The Wackers

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Todd Mueller

I don't see this as a case of blame the victim at all, because the totality of their story makes no sense. I agree that this one piece doesn't prove anything, but when you look at everything together, it paints an illogical picture which then should make you question all of it.

When have you ever heard of a thief periodically returning stolen items to the scene of the crime? That alone should raise everyone's suspicions.



This is a very real possibility. It's the same theory that RobinW proposed about the Cindy James case: the early attack(s) was real, but then became staged as the victim wasn't believed or getting enough help.

There are a lot of harassment-type cases on UM that I could go either way on, but to me this is so illogical that the majority of this has to have been executed by one of more members of the Wacker family.

I've always believed that the motive for the thefts was not because the perps wanted the items, I think they were taken and returned just to mess with the Wackers' heads.

Another possible theory for the items being returned was maybe a family member of the perp knew they were doing it and returned the items because they felt guilty, but not guilty enough to turn them in. But that's just a guess.

[isotope]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Well, when your family is staked out infront of your house, and you're staked out inside and someone still manages to slip a note on your front porch then it becomes skeptical.

The porch note is a complete dealbreaker for me. The only explanation for it is the Wackers faking the whole thing. There is literally no other remotely credible explanation.

[James T]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

The attack in 1985 happened relatively early on in the period of harassment. It supposedly started the year before that. And up until that point there had only been a couple of ransackings, and this was after a six month break in it if I remember correctly. That coupled with the Wackers growing up in a time when people trusted a lot easier makes the details of it not as hard to believe as you are saying. After six months of quiet it isn't impossible Dorothy would have trusted someone enough to let them use the phone.

Your other points are interesting but aren't really enough to try and put this on the Wackers or dismiss it as a hoax. I'm not saying it couldn't have been, but adopting this blame the victim no matter what mentality is just annoying and serves no purpose.

There is no other rational explanation-kids could ransack the home for sure, but they aren't going to keep doing this stuff, let alone for a decade.

Somebody with a grudge? Who? They don't seem to have bilked anybody out of money on a business deal or had any enemies. There is no explanation given in the scribbled notes as to why it is happening & it has been deliberately disguised-which points toward somebody they know.

I think one of them was a victim & my money would be on Bill-no way would you be letting a total stranger with a bs story into your house & turning your back to let them have the run of the place after multiple break-ins. Isn't it remarkable this guy just magically turned up when Bill wasn't there, didn't seriously hurt Dorothy & didn't tie her up hard enough or gag her to where she would be unable to summon help, took a few items & then returned them?

[TheCars1986]

The recent discussion about this case caused me to rewatch the segment. I wrote down some observations.

-The guy who plays Dorothy's first attacker is the same guy who played the director in "Ernest Saves Christmas". I watched that movie probably a hundred times and I always thought that Dorothy's attacker looked very familiar to me. It's not listed on his IMDB page, but he did list on his website that he appeared on the show. Just something I thought was interesting.

-The first incident happened in 1984. It's very vague as to what happened, but the segment implies that the house was ransacked twice in 1984, and then a third time on January 16th, 1985. This was the first time the Wackers got law enforcement involved.

-July, 1985 was the first attack on Dorothy. Bill was not home during this attack. Multiple witnesses could attest to him returning home and finding the house littered with paramedics and cops (as depicted in the segment). A gun, camera, watch, and radio were stolen. The gun was returned to the house along with "most of" the other items.

-After Dorothy's attack, the Wackers started receiving crank phone calls. Some threatening, and others just breathing.

-The phone calls eventually evolved into banging on the walls. Shortly after the banging on the walls, the Wackers installed the security light on their front porch.

-After their light was installed, they received their first note, which read:

Sunday didn't do you in
next time
called but you didn't answer
your lightz are a laugh

-The Wackers finally had physical evidence and turned the notes over to the police. No fingerprints or other evidence could be found on any of the notes.

-October 27th, 1993 was the 2nd and more severe attack on Dorothy. She was hospitalized, and this was the first time the cops put forth the theory that Bill was the one responsible. The segment depicts the attack occurring at night, and it is stated that she was home alone.

-After Dorothy returned home from the hospital, the family got together and conducted their stakeout. Bill, Dorothy, their daughter, and 2 of their son-in-laws were involved. This is when the harasser apparently found a blind spot in the stakeout and left yet another note on the porch, which read, "get the message".

I don't believe the Wackers would willingly either go along with: Dorothy's delusions and/or mental illness (a la Cindy James), nor do I think they would willingly invent an imaginary harasser to cover up spousal abuse. What do they have to gain from this? Attention? They could have gotten attention from local news outlets (which doesn't seem to be the case, since nothing about this case exists outside of UM) and not involved the police. Yet they didn't seek publicity, and they did involve the police. They changed their phone number several times, installed a security light on their porch, AND they handed over the notes they were receiving to the police. And, most importantly, Bill was not home during the first or second attack on Dorothy, and the neighbors were the ones who found her tied up in the kitchen in the first attack. This doesn't strike me as something that someone, let alone two people would do to perpetuate this hoax.

And, assuming that the Wackers were involved in this, that means that their daughter and their 2 son-in-laws were also complicit in perpetuating the hoax...since all of them participated in the stakeout. And it's interesting that in the re-enactment when Bill finds the note on the porch during the stakeout, the note is wrapped around a rock with a rubber band. If this is accurate, it doesn't mean that this person was magically able to make himself disappear and knock on the door and then run away without any of the family members seeing him...all it means is that he could have stood a considerable distance away and simply threw the rock on the front porch and then took off without being seen.

I still believe that the phone calls and the notes are unrelated to the first attack on Dorothy and the theft of the items from their home. It's possible that the first attack was carried out by an acquaintance of a family member, and then out of guilt or fear of being caught, this same family member returned most of the stolen items. As for a motive? I think Bill summed it up perfectly in the segment when he said that the person was doing this was doing it for "kicks".

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

I don't believe the Wackers would willingly either go along with: Dorothy's delusions and/or mental illness (a la Cindy James), nor do I think they would willingly invent an imaginary harasser to cover up spousal abuse. What do they have to gain from this? Attention? They could have gotten attention from local news outlets (which doesn't seem to be the case, since nothing about this case exists outside of UM) and not involved the police. Yet they didn't seek publicity, and they did involve the police. They changed their phone number several times, installed a security light on their porch, AND they handed over the notes they were receiving to the police. And, most importantly, Bill was not home during the first attack on Dorothy, and the neighbors were the ones who found her tied up in the kitchen. This doesn't strike me as something that someone, let alone two people would do to perpetuate this hoax.

And, assuming that the Wackers were involved in this, that means that their daughter and their 2 son-in-laws were also complicit in perpetuating the hoax...since all of them participated in the stakeout. And it's interesting that in the re-enactment when Bill finds the note on the porch during the stakeout, the note is wrapped around a rock with a rubber band. If this is accurate, it doesn't mean that this person was magically able to make himself disappear and knock on the door and then run away without any of the family members seeing him...all it means is that he could have stood a considerable distance away and simply threw the rock on the front porch and then took off without being seen.

I still believe that the phone calls and the notes are unrelated to the first attack on Dorothy and the theft of the items from their home. It's possible that the first attack was carried out by an acquaintance of a family member, and then out of guilt or fear of being caught, this same family member returned most of the stolen items. As for a motive? I think Bill summed it up perfectly in the segment when he said that the person was doing this was doing it for "kicks".

While I see your point, what would someone gain for doing this for "kicks" for a decade? It seems like they'd have to be the unluckiest people in the world to not have only been attacked and tied up by one person, then have another person entirely stealing and running their things and constantly call their changing numbers.

Who would know the changed number? Certainty not the random first attacker, so that narrows it down to the few people they gave the new number to or themselves.

If they didn't give their new number to their neighbors, then that narrows it down to a family member....or themselves

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

While I see your point, what would someone gain for doing this for "kicks" for a decade? It seems like they'd have to be the unluckiest people in the world to not have only been attacked and tied up by one person, then have another person entirely stealing and running their things and constantly call their changing numbers.

Who would know the changed number? Certainty not the random first attacker, so that narrows it down to the few people they gave the new number to or themselves.

If the first attacker and someone known to the Wackers were working in conjunction to burglarize the house, but didn't anticipate Dorothy being home (the first time) and it resulted in this person knocking her down and tying her up...the person known to the Wackers could have felt guilty and/or worried about getting caught, so they returned the items. They still continue the harassment, but at a distance (phone calls, knocks on the walls, the notes) and there is not another physical attack on Dorothy until October of 1993. Maybe this person was there to knock on the walls or leave a note again, but Dorothy came outside to let her dog out, and he decided to physically assault her. The last known thing that this person did was leave the "get the message" note one month after Dorothy's 2nd attack.

IMO, the attacks seemingly stopped (as well as the publicity behind it disappeared completely after the UM segment) because, once the Wackers found out who was responsible, they kept it quiet.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

If the first attacker and someone known to the Wackers were working in conjunction to burglarize the house, but didn't anticipate Dorothy being home (the first time) and it resulted in this person knocking her down and tying her up...the person known to the Wackers could have felt guilty and/or worried about getting caught, so they returned the items. They still continue the harassment, but at a distance (phone calls, knocks on the walls, the notes) and there is not another physical attack on Dorothy until October of 1993. Maybe this person was there to knock on the walls or leave a note again, but Dorothy came outside to let her dog out, and he decided to physically assault her. The last known thing that this person did was leave the "get the message" note one month after Dorothy's 2nd attack.

IMO, the attacks seemingly stopped (as well as the publicity behind it disappeared completely after the UM segment) because, once the Wackers found out who was responsible, they kept it quiet.

I find it hard to believe that someone known to the Wackers would work with someone else to burglarize their home, attack or help tie Dorothy up, steal their stuff, return it and then continue to harass them for a decade. Doesn't sound like this person had much sympathy to return items but continue to harass them and even attack her again.

What about the accomplice? Wouldn't he be upset about the returning of items? He didn't take his share of items? If you were in cahoots with someone else stealing something I feel like they wouldn't let you return everything after going through so much trouble without getting their share

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

I find it hard to believe that someone known to the Wackers would work with someone else to burglarize their home, attack or help tie Dorothy up, steal their stuff, return it and then continue to harass them for a decade. Doesn't sound like this person had much sympathy to return items but continue to harass them and even attack her again.

What about the accomplice? Wouldn't he be upset about the returning of items? He didn't take his share of items? If you were in cahoots with someone else stealing something I feel like they wouldn't let you return everything after going through so much trouble without getting their share

I'm saying that my theory is that someone known to the Wackers started ransacking their house (without taking things), motive unknown, with an accomplice. Accomplice sees valuables at the home during the ransackings and returns on his own to steal. He doesn't anticipate Dorothy being home, so he ties her up and steals the items and leaves the "cheaper, but will do" line on the wall. He tells the person known to the Wackers, this person freaks out and says they'll get caught, and they return the items one by one. Ransacking the house, and then taking items and returning them, does not strike me as someone who wanted the Wackers to move. I think the phone calls, the notes, and the banging on the walls lend more credence to the theory that this person was harassing them to get them out of the house. It also would explain why the 2nd attack was more brutal than the first: it was more personal and that it was committed by a different person. "Get the message" also implies that this person wanted them out of the house for whatever reason.

It's also possible that the person who had asked to use the phone was legitimately there to use the phone, and that when he left, the harasser used this as an opportunity to attack Dorothy and steal the items from the house. This would also explain how and why someone knew when to attack; especially if they were a neighbor observing the comings and goings of the Wacker household.

ETA: I just have a hard time reconciling that the Circleville Writer case is (and prior to Martin Yant providing more information, was) always believed to be the work of a wacko, Paul Freshour was innocent, and that it was not a hoax...but the Wackers case is met with more skepticism. The Circleville Writer is the perfect example of a case involving a nutjob targeting people (David Longberry), and then someone else (Paul Freshour's ex-wife) then taking up the mantle to frame Freshour for attempted murder. I don't see why that is so farfetched to believe with the Wackers.

[5thcorps]

I personally don't think Bill or Dorothy had anything to do with it. Ever since it first aired I've always thought it was a neighbor or a family member of theirs. Bill reminded me of my own Grandfather in almost every way. He was strong too, and if he was being harassed he wouldn't leave either. Except my Grandfather wouldn't hesitate to hide under the porch for days waiting for the suspect to come then blow him away.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

ETA: I just have a hard time reconciling that the Circleville Writer case is (and prior to Martin Yant providing more information, was) always believed to be the work of a wacko, Paul Freshour was innocent, and that it was not a hoax...but the Wackers case is met with more skepticism. The Circleville Writer is the perfect example of a case involving a nutjob targeting people (David Longberry), and then someone else (Paul Freshour's ex-wife) then taking up the mantle to frame Freshour for attempted murder. I don't see why that is so farfetched to believe with the Wackers.

Good point. I guess with the Circleville case you have more people and claims of adultery so it's easier to believe neighborhood drama than someone harassing and beating up elderly people for a decade with seemingly no motive and returned property

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

Good point. I guess with the Circleville case you have more people and claims of adultery so it's easier to believe neighborhood drama than someone harassing and beating up elderly people for a decade with seemingly no motive and returned property

Right, but the perpetrator ultimately had no personal ties to Mary Gillespie or the superintendent, outside of being a fellow bus driver with Mary. The booby trap and the letters written after Freshour went to prison, were written by Freshour's ex-wife, IMO, as well as Longberry. And Longberry's motivation was alleged jealousy over the fact that Mary Gillespie had an affair with the superintendent instead of him...which, again backs up the theory that someone known to the Wackers had something happen to them, and then they continued this campaign of harassment for years.

The Circleville Writer started writing letters in 1976, and then a year later he called Ron Gillespie over the phone and taunted him. 6 years later is when the taunting messages began being left along Mary's bus route. Had it not been for Freshour's ex-wife setting him up with the phony bobby trap, who knows how long the harassment campaign would have gone on. Which is why I don't find the Wackers story to be all that far fetched.

[Killarney Rose]

I don't know how many of you are old enough to remember, but back in the days of rotary and push button phones, there was a place on the phone base where the phone number was written on a slip of paper and inserted underneath clear plastic on the base. This could possibly be how the harassers were getting the new, unlisted numbers if they were slipping into the house.

[TheCars1986]

Going back and looking at their property on Google Maps, and I have to say that they were sitting on a decent size of land. And their neighbors home immediately to the left of the house no longer stands there (as of 2019). Wonder what happened there...

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

Right, but the perpetrator ultimately had no personal ties to Mary Gillespie or the superintendent, outside of being a fellow bus driver with Mary. The booby trap and the letters written after Freshour went to prison, were written by Freshour's ex-wife, IMO, as well as Longberry. And Longberry's motivation was alleged jealousy over the fact that Mary Gillespie had an affair with the superintendent instead of him...which, again backs up the theory that someone known to the Wackers had something happen to them, and then they continued this campaign of harassment for years.

The Circleville Writer started writing letters in 1976, and then a year later he called Ron Gillespie over the phone and taunted him. 6 years later is when the taunting messages began being left along Mary's bus route. Had it not been for Freshour's ex-wife setting him up with the phony bobby trap, who knows how long the harassment campaign would have gone on. Which is why I don't find the Wackers story to be all that far fetched.

While I'm skeptical about the Wackers, I'll admit that you make some solid points about the correlation of belief about both cases. I agree that the Circleville case should be held with the same if not more skepticism than the Wackers

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by freakbook

While I'm skeptical about the Wackers, I'll admit that you make some solid points about the correlation of belief about both cases. I agree that the Circleville case should be held with the same if not more skepticism than the Wackers

I would be much more skeptical of the stories if the Wackers didn't involve the police at virtually every turn. And they reported multiple crimes, from harassment (the notes, which they turned over), theft (the ransacking and the missing items), assault (first assault on Dorothy), and if the injuries were as serious as hinted at in the segment, potential attempted murder (for the 2nd attack on Dorothy). Seems bizarre to me that these two old folks would just report varying crimes over a decade, and then produce actual "evidence" to turn over to the cops...for attention? Their story is bizarre and unbelievable, but I think it's even more bizarre and unbelievable to think that they kept this up for a decade while involving the cops, and they were so good that the cops could never find any evidence to pin this on them.

And I've gone back and re-read some of the posts on here and a lot of people seem to think this was Dorothy exhibiting some sort of Munchausen syndrome. The biggest issue I have with that theory, is what exactly did she use to cause severe head injuries to herself, and why wasn't this instrument found close by to her body? Or blood indicating that the attack happened elsewhere and that she staged the scene?