Mr. Wacker did in fact stage the harassments, I cannot readily come up with any clear reason why he would do it----although I can certainly see why he didn't simply have Mrs. Wacker killed as TheCars1986 mentioned, if that was what he eventually planned to do. It would be far too abrupt and suspect to have her murdered by a hitman. By fabricating a situation like Mr. Wacker hypothetically did, he could not only turn the blame from himself (as would be typically suspected in such a tight-knit, rural area), he could also garner the sympathy of the community, furthering hoo-dooing them into believing the unknown assailant was the culprit.

Simply put, there's far too much evidence to me to suggest that this isn't the work of a cruel predator at all. Regardless of the fact that the Wackers are part of a different generation or that their senses and reflexes are diminished, the odds are just too slim.

I think it is safe to say that a total stranger did not do this. I mean really what would be the motive for a stranger to continue harassing this elderly couple for 10 years??? I see none.

In the same respect, I find it absurd that Bill Wacker would have staged everything. Like I said, the odds of this being some unknown assailant is astronomical. The odds are that this is someone who knew the Wackers and wanted them off of their property. Now the kids could have their own motives, but I just don't see why you would hire someone to terrorize your parents into moving into YOUR house so you could sieze their financial assets...it just doesn't make any sense. Nor do I think Wacker would have kept writing notes, ransacking his OWN house and posessions and then hiring someone to attack his wife on two different occassions. What would Wacker have to gain from doing this? Why would he go out and waste money on security lights if he were the one staging the entire ordeal? Now if there was some sort of large life insurance policy on Dorothy, then yeah Bill would be the prime suspect in my opinion. I just don't understand what would possess a human who was married to a woman for thirty some years to just out of the blue either randomly start to terrorize the holy hell out of her or hire someone to do it for him. There is no logical motive therefore I highly doubt he had anything to do with it.

Now a previous poster mentioned the lexicon the assailant used when scrawling his cryptic messages. "Your lights are a laugh" was one of the messages and I agree that the use of the word "laugh" implies an older person. Which is why i think it was someone in the vicinity of the Wackers. I really think a neighbor or someone who had a stock in their property for whatever reason would be responsible for this. Perhaps the Wackers were too naiive and they believed they didn't have any enemies...when in fact someone really hated them so much that they would constantly keep doing this to them. I also think the incidents were inflated a LOT when they were aired on UM. They happened over a span of ten years, and there were probably only a handful of incidents (I'm pretty sure there were only 4-6 notes actually left, probably a dozen phone calls, the two attacks on Dorothy, etc.) so therefore it's safe to assume that the Wackers were only getting an incident maybe once a year or even two years. But the bizarre notes and the attacks on Dorothy kind of took that time frame away from the viewer, IMO. So this wasn't an everyday or even every month occurrence for the Wackers. It was just an out of the blue thing that happened every once in awhile. Which leds credibility to the fact that Bill Wacker, if he indeed had a motive against his wife, wouldn't have dragged the ordeal on so long and he would have gotten done what he wanted. Maybe it was some drunkard who got his kicks everytime he got plastered. There are plenty of "kooks" in this world, I just don't think Bill Wacker was one of them.

Now if there was some sort of large life insurance policy on Dorothy, then yeah Bill would be the prime suspect in my opinion. I just don't understand what would possess a human who was married to a woman for thirty some years to just out of the blue either randomly start to terrorize the holy hell out of her or hire someone to do it for him. There is no logical motive therefore I highly doubt he had anything to do with it.

Actually, that's exactly what I was thinking of when I came to my conclusion: a life insurance policy.

The prospect of an individual taking out a life insurance policy on someone they've been married to for years isn't so outrageous to me---especially after watching so much UM! The Wackers were retired, and more than likely not pulling in the income they once did. No Dorothy = a comfortable sum of money and a wife not there to share any of it. I certainly do not know the state of the Wackers' marriage or their financial condition at the time; I'm merely speculating. What I do firmly believe, however, is that the Wackers' story doesn't quite add up. Something's going on there.

I'm sure law enforcement would have known about a large life insurance policy and they most likely would have stated that on the UM segment. Sure this case is probably the most bizarre to ever air on UM, and I'm pretty sure it's going to remain unsolved forever. It is fun to speculate about what happened and who was responsible.

Didn't Dorothy give a composite of the man who attacked her when he claimed his car was broke down? And didn't the man leave a cryptic message both times after he attacked her? I haven't seen the segment in a couple of years so my memory is a little fuzzy.

I'm sure law enforcement would have known about a large life insurance policy and they most likely would have stated that on the UM segment. Sure this case is probably the most bizarre to ever air on UM, and I'm pretty sure it's going to remain unsolved forever. It is fun to speculate about what happened and who was responsible.

Didn't Dorothy give a composite of the man who attacked her when he claimed his car was broke down? And didn't the man leave a cryptic message both times after he attacked her? I haven't seen the segment in a couple of years so my memory is a little fuzzy.

Not necessarily, as Bill was quite reluctant to involve the police throughout the years. Don't forget the possibility of a botched police job, as well. I could definitely see a couple of detectives with preconceived notions about a "nice old couple that just keeps getting victimized" slanting an investigation, especially in a place like rural Ohio.

Mrs. Wacker did indeed give a composite of her assailant, and there were multiple notes at the Wacker home on different occasions. I believe this may have been Bill's "hired help."

You see there is another interesting theory that would make sense if Bill Wacker indeed was involved. That would be that Dorothy was in fact attacked by an unseen and unknown assailant on her first attack, and then Bill decided to capitalize on that and make it seem like it was that person doing it over and over when it was really Bill all along. While I still find that hard to believe, if Bill was involved that theory would make the most sense to me.

First of all, I've been browsing around the board today and noticed that you seem to pop up and like to cry fowl anytime someone has a differing opinion other than yours. I've been here a day, while you've been here for quite sometime and you seem like you want to pick fights and you get offended with anyone with a opposing viewpoint. I have every right to say what I think is absurd. Like the fact that you have the single handed most creepy interviewee ever on a UM broadcast (Bobby Bean) as your avitar is absurd. How's that for a debut? :rolleyes:

But I agree with you in the fact that I doubt it was someone who was an unknown assailant...I think it was someone the Wackers knew. And when I said Dorothy was attacked twice, I didn't try to minimalize her attack, I only tried to show that they were taking place over a ten year span so the Wackers were probably naiive into thinking that the attacks were over. I ask you this, what gain did Bill Wacker get out of harassing his wife for ten years? I think the fact that he didn't want to call police just was his way of being hard-headed and thinking just like he said, the guy was a "kook" and he thought it would be a one time attack, which turned into two more and then he called the police. He also said he thought it was someone who was trying to force them to move (a good motive, a disgruntled neighbor perhaps) and that's why he stated he had no intentions of moving. I can see why someone would do put up that "protector of his house" attitude and want to stay on his land and not let anyone push him away from it. Can you give any logical reason as to why Bill Wacker would have been involved in staging this whole thing? Pray tell.

Like the fact that you have the single handed most creepy interviewee ever on a UM broadcast (Bobby Bean) as your avitar is absurd. How's that for a debut? :rolleyes:

Ohhhh man...you have no idea what you just did! :lol:

Agreed. I just think it's more plausible that someone who had a motive to get them to leave by scaring the life out of them other than Bill Wacker trying to get rid of his wife by terrorizing her for a decade. Just doesn't add up.

http://www.philhower.com/images/1337/i-like-where-this-thread-is-going.jpg

Lets just stick to the case and not waste time criticizing each other's opinions. This case has been debated many times on this board. I for one think that Bill & Dorothy Wacker were being stalked and harassed by an unknown person but I know there are a lot of people who don't agree. With this case I doubt anyone's opinion is going to be changed after reading a few posts so its just a matter of agreeing to disagree and move on.

Doesn't someone on this forum live near the house? I know Bill passed away awhile back but I think Dorothy is still around, though she's very old now. As much as we should probably respect people's privacy, I'm sure someone in the area can get access to her number or address somehow and just call her or pay her a visit and tell her that you've followed the case for years and would like to see if there were any updates. Worst you could do is make her mad and she hangs up. I believe a former poster stated that he/she lived near the neighborhood and even commented that there wasn't much space in the area for someone to hide if they were pulling stunts at the house.

Edit: I pulled up some info and, of course, her phone number is unlisted; however, her address is not. If she is Dorothy J. Wacker of Massillon, she lives at 10271 Wooster St, Massillon, OH. I tried to link in the satellite image on Google maps but it didn't work. Check it out. The house is in a pretty wide open area.

Can anyone follow up on this?

Doesn't someone on this forum live near the house? I know Bill passed away awhile back but I think Dorothy is still around, though she's very old now. As much as we should probably respect people's privacy, I'm sure someone in the area can get access to her number or address somehow and just call her or pay her a visit and tell her that you've followed the case for years and would like to see if there were any updates. Worst you could do is make her mad and she hangs up. I believe a former poster stated that he/she lived near the neighborhood and even commented that there wasn't much space in the area for someone to hide if they were pulling stunts at the house.

Edit: I pulled up some info and, of course, her phone number is unlisted; however, her address is not. If she is Dorothy J. Wacker of Massillon, she lives at 10271 Wooster St, Massillon, OH. I tried to link in the satellite image on Google maps but it didn't work. Check it out. The house is in a pretty wide open area.

Can anyone follow up on this?

The worst thing she could do is get mad and hang up? My God. The fact that you would write something like that says a lot. Try thinking of someone else's interests for a change.

Considering the nature of this case, I really think trying to contact Mrs. Wacker would be tacky and way out of line. Did it occur to anyone else that she has probably put this ugliness behind her and may no longer wish to be "harassed" further?

Doesn't someone on this forum live near the house? I know Bill passed away awhile back but I think Dorothy is still around, though she's very old now. As much as we should probably respect people's privacy, I'm sure someone in the area can get access to her number or address somehow and just call her or pay her a visit and tell her that you've followed the case for years and would like to see if there were any updates. Worst you could do is make her mad and she hangs up. I believe a former poster stated that he/she lived near the neighborhood and even commented that there wasn't much space in the area for someone to hide if they were pulling stunts at the house.

Edit: I pulled up some info and, of course, her phone number is unlisted; however, her address is not. If she is Dorothy J. Wacker of Massillon, she lives at 10271 Wooster St, Massillon, OH. I tried to link in the satellite image on Google maps but it didn't work. Check it out. The house is in a pretty wide open area.

Can anyone follow up on this?

Here is an old thread where a few people who lived fairly close commented:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=159290

I can certainly understand your curiousity JRA. I've spent a lot of time over the years wondering whatever became of the stalking but I think it would be a bad idea for anyone to contact Dorothy directly. Its hard for us to know how she would take it but the fact she is very elderly would make me not want to risk it in case it would upset her. Too bad there isn't a way someone who could talk to a relative in the family and find out more about what, if anything, ever came of the case. Just my opinion...:)

Yeah it wouldn't be wise to contact her directly, but maybe a realtive or neighbor...I suppose that wouldn't be so bad...I'm always curious to see if there have been any incidents since Bill has passed away. If so, I'm pretty sure that proves he had nothing to do with the attacks.

Well no I suppose it's not a good idea then. I just figured there had to be someone in the area that may be able to approach her easier and with good intentions. Lots of bad things happen to people in life and no, she may not want to talk about it, but then again it may not bother her. Some people talk about their Vietnam stories and some don't. It just depends on the person. She sure didn't look like the scared old lady in her interview though. I don't mean any disrespect to her, but I am curious to see if she'd even talk about it again. I know one of the members of the forum is the mother or relative in the Lil' Miss case, and she's grateful for all the supporters on here and doesn't mind talking about it.

As similar as this case is to Cindy James and Blair Adams,

I find it interesting that unlike those two cases, the Wackers never wound up dead or killed at the end. (at least not at the time these activities were occuring). It seems like the period of terror just ended.

This would kind of point to the idea that it was all a hoax or that their tormentors were more interested in terrorism than an actual crime for profit.

Question...have there ever been a case like Cindy James or the Wackers where a person has been terrorized over a 3-5 year period and actual suspects were found as well as a motive?

I guess what i'm trying to say is HOW UNIQUE IS THE WACKER CASE?:confused:

In my opinion is definitely the most bizarre segment ever aired on Unsolved Mysteries. First either the Wackers are complete nutjobs themselves and are making the whole thing up (for nothing more than publicity I would gather), or there is some unknown nutjob out there who got his rocks off messing with an elderly couple for no apparent reason.

I still think the Cindy James case was nothing more than a schizophrenic who was really lost in her own mind. For there to be no suspects whatsoever in her case and the fact that she was evaluated by a psychiatrist and placed in medical care says it all. The woman certainly wasn't playing with a full deck and I think she killed herself and staged the whole thing.

Her sister has a website up and she has what she claims is an actual clip of a threatening phone call made to her where the voice says, "Cindy...dead...meat...soon...", and it's quite obvious that it's a woman saying it...it was probably Cindy James herself.

...I still think the Cindy James case was nothing more than a schizophrenic who was really lost in her own mind. For there to be no suspects whatsoever in her case and the fact that she was evaluated by a psychiatrist and placed in medical care says it all. The woman certainly wasn't playing with a full deck and I think she killed herself and staged the whole thing...

I don't know about that, I think she was murdered. First of all, how could she have hog-tied herself and then give herself injections.

Don't think the injections would have actually taken effect right away...I belive authorities said it would have taken 15 minutes for the dosage found in her to kick in, and they had people recreate her ties and they could do it in a matter of three minutes.

I'm having a hard time believing the 'being driven off their property' angle. This appeared to be an ordinary house in an ordinary neighborhood, nothing overly fancy.

I also find it odd that Dorothy lets the man in, who claims to have "car trouble", but there is no car in sight. Why wouldn't the man go to the house nearest where his car broke down, even assuming he had a car?

Also of note: despite the vast amounts of crime allegedly being committed, the neighbors never seem too concerned. If there were home invasions, robberies and assaults occuring en masse on the street I lived on, I would hightail out of there, but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

Good point about that...yeah the house is nothing special nor is it sitting on a potentially high priced piece of land, so the theory about driving them away to gain the property doesn't seem plausible. Unfortuneatly we don't know all of the details surrounding the case, we're only going on the UM segment. And as evidenced in the Frank Casteel case, and numerous others it seems like at times they leave crucial pieces of evidence out for fear of being sued for libel by potential suspects. So we may have some neighbors who say they heard some thing or seen someone, but it just wasn't used on UM.

I just can't come up with a reason as to why Dorothy and Bill would make this whole story up...there's no obvious finnancial gain to be attained, so why even bother wasting everyones time?

I just thought of an off the cuff theory..

What if the Whackers was a case of a mistaken identity?

Perhaps the person or persons terrorizing them, where terrorizing the wrong people?

I know this sounds crazy but the idea came to me when watching the Mary Morris Murders.

Perhaps the previous tenants of the house were the intended victims.

To me that would seem more logical than if they were making it up and doing it themselves.

This is on one of the UM comps (vol. 2 ) My disc has started to skip . I have tried cleaning it several times. Would anyone be willing to provide me with another copy of volume 2?

Here's what I don't get:

It would seem that it would have to be someone in the neighborhood. Not only does Bill say "we'd never hear a car.", but also the neighbors say that they haven't heard or seen any cars, and also don't report any cars that seemed out of the ordinary for the neighborhood. If this was someone outside of the neighborhood, they would have to park their car somewhere, yet nobody sees or hears a car. Unless they are on foot, but that would indidcate someone that lives nearby, but maybe not on that street. Plus, you'd have to figure that the person responsible lives close enough to the home due to the frequency of harassment, as it is unlikely that he would do extensive traveling to keep going back and forth from his home and the Wacker's home.

but yet, the Wackers say that they belive that whoever is responbile for Dorothy's 1985 attack is responisble for all of their harassment.

Yet, how could that be? If it someone local, as I stated above that I believe it was, how is this person not recognized due to the composite? If it's a local person, someone in the area would have to recognize him, yet nobody does. So now this would indicate someone that doesn't live in the area.

Unless it's someone who comes and goes and perhaps someone in the area is covering for them.

I just thought of an off the cuff theory..

What if the Whackers was a case of a mistaken identity?

Perhaps the person or persons terrorizing them, where terrorizing the wrong people?

I know this sounds crazy but the idea came to me when watching the Mary Morris Murders.

Perhaps the previous tenants of the house were the intended victims.

Not a bad theory. I hope this case gets solved someday.

I apologize for my ignorance on this case.

But is it known who owned the house previously before the Wackers?

Was there anything strange about these previous owners? Were they looked into?

I know some have a hard time believing that Bill might be in on this, but look at what happened with the Joe Owens case. He almost certainly murdered his wife, and I think they had been together for about as long as the Wackers had. Hard to imagine, but it has happened.

I know some have a hard time believing that Bill might be in on this, but look at what happened with the Joe Owens case. He almost certainly murdered his wife, and I think they had been together for about as long as the Wackers had. Hard to imagine, but it has happened.

I would feel alot better about that theory if there was some sign or evidence of a strained relationship between Bill and his wife. But apparently it looks like they had no friction between them.

No signs of infidelity, arguments, abuse or anything.

I highly doubt Bill Wacker would give his wife skull lacerations and have her rushed to the hospital just to drum up some publicity. Dorothy says there's an unknown caller that keeps calling, and the bumps on the side of the house while both of them were home. I just find it almost impossible for Bill to be involved in this. He certainly seemed to come off as honest when I watched the segment recently to refresh my memory. Also, if Bill were involved, why would he have the person doing this steal things from his house just to bring them back? Why have the intruder steal anything at all, if he's just going to bring it back? Why not just have the guy ramsack the place, and make it look like a robbery attempt? It just doesn't make any sense.

P.S. There's the notes too that seem to be written by someone who's really intent on getting the Wackers out of their house for whatever reason. One of the notes said something along the lines of how the assailant warned them before to get away and then insults their lights. I just don't think Bill Wacker is that sly to write the notes himself and have no fingerprints or any evidence on little scraps of paper.

Watched the case again. The more and more i look at this case, i'm starting to lean toward the idea that someone had an interest in the land or house and was trying to get them to move.

It's the only theory that makes sense.

1. It woud really cost nothing to hire some local thugs to start a harassmen campaign for that long. If the land or home is valuable enough, someone would go through the trouble of paying off these people.

2. I think the biggest piece of evidence is that nothing really damaging was done to the house and there was no real attempt to kill the Wackers.

I really wonder if someone saw the house or land and knew the Wackers would never move, and they figured they could force them to move, while this buyer purchases the land or home via a third party.

Organized crime has done this before where they hire local roughs, drug dealers or gangsters to scare residents into moving out of apartments or low cost neighborhodds. Why not do the same thing in more upscale neighborhood.

They just showed this one again today.

I'm at a complete loss as to what in the world could have been going on. I think UM left out way too much info.

One motive that comes to my mind has been mentioned here: the disgruntled neighbor. It could be something as simple as retired Mr. Wacker mowing his lawn at 7am on saturday mornings, the only day the employed (and now disgrunted neighbor) gets to sleep in. Crazy neighbors feud and even hold secret grudges over things that ordinary people would think could be solved with a polite conversation.

Stealing items from the home and then returning them here and there would definitely be one way to mess with their heads. Plus the prank phone calls and crayon notes. And then the ran sackings and physical assaults.

Another idea that came to mind was what if the Wackers were trying to become (very clumsy and inept) insurance fraud criminals? Were they retired and living on a small pension and social security? Maybe they were practicing at becoming scammers with the first break ins that they didn't report to the police.

Then they stole their belongings and tried to figure out if they could file an insurance claim (I remember a gun and an antique watch, I forgot the rest of the items) to get some cash? Maybe they found out that their deductible was more than the items were worth and they wouldn't have gotten an insurance payout, so the items mysteriously returned?

In the meantime, they kept up the creepy crayon notes and prank phone call stories while trying to come up with new fraud ideas?

Just throwing that out there fwiw...

Keep in mind in this case there is a police sketch of a suspect. This was something that Cindy James did not provide in her own story

It's indeed possible that they made up the individual in the sketch, i think the sketch artist and police might have seen through that.

Granted the guy does look a little generic in the sketch.

Did you notice how they edited out Dorothy's grin and almost laugh after Bill said he wasn't going to move because of a "kook"? I think they also didn't mention the sketch of the guy in the story at all until the "if you have any information contact us at unsolved.com" part. When they said that, they showed the sketch but they didn't mention it at all.

I looked for her to smirk or laugh when Mr. Wacker was speaking and she didn't. I don't like it when they edit the old episodes like that before reairing them. It goofs everything up.

I did notice that during the "stakeout", the ladies in the house heard the thump, thump, thump sound just as the men were finishing up with watching the house, and should have been able to see someone placing that note on the front porch.

I'm wondering if the thump, thump, thump was the sound of someone throwing the rock (with the note attached) onto their porch, from maybe the house next door, or a hiding spot in the yard next door, etc. It seems to me that it would explain the thumping noise, and why the men didn't see a person place the note on the porch, if it really was attached to a rock, as shown in the reenactment.

Also, when they showed one of the real notes, it said something about getting even. Someone did have a grudge against the Wackers. "Getting even" means they did have enemy whether they realized it or not. It could have been an enemy that had a real or imagined reason to be mad at them.

As I watched the most brutal attack reenactment, where Mrs. Wacker was taking her dog outside to use the bathroom, that made me wonder if perhaps that could even be a motive. Were let letting their doggie go potty on their neighbor's lawn?

When I was a kid, we had a neighbor who actually trained his two dogs to go in our yard instead of their own. My dad would retaliate by taking the muffler off an old lawn mower, filling it up with gas, parking it next to the mutual property line, and letting sit there and run all day, full blast. Neighbors do really weird things to each other.

To me, this seems to be a case where Occam's Razor should apply: from the positioning of the house, it's hard to see how a perp could have just disappeared, on foot, without anyone noticing anything unusual, given both what appears to be a quiet neighborhood and isolated enough to provide a lack of cover. To me, this suggests there was no perp.

While this requires one of both of the Wackers to be somewhat disturbed (Munhausen's or Munhausen's-by-proxy, likely), why is this any less problematic then random guesses at motive - there was no evidence presented of any "enemy" (and presumably, the police have investigated this angle), only one corroborated event (that is, all but the night of "survaillance" is on the Wackers' word alone that it ever happened as described), and no rationale given as to why anyone would want what certainly appears to be unremarkable property... it's certainly possible that one or more events did actually happen and the rest was staged, or that there was some "kook" who got his kicks harassing a random couple, but it just all seems unlikely to me.

I saw this episode again today. Like most of you, I've seen it a dozen times. But since I've been introduced to this site I decided to really pay close attention to the segment. I have no idea. It just doesn't seem to have any real exclamation. Although, I do like the point of it being somehow related to the property.

This one with the Wackers was a head scratcher and although I am usually a big fan of "The Husband Did It" I don't think Mr. Wacker was messing with his wife. I do think it was either a stranger just getting his jollies or a disgruntled neighbor. No offense to the elderly but sometimes they can hold a grudge like no otehr and myabe a neighbor was pissed or something.

When they were doing their homemade "stakeout" I though oh Jesus Mary and Joseph - someone is going to shoot someone else! And not in a good way!

What leans me toward this being a possible hoax is :

1. None of the Wackers were killed.
2. No real intenive damage to the property. House was ransacked and vandalized, but not in a serious way that was beyond repair. House was not bur
3. Nothing ever happened to the people helping them with the stakeout, not even a threatening letter to them.
4. The terror campaign ended as suddenly as it began when the case gained publicity
5. No police leads of ANY kind.
6.


If Mrs Wacker was suffering Munhausen's-by-proxy. I wonder if Mr. Wacker would simply go along with the act out of genuine concern over his wife or pure delusion that his wife

Perhaps Mr. Wacker couldn't cope with the fact that his wife was loosing her mind and it seemed easier to believe that an unseen assailant was attacking them.

What leans me toward this being a possible hoax is :

1. None of the Wackers were killed.
2. No real intenive damage to the property. House was ransacked and vandalized, but not in a serious way that was beyond repair. House was not bur
3. Nothing ever happened to the people helping them with the stakeout, not even a threatening letter to them.
4. The terror campaign ended as suddenly as it began when the case gained publicity
5. No police leads of ANY kind.
6.


If Mrs Wacker was suffering Munhausen's-by-proxy. I wonder if Mr. Wacker would simply go along with the act out of genuine concern over his wife or pure delusion that his wife

Perhaps Mr. Wacker couldn't cope with the fact that his wife was loosing her mind and it seemed easier to believe that an unseen assailant was attacking them.

I use to feel that way about the Manhausen-by-proxy, but what about the attack on Mrs. Wacker?

I have kind of a nitpicky question on Mrs. Wacker's "skull lacerations" as they are calling them on the program.

According to the dictionary, lacerations are cuts, jagged tears, torn ragged wounds, torn tissue, etc.

In other words, a laceration is a wound that opens the flesh, not the bone of the skull.

So if she was beaten about the head in the worst of the two attacks, did she suffer SCALP lacerations? Or skull fractures? I'm thinking that it's physically impossible for her to have sustained "skull lacerations" as they stated in the program, because the skull is bone and lacerations would have to be cuts to the flesh, not the bone.

I think by calling them "skull lacerations" rather than "cuts to her scalp or forehead" or whatever, they may be trying to make the second attack on Mrs. Wacker sound more severe than it actually was. (No disrespect meant to the victim at all. Obviously, a head wound should be taken seriously. But I think the words used here may have been chosen simply for their dramatic effect.)

The reason the last few posts have been deleted:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=234830

This one with the Wackers was a head scratcher and although I am usually a big fan of "The Husband Did It" I don't think Mr. Wacker was messing with his wife.
I don't think he was, either. I'm not trying to be mean, but I'm not sure that Mr. Wacker is smart enough to do those things without getting caught.

Yeah, Mr/ Wacker did not seem like the brightest bulb out there. And he was a little too excited running around with a gun.

But I think they are being harassed by a disgruntled neighbor. Who really knows?

I have been reading this entire thread and there are some great opinions here. They had this episode on this morning and I watched it closely. Every possible option here has been discussed. I don't really have anything to add without being repitious of prior posts so will just say I am on the fence and have not really drawn any conclusions. This is my favorite UM case as I watched the original episode when UM first aired it. It has always fascinated me.

Not to say they had anything to do with it but.... I read a non-fiction book called "Fly Away Little Girl" after this segment aired and it does make you wonder. The woman behind the book was on Oprah and she had no idea she was doing it to herself. It was totally creepy. At first I was convinced she did have a stalker. She was really good at what she was (unknowingly) doing to herself.

I've seen this episode a number of times and still get creeped out about the harrassment going on for a decade.

The wife was hit twice by someone. Remember, a man came to her door to use the phone. I wonder if he had anything to do with the ensuing stalking or maybe some neighborhood weirdo read about the attack and just continued on for kicks.

I don't believe the husband had anything to do with this case. I definitely believe it was someone living close by who could see the police cars and lights and know who was in or out of the house. Nutty.

I don't believe the husband had anything to do with this case. I definitely believe it was someone living close by who could see the police cars and lights and know who was in or out of the house. Nutty.

The problem with that theory is that if it was the neighbors they would have been found by now, its not like they have that many people living within eyeshot of them in that part of the country. Any minor dispute over anything would have been picked up on by the police.

Its not like a neighbor developed a hatred for the Whackers from out of the blue and decided rather than settle this legally or by talking way, lets go terrorize the poor couple right away.

If it was the neighbors there would be a history of conflict that would be obvious to investigators and the Whackers

I think the police first target was the neighbors in the first place and they found nothing.

If there is an assailant, i don;t think he necessarily has to have lived in the neighborhood.

Hell he could simply be camping out in the woods with survival gear and binoculars.

absolutely nothing in this case makes any sense.

we've talked about the lack of an apparent motive before. but to expand on that, who would devote a decade of their lives to terrorizing an elderly couple with no obvious benefit from it? This person, if they do exist, is going to extraordinary lenghts for no discernable reason. Things were taken from the house, but were returned. Injuries were received, but far from life-threatening. There is the scare them out of their property angle, but why would someone target such an ordinary, run-of-the-mill house in middle class suburbia? And if the purpose was to scare the Wackers off their property, wouldn't the perpetrator let that be known? there is never a 'get out this house' scrawled on the wall or anything of that nature. Not even the Wackers know why they're targeted. The perp just doesn't appear to gain anything out of this.

The composite sketch is just so ordinary looking, and I say that because I don't believe this guy exists. After doing such a good job of hiding, why would he then show up at the Wacker's front door in the middle of the day without any attempt to disguise himself? This just doesn't make sense.

absolutely nothing in this case makes any sense.

we've talked about the lack of an apparent motive before. but to expand on that, who would devote a decade of their lives to terrorizing an elderly couple with no obvious benefit from it? This person, if they do exist, is going to extraordinary lenghts for no discernable reason. Things were taken from the house, but were returned. Injuries were received, but far from life-threatening. There is the scare them out of their property angle, but why would someone target such an ordinary, run-of-the-mill house in middle class suburbia? And if the purpose was to scare the Wackers off their property, wouldn't the perpetrator let that be known? there is never a 'get out this house' scrawled on the wall or anything of that nature. Not even the Wackers know why they're targeted. The perp just doesn't appear to gain anything out of this.

The composite sketch is just so ordinary looking, and I say that because I don't believe this guy exists. After doing such a good job of hiding, why would he then show up at the Wacker's front door in the middle of the day without any attempt to disguise himself? This just doesn't make sense.
I couldn't agree more. There is absolutely nothing about this case that makes sense. There are only two theories I've been able to come up with that seem even remotely possible. One is that they are making the whole thing up in a weird Munchausen-type scenario. The other is that one or both of them sexually abused some kid years ago or something of that nature, and that person is getting his revenge. Of course, both of those seem outlandish, but those two outlandish possibilities are the only things that seem even remotely possible in this case.

The other is that one or both of them sexually abused some kid years ago or something of that nature, and that person is getting his revenge.

Interesting theory. Couple of problems i have with it

1.What happened to the Wackers seems tame for some vengeance seeking abused kid.

I mean why not kill them both? Why not burn their house down? Why not sexually abuse Mrs Whacker while shes unconcious or tied up?

2. If the abused kid is the one that Mrs Whacker identified. He;s taking a huge chance being recognized by Mrs. Whacker. Heck even if he isn;t recognized his mug is out there for anyone to recognize.

3. He';s also taking a big risk doing all these activities. In some cases for just minor annoyances. Suppoes someone saw him put the note down or put the gun and other junk bakc,

Your theory makes most sense in a "Mystic River/Batman" type scenario. Where some abused kid, now is rich and has decided he;s going to hire a couple of thugs just to terrorize the Whackers. He doesn't go as far as killing them, just enough to scare the crap out of them.He stops the activities once the case gets national attention.

to expand on something I wrote earlier: The 'get the message' note attached to a rock was thrown just seconds after the stake out ended. This means that, if the perp is not in the family, one of the following must be true.

1. either the perp happened to approach the Wacker's home just as the stake out ended. (highly unlikely). Plus, I think the stake out lasted later into the night then when the incidents normally occured.

2. the perp was hanging around for an extended period of time, waiting for the opportune moment.

But that is unlikely also. Who would hang around a house for an extended period of time, just to throw a note?

Wiseguy,

UM said that they ended the stakeout at about 10:30pm. I would think (unless no incidents happened any later than that) that 10:30 is much too early to stop the surveillance.

My theory on the "thump, thump, thump" is that either one of the persons on the stake out was the harasser, and he tossed the rock with the note attached on the porch (making the thumping sound) while the other stake out guys were occupied getting their gear together to go into the house, or whatever.

OR, that the harasser is a neigbor, saw them on the stake out, and waited until the last minute, stepped out of his house and slid behind tall bushes, then tossed the rock and attached note onto the porch (while the stake out members were gathering their gear, etc) and the rock made the thumping noise as it skipped along the porch a couple of times.

Earlier today, I came up with another theory. The stake out ending at 10:30pm (early, imo) with the note landing on the porch at about that time, makes me wonder if juveniles were involved.

These pesterings and harassments only happend once or twice a year. What if the perp wasn't a local? What if it was a couple of siblings visiting their grandparents a time or two a year? What if it was a young cousin visiting a relative? What if it wa a kid(s) whose parent kept getting thrown in jail for petty offenses and the kid was sent to live with relatives for a short amount of time? Maybe it was a rich kid home on summer/christmas break from boarding school?

Is there a pattern to the months or times of year the attacks happened?

If it was juveniles, who were not full time residents of the area, that could explain why the attacks were separated by such a length of time, why the incidents seems so amateurish, even why the stolen items were returned (the kids could have gotten really terrified of that theft being a major crime and decided to give the items back hoping they coudn't be charged with taking them), and if the incidents ended before late evening, youthful trouble makers could explain that too because they had to be home before bed time.

Wiseguy,

UM said that they ended the stakeout at about 10:30pm. I would think (unless no incidents happened any later than that) that 10:30 is much too early to stop the surveillance.

My theory on the "thump, thump, thump" is that either one of the persons on the stake out was the harasser, and he tossed the rock with the note attached on the porch (making the thumping sound) while the other stake out guys were occupied getting their gear together to go into the house, or whatever.

OR, that the harasser is a neigbor, saw them on the stake out, and waited until the last minute, stepped out of his house and slid behind tall bushes, then tossed the rock and attached note onto the porch (while the stake out members were gathering their gear, etc) and the rock made the thumping noise as it skipped along the porch a couple of times.

Earlier today, I came up with another theory. The stake out ending at 10:30pm (early, imo) with the note landing on the porch at about that time, makes me wonder if juveniles were involved.

These pesterings and harassments only happend once or twice a year. What if the perp wasn't a local? What if it was a couple of siblings visiting their grandparents a time or two a year? What if it was a young cousin visiting a relative? What if it wa a kid(s) whose parent kept getting thrown in jail for petty offenses and the kid was sent to live with relatives for a short amount of time? Maybe it was a rich kid home on summer/christmas break from boarding school?

Is there a pattern to the months or times of year the attacks happened?

If it was juveniles, who were not full time residents of the area, that could explain why the attacks were separated by such a length of time, why the incidents seems so amateurish, even why the stolen items were returned (the kids could have gotten really terrified of that theft being a major crime and decided to give the items back hoping they coudn't be charged with taking them), and if the incidents ended before late evening, youthful trouble makers could explain that too because they had to be home before bed time.
I don't think it was juveniles. I've done a lot of juvenile law and I can't imagine a juvenile or juveniles keeping up a 10-year campaign of harassment. It's hard for me to imagine the Wackers making this whole thing up, and it doesn't make much sense, but it makes more sense than any other explanation I can think of.

what does the perp want?

-he doesn't appear to want anything in the house. things were stolen, but later returned, which indicates he doesn't want it.

-does he want to kill Dorothy and or Bill? Maybe, but that doesn't appear likely either. Dorothy received injuries on the second of 2 assaults, but they don't appear to be anywhere near life threatening. I'm curious to know the extent of these skull lacerations. On the first assault, she was tied up.

-does the perp want the Wackers to move? Maybe, but that appears unlikely as well. If that were the case, it's interesting to note that despite all of the lengths this man goes to, over the course of 10 years, he wouldn't get what he wants. The Wacker's don't move. Everything this man has done over a decade is a waste. (in his mind anyways)

-this could be a revenge type things, but wouldn't the Wackers know that? wouldn't they know someone that was a suspect and had a motive?

so we're back to the question: what does the perp want?

so with no apparent motives and suspects, it begins to look like some sort of inside job. but then there are other things to suspect inside job: there's no evidence.

-nobody ever sees the man
-nobody ever hears the man
-nobody ever sees a car
-no neighbor reports of suspcious activity

and then these things suggest inside job

-handwriting on note appears to be written in opposite hand, indicating written by someone in or close to the family
-phone number is change, yet the perp manages to get the new number somehow.
-in all of the cases where the perp comes to the house at night at drops notes, he always manages to get away undetected. But that's also true with the burglaries. During all 3, he is never caught in the act. He seems to know alot about the Wackers that a stranger normally wouldn't know.

the issue of Dorothy letting the man in the house BUGS me. for these reasons.

-she lets the man in the house as he claims to have car trouble, yet there's no car visible
-she lets a stranger into her house after the house has been burlgarized on thee different occasions
-she turns her back on him and goes into another room while he is on the phone.
-why wouldn't the man go to one of the closer houses to use a phone? I'm guessing the Wackers only had one vehicle and Bill was using it, so why does the stranger go up to a house with no car presents, which would give most people the impression nobody is home?

the first 2 burglaries are glossed over in the segment. But the 3rd buglary and the first assault on Dorothy happen in the daytime. This is particularly brazen of the perp.

"Cheaper, but will do" and "No Junk" instead of the more common "No joke"
phrases from messages according to the segment and a few backwards "s"
this was the only striking thing to me.

Asking people to hold a stakeout who aren't police and see what happens, not suprising you could miss the perp. Let's be honest the re-enactments might not be at the Wacker's actual house and we do not have all the evidence the police might have.

That being said yes you can make a case for publicity but you can also make one for just what they say it is Harrasment. We don't know what kind of Job Bill had, he could have disgruntled employees if he owned his own business for example.

I can understand why people think this was Munchausens or just a publicity stunt however wouldn't you sell T-shirts or sell the movie rights to Lifetime?

Seriously, I mean to say that you can't be serious with those two ideas as the entire family would have to be in on the scam. Bill , Dorothy,Dan, and Clay, and Clay's Wife Kathy??? I almost forgot their daughter Peggy Hoover while not in the surveilance apparently she too would have to be a accomplice.

Most important as i said before we do not have all the evidence just what Unsolved tells us.

Finding out the Unlisted Phone numbers is somewhat interesting as this can be done easily now with google and all sorts of programs etc that you can pay to use to find pretty much anything on anybody but back then mid to early 80's i would have to guess you are a Private eye or a Police officer else
you have to be someone they trust enough to have given their "new" phone number to.


The only thing that cannot be rationally explained is returning stolen property
well maybe rationally isn't the most proper term.

It would be great if someone in the area of Massillon Ohio would try to dig up anything from their library or maybe if they can get some info from the police.

wiseguy, I'm with you on this case. I'd be interested in hearing candidly from some of the local police on this.

Wiseguy's post about sums it up for me.

He didn't say this in his post, but when you add it all up, there is virtually no way this is anything but an inside job. Meaning one or more of the Wackers was in on it.

No one harrasses someone for that long without a motive (except maybe L'Effant... and that is one eff-ed up story).

Just read Wiseguy's post and there is zero logic to it being an outside person. Who steals things only to return them one at a time? Why take the chance multiple times to potentially be caught with stolen property at the scene of the crime?

The only question, in my mind, is who is the guilty party. Mr. Wacker and/or Mrs. Wacker and/or their kids.

On the .01% chance this is an outsider doing this, then that person has to be one of the craziest, dumbest, and most dedicated perps ever. I don't buy it.

Great summary, Wiseguy. I hope I don't sound like I'm putting words in your mouth! :D

wiseguy, I'm with you on this case. I'd be interested in hearing candidly from some of the local police on this.


I agree, yuppielawyer. I wonder if the local PD thinks this is real or if they would agree with me that this smells like an inside job.

To me the biggest keys in this case are:

1. Only Mrs Whacker that received any harm to her. Practically nothing happened to Mr. Whacker.

2. No damage was done to the house or property that could not be easily fixed.

3. Nothing was stolen, that wasn't returned

4. Not once did the attackers make clear what they wanted the Whackers to do or what would happen if they didn;t comply


5. At the end of this whole thing , the Whackers were not killed or even missing? Unlike with Cindy James.

6. The attacks happened over a 10 yr period.

Well, I'm in Canton, OH this week for work; so guess what I decided to do. Go find the Wacker's house. Maybe I'm just too much of a UM enthusiast but this case intrigued me, and I wanted to see the area where this stuff supposedly took place. A simple lookup in the white pages shows a Dorothy J. Wacker at 10271 Wooster St., Massillon, OH. I Googled mapped it and found it (or what I think is it). I used the satellite imagery to help also. It's on a 2 lane road with a 45mph speed limit and traffic, so I wasn't able to stop and get a good pic. This one is blurry because I had to take it driving by. It took a few passes by to figure out which one it was. I didn't want to get out either and have someone think I was a freak. This may be the correct house (not 100% sure but pretty certain).

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n10/jasarisi/house.jpg

Great work!!! Thank you. This is really interesting.

Thanks....just re-watching the segment I noticed that their daughter's name is Peggy. If you look up Dorothy in the white pages it lists a Peggy L. as part of the household, so I think this is it. The house is also obviously white in real life also (it was portrayed white with a screen door in the UM segment also). I couldn't find a mailbox with a house number but I narrowed it down by finding neighboring house numbers. It's either this house or the large house to the left of it (which I don't think is right). Also, when you watch the segment, notice the photo of Dorothy and Bill toward the end. They are in front of their house, which is white with green trim around the door and window. In the photo above, the house is white with green trim around the door/window.

I should have taken more pics of the area but it was nasty and rainy out today.

Thanks....just re-watching the segment I noticed that their daughter's name is Peggy. If you look up Dorothy in the white pages it lists a Peggy L. as part of the household, so I think this is it. The house is also obviously white in real life also (it was portrayed white with a screen door in the UM segment also). I couldn't find a mailbox with a house number but I narrowed it down by finding neighboring house numbers. It's either this house or the large house to the left of it (which I don't think is right). Also, when you watch the segment, notice the photo of Dorothy and Bill toward the end. They are in front of their house, which is white with green trim around the door and window. In the photo above, the house is white with green trim around the door/window.

I should have taken more pics of the area but it was nasty and rainy out today.

Did you have to fight off the urge to yell "YOUR LIGHTS ARE A LAUGH!!!"

:D

I will say after riding by the housse that I'm not sure that there are tons of places for someone to hide around there. To the right of the house is a vacant open lot and to the left (very close as seen in the pic) there is the neighbor's house. It is unusully close by, so maybe it was their next door neighor doing this? If you do a Google satellite view on the address, you can see this as well.

Not saying I don't believe them, it's just a weird case in general. I thought it'd be neat to ride by and look at what the real place looks like. Plus, what else am I going to do after work when I'm out of town and bored.

JRA,

The house isn't in a neighborhood, but is on a main road? Does it look like it was always a 45mph zone (20 years ago) or maybe did it used to be a much less traveled road during the time of this case? And the house next door, is it new, or does it look like they just fixed it up or added on to an old one that was there back when the Wackers were having their troubles?

If the Wacker's house isn't in a typical neighborhood, that helps explain why none of the neighbors heard or saw anything. When you're living on a main road, you tend to tune out the noise. By looking at the satellite map, most of the houses seem to be far apart. Also, people walking down a main road aren't suspect. Nothing can look "out of place" in the neighborhood, because it's not a typical neighborhood.

From looking at the satellite view, I'm wondering who owns the property just to the left of the newer looking house. There's a two track or dirt road there that goes straight back into a bunch of different fields. If you put the address into maps.live.com and choose the birds eye feature, you can really see a lot of detail. The dirt road doesn't look like it belongs to either of the houses next to it, but it doesn't look like an official road, either. I wonder if it was there back when this was all happening.

With the wacker's house being on a larger two lane road like that, I can't help but think that some of the banging or knocking they heard could easily have been from someone driving by and throwing something at the house. Heck, it could have been twigs falling off that big tree and dropping onto the roof, making it sound like someone was banging on the house.

The house isn't in a neighborhod. It's like a 2 lane highway but with a reduced speed limit to 45, and yes, their house is close to that main road. It would have been the same 20 years ago. That picture I took was with me driving while I took it (dangerous I know), but it gives you an idea on how close their house is to the road. In fact, it would be easy to run off the road into their yard if you were driving. The house is right at the bend in the road if you're looking at it on the satellite map. Most of the houses on that street are spaced far apart. Theirs happens to be really close to the neighbor on the left.

The house directly to the left, which is larger, looks to be an older house as well. There is a huge expansive open lot to the right side.

JRA, it seems like you have many UM connections involved somehow with work---first the "Gail Delano" hotel and now this. :p

I'm an internal auditor, so I travel 50% from April to December. I get around alot, and if I go to a place known for a UM case, I try to check stuff out (like this). We have a plant in Horicon, WI, believe it or not. I didn't get sent there this year, but I wanted to drive by and see the Tallman house.

I worked at the Gail Delano hotel for a short time back in college.

I'll post pics of anything else UM related I come across.

Cool--I really appreciate it when others post impressions and photos--it always helps me get a better feel for the place. I find it extremely interesting to compare what's in the segment to the scenes years later. I try to do the same when I get a chance--I've posted some photos of the Rhonda Hinson scene in Valdese, NC on here before and a few of the Blair Adams sites around where I live. My husband's currently working up in a town between Toledo and Cleveland, OH, so I'm hoping to take a few pictures of the Cindy Anderson and Kurt Sova sites, respectively, if I can.

I've posted some photos of the Rhonda Hinson scene in Valdese, NC on here before and a few of the Blair Adams sites around where I live.

Neat. Could you direct me to those threads. I'd love to see the pics.

Neat. Could you direct me to those threads. I'd love to see the pics.

Yep, sure can. The first of the photos start at the bottom of the first page and continue to the top of the second:

http://www.sitcomsonline.com/boards/showthread.php?t=242172&highlight=rhonda+hinson

That picture I took was with me driving while I took it (dangerous I know),
Ha! This immediately made me think of that journalist who took the picture of the bank robber as they drove past each other on the road. I guess you at least didn't have the danger that someonoe from the house would shoot you, but who knows, really? ;) Be careful!

Ah the Wackers! Those crazy kids from Ohio! I still think about this case because it is truly puzzling. They way they looked and the way they sounded reminded me of the outstate farmers here in Minnesota. I just can't believe they would do this to themselves. I just have to believe that it was some weirdo getting his/her/their giggles by tormenting them.

Did you have to fight off the urge to yell "YOUR LIGHTS ARE A LAUGH!!!" This is funny!

I must admit though....I would have been willing to help Mr. Wacker until he pulled out his handgun and wanted to start shooting. I woud have been afraid he would shoot ME!

One thing that I noticed is why people ask did the tormenter return the weapon and other items he tookduring the assault on Dorothy Wacker? Maybe the tormenter returned those items to further torture the Wackers? The fact he could steal, than return those items...without anyboody detecting him almost makes him appear invincible, basically he can do whatever the hell he wants and nobody can stop him...just a theory:)./

One thing that I noticed is why people ask did the tormenter return the weapon and other items he tookduring the assault on Dorothy Wacker? Maybe the tormenter returned those items to further torture the Wackers? The fact he could steal, than return those items...without anyboody detecting him almost makes him appear invincible, basically he can do whatever the hell he wants and nobody can stop him...just a theory./

Possibly,......

1.don;t you think it would make more sense and be even scarier to take the GUN, and return the other stuff? Why would you give back an item that could be potentially used against you?

2. The attacker runs more risk in getting caught returning these weapons at the house. Why would he risk that? I'm sure he could come up with other more terrifying acts that don;t involve those risks.

3. No items were lost, no damage was done to the house or The whackers that was permanent. Bill Whacker was not harmed at all. Big clues in my opininion.

That being said...

.....It is possible that ther reason the attacker brought back the items was that he feared that he would be found with them. Which would mean that the attacker was a close neighbor or family member.

Well good ideas but....I think

1. Simply more bravado....the fact he returned an item that could be used against him strikes fear into the heart of the wackers. Makes them think...well he is going to return a weapon to us, a weapon...? This guy gets off on harassing the two, and while he is evil...and ballsy...he sure as hell isn't stupid. He is basically rubbing it in thier noses, that even in the comfort of thier own home...he can harass them...and steal thier stuff...and return it without no problem. This helps to further the Wackers fear that he is invincible.

2. I really think he likes the risk...hence the reason he posted the note...even with the whole family present. He gets off on the thrill.

3.I think this guy prefers to harass them subtly, with smaller things...outside of Dorothy's two attacks....aka the banging of the house and phone calls. A bunch of little stuff mixed with some huge knockouts. I think thiswayhe kind of gets the idea the wackers wll have thier emotions torture them anymore than he can himself.


Again...great post and thanks. I do agree w/ you that the Wackers know thier tormenter, although i dont think very close...I think it is not a family member, yet a neighbour upset with them for some reason.

Some of us are so obsessed with this case, and know so much about it, I bet if we could sit down one weekend with any willing family members to interview them, we'd have the whole thing solved.

(I know, keep dreaming, Tracy.... lol)

Some of us are so obsessed with this case, and know so much about it, I bet if we could sit down one weekend with any willing family members to interview them, we'd have the whole thing solved.

(I know, keep dreaming, Tracy.... lol)

hey if cartoonist Robert Graysmith could investigate the Zodiac murders on his own. I guess any of us could do a serious investigation on the case and maybe come up with the answer.

Of course Graysmith lived in the area so he

It's not really that far-fetched, Tracy! I am sure you could find their phone number or address and contact them. You would have to mention that your not police, a lawyer or a newspaper person. Just say that your trying to find the truth and help out. You'd be surprised at how much info you can get from them. You could do everthing from the phone or e-mail.

Web Sleuths has a lot of people on the site that are actually doing real investigations and actually contacting the victims and police investigating.

Zodiackiller.com is very much an active investigation.

I actually seriously considered taking a more active look into Tammy Leppert case in contacting her sister. There are a couple of ideas I have that I was wondering if the police looked into.

I know of two or three sites where Tammy Leppert's sister posts. I think she would welcome any info or ideas you have.

I spoke with her last year on the delphiforums crime message board. I don't know if she's posted here on the UM board recently, or not.

Over at the delphi site, there are some folks who are very active in doing their own investigations. A few people there worked together to get a cold case from 1974 featured on their local news.

I used to visit that message board much more often, but I just don't have the time anymore.

One thing that I noticed is why people ask did the tormenter return the weapon and other items he tookduring the assault on Dorothy Wacker? Maybe the tormenter returned those items to further torture the Wackers? The fact he could steal, than return those items...without anyboody detecting him almost makes him appear invincible, basically he can do whatever the hell he wants and nobody can stop him...just a theory:)./

Even though I personally disagree, I think you make some interesting points.

Reason I don't think it was a random person getting their kicks is the length of time. If it were like a teenage prankster or a bored bitter neighbor, I'd think it would've just been sporadic as opposed to almost 10 years (at the time they filmed the segment in 1993 or 94) Speaking of, I wonder how much happened afterwards too at least before Bill died in '99.

They didn't get anything out of it either (i.e. money, possessions they kept, the Wackers moving out if they wanted the house), so that would be alot of effort to go through for ten years.

Even when I first watched it back then, I kinda thought it was a family member or someone close to them (since they got ahold of the Wackers' unlisted phone numbers, as one of the daughters said). Too many things happened for it to be a coincidence. Especially showing up WHILE they were on stakeout.

As far as the assaults on Dorothy, maybe the first guy who came in and had to use the phone for car trouble was just a horrible coincidence, or was hired by whoever was masterminding the whole thing (just to throw people off).

They didn't get anything out of it either (i.e. money, possessions they kept, the Wackers moving out if they wanted the house), so that would be alot of effort to go through for ten years.

And they never escalated the attacks or degree of the attacks. You would think that if they couldn;t get the old couple to budge that they could of killed them or burned their house down.

Why not kidnap Mrs Whacker? That probably would get Mr. Wacker's attention.

That's why I don;t think there is a profit motive like land or insurance.

As far as the assaults on Dorothy, maybe the first guy who came in and had to use the phone for car trouble was just a horrible coincidence, or was hired by whoever was masterminding the whole thing (just to throw people off).

I don;t believe it's a coincidence because the attacker never stole anything, rape Mrs. Wacker or even kill Mrs. Wacker. If he was a random guy, what was his motive for attacking Mrs. Wacker.

I would think with the amount of money that this mastermind was spending to pay these guys to keep up this non-stop harassment.....couldn;t he just have paid off the Wackers????!!!!:confused:

I mean were talking about 10 years of harassment here. You;d think this guy would try a different tactic or something.

If they didn;t move when Dorothy got attacked twice, all the other stuff is petty in comparison.

This guy gets off on harassing the two, and while he is evil...and ballsy...he sure as hell isn't stupid. He is basically rubbing it in thier noses, that even in the comfort of thier own home...he can harass them...and steal thier stuff...and return it without no problem. This helps to further the Wackers fear that he is invincible

He could prove all of that WITHOUT giving back the gun. A gun which could of had his fingerprints on it.

he sure as hell isn't stupid.

Giving back the gun actually is pretty stupid.IMHO.

^ I agree Mastermind.

When I first watched the segment as a kid in 1994 I was initially on the fence about it possibly being a random person (albeit a weird one), but even then when the daughter said they got ahold of unlisted numbers a bunch of times, I thought for sure it had to be someone close to them and I still do.

Were any of the extended relatives investigated (i.e. one of their sons-in law)? That's alot of needless effort to go through just because they maybe "dont like" someone or perhaps had a disagreement in the past, but it seems like the only plausible explanation to me. They had to have known about the stakeout too.

Maybe whoever stole the gun (and the other stuff) used gloves too.

P.S. I just went back and watched my copy of the segment, and this is interesting but they seem to skip over a bunch of years (although probably just so it didn't slow the story down).

They start in '84/85 when the first time the house was ransacked and the assault on Dorothy by the dude with "car trouble"... then they basically skip ahead to like 1993 at the stakeout and the even worse assault. I wonder if anything serious happened inbetween those years. Or if it was just more the minor stuff like prank phonecalls.

Maybe whoever stole the gun (and the other stuff) used gloves too.

He would wear gloves when stealing it and again when returning it. But when you think about it. He would not think to wear gloves in between when holding the gun at his home, handling it or putting in his hiding place.

That's where the danger of returning these items exists.

Whether a psychopth, disgruntled neighbor or housing develope, The more I think abut it 10 years is a riduclous amount of time to keep this terror campaign going! :rolleyes:

I mean think about what happens to you in period of a decade! People move, die, get jailed, get older, mellow out, get bored.

No, the more I think about this case. The Wackers made this all up. Bill Wacker attacked his wife or made it to look like someone did.

As to why? God only knows.

.

He would wear gloves when stealing it and again when returning it. But when you think about it. He would not think to wear gloves in between when holding the gun at his home, handling it or putting in his hiding place.

That's where the danger of returning these items exists.

Whether a psychopth, disgruntled neighbor or housing develope, The more I think abut it 10 years is a riduclous amount of time to keep this terror campaign going! :rolleyes:

I mean think about what happens to you in period of a decade! People move, die, get jailed, get older, mellow out, get bored.

No, the more I think about this case. The Wackers made this all up. Bill Wacker attacked his wife or made it to look like someone did.

As to why? God only knows.

Yeah, I wonder if it was a little of both. Like maybe the prankcalls and initial breakins were geniune (i.e. a vandalizing teen from the neighborhood) but they embellished it either for media attention or for who knows what else. The assaults are the only problem I have though (heck it's the only "evidence" that anything in the segment actually happened!) and it seems pretty extreme to do that to your wife (or to hire someone to do it), but stranger things have happened.

P.S. Good point about the gun fingerprints, I hadn't thought of that.

Yeah, I wonder if it was a little of both. Like maybe the prankcalls and initial breakins were geniune (i.e. a vandalizing teen from the neighborhood) but they embellished it either for media attention or for who knows what else. The assaults are the only problem I have though (heck it's the only "evidence" that anything in the segment actually happened!) and it seems pretty extreme to do that to your wife (or to hire someone to do it), but stranger things have happened.

P.S. Good point about the gun fingerprints, I hadn't thought of that.


As far as fingerprints on the gun, Bill Wacker never came across to me as someone who (upon seeing the returned gun) would stop and think in a rational enough manner to immediately call the police. Instead he would pick the gun up, look it over, tell his wife it was returned (all the while getting his prints all over the gun and smudging it up) and THEN call the police.

As far as fingerprints on the gun, Bill Wacker never came across to me as someone who (upon seeing the returned gun) would stop and think in a rational enough manner to immediately call the police. Instead he would pick the gun up, look it over, tell his wife it was returned (all the while getting his prints all over the gun and smudging it up) and THEN call the police

There were no fingerprints found by another person, so it's kind of a moot point.

Keep in mind that it's not just the gun that was returned. The killer brought back other items that I'm sure Bill Wacker would not smudge over so quickly.

BTW, anyone know the inventory of items that was stolen and returned?

The gun, obviously. Wasn't there a pocketwatch and a third item?

I was kinda thinking that they could have set up those fake burglaries/ransackings (when they didn't call the cops to report it) and then stole their own items as possibly trying to do an insurance fraud.

But then, maybe when they found out that their insurance didn't cover those items, or the deductible was higher than what the "stolen" items were worth, then the stuff started getting returned to them by the mysterious "thief".

Edited to add that I just read through this WHOLE thread (man, was that was tiring...) and there's no mention of the exact items taken. The only things mentioned are the gun, and then I posted about remembering that there was a pocket watch and some other items. Maybe spike will run this one again soon enough that we'll be able answer that question.

The gun, obviously. Wasn't there a pocketwatch and a third item?

I was kinda thinking that they could have set up those fake burglaries/ransackings (when they didn't call the cops to report it) and then stole their own items as possibly trying to do an insurance fraud.

But then, maybe when they found out that their insurance didn't cover those items, or the deductible was higher than what the "stolen" items were worth, then the stuff started getting returned to them by the mysterious "thief".

Edited to add that I just read through this WHOLE thread (man, was that was tiring...) and there's no mention of the exact items taken. The only things mentioned are the gun, and then I posted about remembering that there was a pocket watch and some other items. Maybe spike will run this one again soon enough that we'll be able answer that question.

I just rewatched it and Stack said it was also the watch along with a movie camera and a scanner. I'm thinking that was legit since it happened along with Dorothy's first assault with the guy using the phone. Even though that could've been the motive for his assault it still seems pretty extreme.

Yeah I've wondered that too, why they waited until the THIRD time to call the cops.

The weirdest thing to me is how most of the biggest incidents happened so far apart (both assaults along with the stolen gun). What happened inbetween 1985 and 1993? I wonder if the segment left some things out. I doubt the phone guy would've still been around that much later, so if it wasn't Bill (or someone he hired to do it), that's even more bewildering.

Thanks for the info, Oldschooler. :)

The gun, obviously. Wasn't there a pocketwatch and a third item?
If that's true, a pocketwatch could be a valuable item in terms of sentiment and intrinsic value.

Probably Difficult to replace as with the gun.

Convenient that this "evil person" out for jollies would be so kind as to return it to them, yet cruel enough to attack Dorothy twice!

I enjoyed the Graysmith Zodiac book, until near the end when he started moving into the relams of fantasy- with Zodiac death movies in sealed canisters designed to disintegrate if opened by anybody other than him or one of his trusted criminal buddies.

As to the Wacker case, my guess is it will only be solved if there is a statute of limitations that runs out- I am guessing both of them are probably dead now, my belief is the wife & some family members are involved & it was an attempt to get him to divorce her & move away because they disliked him.

But I cannot see anybody coming clean while they can still be prosecuted for various things from wasting police time to assault- my guess is that 1993 assault on her went wrong as she was only supposed to be slightly injured.

Well dur duh dur, am I a flake or what? I just noticed that Oldschooler said that a MOVIE CAMERA was among the stolen items.

So, the Wackers owned a video camera of some sort. (I don't know if it was a vhs recorder, which would have been common in the 80s/90s, or if it was an old kind from the 60s/70s that you had to take in to have the film developed or whatever...)

But the point is, the wackers had a video recording device and chose not to use it as a survelliance tool. That's kinda interesting to me.

A movie camera, pocketatch and gun.

1. All items that were expensive to replace by the Wackers.

2. Two of the items the gun and the camera, were items that could be used againt the assailant

3. All three were items that I assume would not be in the same part of the house. The gun I assume would be hidden. How did th assailant know where to find all these item? Why just these three items?

4. All four were items that the assailant could hock at a pawnshop for significant money. Yet he chose not to.

5. Amazingly none of these items had fingerprints on them.

Tracylynn- I thought about that too, lol. VHS camcorders were pretty high tech at the time (I don't think they were commonplace until the mid-late 80s, my parents got one around then) and the Wackers seem like the type who wouldn't be too up to date. ;)

I'm guessing it was one of the older kinds...but like Mastermind said it could've still been used against them. That's kinda why I think it was a relative for them to have known their way around the house, and had a reason to do all this in the first place.

I wonder too if it could be one of Bill's relatives that's not mentioned on the story.. if they assaulted Dorothy twice (instead of him) maybe someone's got something against her?

I got flamed on here once for suggesting someone contact a relative of the Wackers to find out if this stuff was still going on or if they found out anymore info. Dorothy's address is obviously listed (no phone # though). I'm sure it wouldn't be hard to get in touch with someone if curiosity got to you that bad. There was a car in the driveway when I drove by the house, but there was no way I was just going to walk up there and knock on the door.

Oh yeah, time for a new avatar for me now. Oldschooler has the same one as mine. I tried to pause a DVD on one of the episodes and take a screenshot but couldn't get it to work.

Holy cow, JRA. Can you imagine if one of us did get nosey enough to stop in for an unexpected visit at THE Wacker's house!?

I can just see Mr. Wacker running out on the porch with his pistol waving in the air. I'd be afraid someone in that house would have learned a thing or two from his antics.

On the other hand, Mrs. Wacker didn't seem to have a problem opening her door to strangers and letting them just come on in the house.

Yeah I'm sorry I just don't see them staging this. What a price to pay just to cause some attention I mean Mrs. Wacker's skull was cracked IIRC.

Being married 48 years is a long time. Considering the age of the majority of couples when they first got married in the '40s I would suggest they were around 20 when they married. That leaves them at about 70 when the segment airs. There was no talk about Mr. Wacker being an abuser either, no marital problems, no question marks from the kids. This seemed like an otherwise normal couple.

Let's sit back for a second. We live in a world that has people that will rape and murder children, just because. But we have a hard time that some sick ****** would get a kick out of torturing an elderly couple for years? Why is that? Yeah I know they apparently didnt call the police right away. But maybe UM didnt tell the whole story. Maybe they felt the cops were useless in that city. Who knows?

I mean why attack a woman you've been married to for 48 years? Why now? Plus has anyone been on a stakeout? 4 hours is a long time to sit in a van waiting. It is highly possible that the perpetrator managed to sneak by them. You can't tell me they were alert for 4 hours straight!

...has anyone been on a stakeout? 4 hours is a long time to sit in a van waiting. It is highly possible that the perpetrator managed to sneak by them. You can't tell me they were alert for 4 hours straight!

I agree 4 hours is a very long time. At one point, the guys in the van probably started chit chatting and weren't paying attention to the house. Then the perp snuck up to the front porch, knocked on the window and left the note. All that could've been done in a matter of a few minutes. I'm always left wondering what sick-o would get their "kicks" out of terrorizing an elderly couple?

Clockwork,

The phrase that UM used regarding Mrs. Wacker's head injuries was "skull lacerations".

They didn't say "fractured skull" which makes me kinda think that the head wound was bad enough to break the skin and cause bleeding, but not severe enough to even give her a concussion, and certainly not broken bones.

I've searched medical literature online a few times and the only thing I can find is that when skin, muscle, nerves, tendons, veins, etc, are cut or broken in some way, it's called "laceration" but when bone is broken, it's called "fracture".

I can only find one medical article that talks about a bone being lacerated. It's referring to severe wrist wounds and all the tiny bones in the wrist. Even then, most of the terminology is that the soft tissue is lacerated while the bone is fractured.

I think UM specifically used that wording (skull lacerations, when they should have said scalp lacerations) to make the wounds sound life threatening when they weren't.

IMHO, The severity of Mrs. Wackers injuries are very important in this case.

If they were severe,

1. then the assailant that attacked Mrs. Wacker wanted her dead. This attacks then were more than just torture. This person was more than prepared to kill.

2. It also hints that this assailants beef may be more with Mr. Wacker than his wife.

Yeah I'm sorry I just don't see them staging this. What a price to pay just to cause some attention I mean Mrs. Wacker's skull was cracked IIRC.

Being married 48 years is a long time. Considering the age of the majority of couples when they first got married in the '40s I would suggest they were around 20 when they married. That leaves them at about 70 when the segment airs. There was no talk about Mr. Wacker being an abuser either, no marital problems, no question marks from the kids. This seemed like an otherwise normal couple.

Let's sit back for a second. We live in a world that has people that will rape and murder children, just because. But we have a hard time that some sick ****** would get a kick out of torturing an elderly couple for years? Why is that? Yeah I know they apparently didnt call the police right away. But maybe UM didnt tell the whole story. Maybe they felt the cops were useless in that city. Who knows?


I mean why attack a woman you've been married to for 48 years? Why now? Plus has anyone been on a stakeout? 4 hours is a long time to sit in a van waiting. It is highly possible that the perpetrator managed to sneak by them. You can't tell me they were alert for 4 hours straight!


1. The lack of a reason why is problem on both sides of this case. As is the motive of insanity. Mr. Whacker and/or Dorothy may
both not be in their right minds.

2. The majority of people that murder and rape children are not necessarily psychopaths. They tend to be pedophiles and accidents, and crimes of passion.
Come to think of it, it's very rare that serial killers have killed children. There aren't as many psychopaths out their as people think. The majority of crimes in
this country are crimes of passion and criminal enterprise. The "he did it because he's crazy" motive has been a default theory for far too many
investigations.

3. Other than Mrs Whackers claim, what evidence ia there of an
assailant?

4. Don't you find it interesting there was no permanent damage

5. Keep in mind that the assailant also has to be on stakeout as well and runs into the same problems. Where was the assailant watching from, anyway? By car? Was he in a tent somewhere in the woods or brush? If the assailant is not a close neighbor, he has to do a massive job of surveillance on the wackers, to know when the right time to strike is. Or he is one of the people that was on surveillance with the Wackers.

6. I question also whether only one person could do all this. It seems plausible that two people were responsible to keep up this type of terror campaign.

Well good response Mastermind. I do thank the perpetrator is content with the level of harassment he is doing to the Wackers. I would think that if thre is no money invested in the place...maybe he/she is just doing it for sheer joy. Yes the perpetrator had other ways to harass them outside of returning the ugn, but I think they like rubbing his nose in thier face...like I can return ur gun...and nothing u can do about it. While the perpetrator I agree with you is stupid...I feel he is smart in the sense that he is able to remain free for so long. Thanks again:P

While the perpetrator I agree with you is stupid...I feel he is smart in the sense that he is able to remain free for so long.

Keep in mind that a good reason he hasn't been caught yet is that he hasn't killed anyone. I can't imagine this case is that high a priority for the police.

I wonder if there's any way to find out if any incidents happened after the segment was filmed?

Beings that the attack on Dorothy and the stakeout were only a year before they taped it in 1994, it's possible they went on for a little while longer. If not though (and for the sake of discussion, let's say the Wackers did orchestrate the whole thing themselves), maybe once it aired, they figured they got all the attention they wanted.

I'd certainly think by the time Bill passed away in '99, they haven't been going on.

I dont think he/she wants to kill them....he/she gets off on having the wackers...well now just dorothy around so he can continue to terrorize them

I dont think he/she wants to kill them....he/she gets off on having the wackers...well now just dorothy around so he can continue to terrorize them

I'm curious, Skywalker....

1. Do you believe the person attacked Dorothy, the man in the composite sketch, is the suspect?

2. Do you believe he carried these attacks alone, or that he had an accomplice?

3. Do you believe this attacker knew the Wackers very well, or is he just a stranger nearby that chose an old couple to attack at random?

Another interesting point i realized is that all the items that were lost were items valuable to Bill. Non of Dorothy's jewelry or possessions were stolen then returned.

^ Great point Mastermind, I never even considered that! I'm sure if the motive (even in part) was robbery, her jewelry would've been more valuable than some electronics and a gun. That gives even more creedence to the idea that stealing their stuff was probably secondary, imo.

I think it's really unlikely it's still going on now. I wish there was some way to find out how Dorothy is doing these days (I'm sure she's getting pretty up in years), but I certainly would hope no one is harassing her after a quarter century! It might've possibly went on until 1999, but I can't see there being much of a point (in their minds) to do it after Bill passed away.

BTW - it's interesting that they seemed to target Bill more directly in terms of theft, yet they only assaulted Dorothy. If their beef was with him, why not assault him?

BTW - it's interesting that they seemed to target Bill more directly in terms of theft, yet they only assaulted Dorothy. If their beef was with him, why not assault him?

Exactly,old schooler.

He robs Bill, yet returns everything he stole.
He attack Dorothy, but doesn't kill her.

Yet he does not reciprocate the type of attack on the other spouse.

This attacker is unusually selective in the type of crimes he wants to commit.

Thanks again mastermind!

Well....

1. I do believe the person who attacked Dorothy is directly involved in the harassment of the Wackers. I do not believe this person just was some random freak.


2. I do feel that it is more than one person involved. The fact the person has been unable to remain undetected for so long,I feel he had the help of others...but just one. Too many people in a secret always lets out

3. I do feel that this person knows the Wackers, some psycho who either has something against them personally....or some freak who likes to harass innocent victims. Since you brought it up tho...I do think there are two or maybe three accomplices...although I know Im contradicting myself from earlier...oops. I think at least one accomplice is a friend...or a family member of the Wackers...somebody who tips the other accomplice...or accomplices off.

Thanks again...gettin chills :)

It could be the attacker had less to potentially lose by attacking Dorothy. Dorothy isa female and at the risk f sounding sexist...females are generally physically weaker. Also Dorothy seems less suspicious than bill does.

I still maintain neither of them had anything to do with the attacks. I think when the UM segment aired it would have stopped for sure because of the exposure it would have scared the suspects. Bill passed away in '99. Now it would certainly be suspicious if that stuff went all the way to '99 and then stopped but I dont know I have never thought of Bill as anything other than an elderly man who lived a normal life

Oh I so agree....I never thought the two had anything to do with this at all.

Anything further on this case? I always thought it was amazing that even a stakeout proved fruitless. Almost like the tormentor knew they would try that.

I think spike tv should reair this case.....possibly with an update:)...even if it is only if these incidents have occured after 1999, afer bill wackers passing?

I think spike tv should reair this case.....possibly with an update:)...even if it is only if these incidents have occured after 1999, afer bill wackers passing?

I still maintain neither of them had anything to do with the attacks. I think when the UM segment aired it would have stopped for sure because of the exposure it would have scared the suspects.

Apparently not. Dorothy's assailant spent a relatively ample amount of time in the Wacker home after she invited him in, leaving himself perfectly indentifiable (a composite was created, after all). If this individual was indeed involved in the attacks (or if he even exists), I doubt he would be made nervous from a little media exposure after having a likeness of his face passed to everyone in local LE and very likely throughout the community.

I think spike tv should reair this case.....possibly with an update:)...even if it is only if these incidents have occured after 1999, afer bill wackers passing?

I'm pretty sure this was shown on Spike - without any kind of an update whatsoever. :(

I think spike tv should reair this case.....possibly with an update...even if it is only if these incidents have occured after 1999, afer bill wackers passing?

1.Considering the UM segmet and the publicity the case had in the town. I imagine there would be more than a few copycats and pranksters that were responsible for a few of the incidents. Possibly even the incidents that occured after Bill's passing.

2. If the attacks were indeed a hoax, most likely Dorothy Wacker was in on it and would probably want to make sure that there were a few "incidents" after his death, to avoid incriminating him.

To me the key to figuring this out is to do get
a chart or list of all the incidents that have occured,

The info needed would be
1. Date
2. Time
3, Action
4. Who was present in the house at the time.
5. Resolution- items stoln returned? hospital?
6. Location of Bill and Dorothy Wacker at the time of the incident.

I'm willing to bet dollars on donuts that a pattern will reveal
itself

2. That there will be holes and a lack of logic in
some of the attacks.