The Wackers

[justins5256]

A few comments on the case now that we have a little bit more information from the Reddit poster who claims to be a relative. Assuming that this person is telling the truth, he said a couple things that I want to point out with respect to the larger narrative.

First, he mentioned that several family members of the Wackers lived on that street

Second, he said that the Wackers themselves, as well as that side of the family, were thought of as reclusive and stuck up

Let’s assume for the sake of discussion that the attacks were really taking place and were not committed by either Bill or Dorothy Wacker.

I think that a family member living on that street would have to be the culprit then for these reasons.

Motive – many people struggle with the motive. Why was this going on? Families can have odd dynamics. Grudges can exist for years for real or imagined reasons. I don’t like to talk about myself much and I’m not saying this to generalize to the Wackers or imply this was going on, but I’ve seen this in my own family. My father and his mother didn’t talk for about twenty years. This was my grandmother’s decision to cut off our side of the family. To this day, I have no idea why, nor does my father. My larger point is that families are weird. Couple that with the fact that the poster said the Wackers were stuck up and reclusive, and I could see that maybe they irritated someone. A family member could hold a grudge for any number of reasons. The motive would be a mystery and/or nonsensical and difficult to understand for an outsider.

Longevity of the harassment – why did this go on for so long? A lot of folks argue that a stranger or juveniles would not be this “invested” in harassing an elderly couple for a decade. Again, I think this would make sense only to a family member harboring some sort of real or imagined grudge who, for reasons known only to themselves, kept it going all those years.

The changing phone number – how did the assailant keep getting the number? Again, I think this points to a family member who is getting the number because of their connections to the family.

The stakeout – how did the assailant know it was going on and defeat it? If a family member was doing this, they may have heard about it from another family member, maybe second hand. Possibly even from someone who participated in it.

The ability to escape and generally commit these crimes with no witnesses – again, if this were a family member and a neighbor who lived on that street, their presence there would not be suspicious or out of place. They know the area well and would be able to escape, and if seen, it wouldn’t necessarily be out of the ordinary.

Overall, I think the conclusion that the assailant was a family member AND a neighbor who lived on that street accounts for most of the hinky elements in this case.

I don’t know that I’m comfortable speculating much beyond this, but I wonder if it’s possible that other members of the family had a sense of what was going on but were covering for this person for some reason, or didn’t want to dig too deep to confirm their suspicions. It could also partly explain the seemingly lackadaisical response by the police (i.e., this is a family affair), and why the Wackers went on UM – to either flush this person out or get the harassment to stop, which it seemingly did.

[Jon]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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?

It’s nice to see this thread roar back to life!

There are people who demand constant attention from police/fire dept./paramedics, because if you call the first responders they are simply obligated to respond.

This made me think of a study done about 10 years ago where 9 people in Austin were responsible for 2,700 ER visits. The study found that most of those nine people had severe mental health issues. I realize this proves nothing with respect to the Wackers, I just want to bring up the point that there can be underlying causes that are not publicly known, and in general people of the Wacker’s generation did not seek help for mental health issues. Usually it’s not quite this bizarre. But I can’t think of any case as bizarre as this one. Whether you believe this was a hoax or a legitimate harasser, either theory does not make the events any less strange.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by justins5256

I don’t know that I’m comfortable speculating much beyond this, but I wonder if it’s possible that other members of the family had a sense of what was going on but were covering for this person for some reason, or didn’t want to dig too deep to confirm their suspicions. It could also partly explain the seemingly lackadaisical response by the police (i.e., this is a family affair), and why the Wackers went on UM – to either flush this person out or get the harassment to stop, which it seemingly did.

Interesting...

The cops very well could have suspected that this was some sort of family squabble. I've always believed that shortly after the UM segment aired, something came from it and that's why it was pretty much hush-hush after the UM segment. One would think a local newspaper would have remembered this case and tried to do some sort of follow up (after Bill's passing), but the complete absence of anything about this outside of UM makes me think that they eventually found out who it was and wanted to keep it private (because it was in fact a family member).

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Jon

There are people who demand constant attention from police/fire dept./paramedics, because if you call the first responders they are simply obligated to respond.

But why did this stop after the filming of the UM segment (early 94, I believe)? The stakeout in November of 1993 was the last confirmed part of harassment. If the Wackers were doing this because of some undisclosed mental illness, why stop abruptly after going on television to tell your hoax? And if the goal was to get on television...it took them a decade to do it. That's dedication!

[Jon]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

But why did this stop after the filming of the UM segment (early 94, I believe)? The stakeout in November of 1993 was the last confirmed part of harassment. If the Wackers were doing this because of some undisclosed mental illness, why stop abruptly after going on television to tell your hoax? And if the goal was to get on television...it took them a decade to do it. That's dedication!

Of course all of that would be really weird. I have no idea about their quest to get on TV or if that was even a goal of theirs. I don’t even know how this case got UM’s attention. I’d also like to know if they were featured on local news during that decade. I’m not trying to prove any point or anything, I’m just interested in any new information in this case.

is it any less weird if everything happened the way they claim it happened? That’s what makes this case so fascinating isn’t it

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Jon

is it any less weird if everything happened the way they claim it happened? That’s what makes this case so fascinating isn’t it

In all honesty, them making everything up for attention, to cover up abuse, or to cover up an undisclosed mental illness is much, much more bizarre to believe, IMO. Because this started randomly in 1984 and ended abruptly in late 1993.

[cordwainer1453]

Assuming, again, the new info that multiple family members lived on that street is correct, I think that takes about 85-90% of the mystery away.

[Tighthead]

Originally Posted by isotope

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.

What about a small foreign faction?

[Todd Mueller]

Originally Posted by Tighthead

What about a small foreign faction?

Well played...

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

In all honesty, them making everything up for attention, to cover up abuse, or to cover up an undisclosed mental illness is much, much more bizarre to believe, IMO. Because this started randomly in 1984 and ended abruptly in late 1993.

I think the fact that it went on for that long makes it less likely it didn't involve the family in some way. Just like with Cindy James, why would someone harass someone for so long with no apparent motive? Were they trying to get the Wackers to move? Mental illness can be a strange and progressive thing. You can get better only to get worse later, and that cycle can repeat. It's very possible the Wackers did this for attention from their family, neighbors, the police, etc. I agree they didn't seem to gain anything, but it did get them on national TV and possibly sympathy from family, friends, and neighbors. Again, this is similar to the Cindy James case in many ways. What was her ultimate goal -- attention? Love? Who knows, but she was obviously very troubled and her harassment was off and on for many years.

If the Wackers weren't doing this to themselves, then my guess would be a family member who lived on their street or maybe just a neighbor. That might explain why the stolen items were returned -- they didn't want them or need them, and if they were caught by their house they would have a logical reason to be there. Why would some random perp risk getting caught by returning items to the scene of the crime?

Almost every time I have read about cases where the harassment is this long and persistent, it has ultimately been all or partially an inside job. I agree with you that it is nuts this went on for so long. So what does someone have to gain in doing this? They either: 1) wanted the Wackers to move (which obviously didn't work), 2) they were wronged by the Wackers, or 3) they simply didn't like them. So if 2 or 3 is the case, were they just trying to annoy them? There didn't seem to be any real point to the harassment.

IMO it was either done by one or more of the immediate Wacker family, done by a relative on their street, or the first few attacks were real and the rest was made up to get attention.

[TheCars1986]

Originally Posted by Todd Mueller

Again, this is similar to the Cindy James case in many ways. What was her ultimate goal -- attention? Love? Who knows, but she was obviously very troubled and her harassment was off and on for many years.

The major difference between Cindy James and the Wackers is that eventually Cindy James' harassment stopped...once she was found dead. The Wackers harassment seemingly stopped after their ill-fated stakeout in 1993. Cindy James didn't start claiming to receive threatening and harassing phone calls until 4 months after she got divorced. The Wackers harassment started out of the blue.

[freakbook]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

But why did this stop after the filming of the UM segment (early 94, I believe)? The stakeout in November of 1993 was the last confirmed part of harassment. If the Wackers were doing this because of some undisclosed mental illness, why stop abruptly after going on television to tell your hoax? And if the goal was to get on television...it took them a decade to do it. That's dedication!

But it did stop when they got on television. Why would the person who was harassing them stop because of the broadcast? They could've waited a little and started the harassment again but they didn't.

I think that maybe the first incident was real, but the rest or some were made up. You would think that after 10 years they would have been able to pinpoint a mentally ill family member with a grudge or something.

As much as I want to, I can't fully believe this case. If more information comes out and I'm proven wrong then I'll gladly eat my words.

[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.

Okay, so I haven't watched the segment in a while and I just watched it again to refresh my memory. I'm skeptical about bits of their story, but playing like I believe them I'm going to piggyback off of Cars1986 theory abit about two people being involved.

What if a mentally-challenged teenager/man with violent tendencies lived in the neighborhood and was harassing the Wackers and he lived with someone who knew who he stole from and returned the items but didn't want to tell on him? Like they knew he had stolen from the Wackers so they just returned everything piece by piece without wanting to get the perp in trouble. Parent/Care taker perhaps

Granted Dorothy seen his face during the first attack, but what if he was constantly kept in the house and snuck out during certain times? Having a mentally-challenged/psychotic neighbor could explain the poor hand-writing as well as living close enough to find a blind spot on the porch late at night

I can't see a normal person or family member doing this for "kicks" attacking an elderly woman twice. IF someone did do this then I think a handicapped/psychotic neighbor who people were probably protecting and didn't want to snitch on did it

[James T]

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.

Why keep burgling the house when you have already burgled/ransacked it three times? They didn't look to be especially wealthy. Why even if you ignore this lack of logic would you ring their doorbell/knock & then go through such an elaborate charade where Dorothy would be able to describe you to police, if you were knocking to make sure nobody was in & then got an answer-surely you would have a ready made story like asking for directions, or for another person. If you have burgled/ransacked a place four times, knocked an occupant out cold & tied them up, then scribbled a vindictive message why would you feel guilty?

I think it likely Bill went to UM because he believed Dorothy & one or more family members were behind it & wanted a stop to the whole thing, he couldn't accuse her/them as he didn't have total proof & knew it would cause huge ructions if he did.

[James T]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

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.

You are really stretching to make something totally illogical logical. What are the chances somebody just randomly ended up at their home to make a phone call for a car that Dorothy said wasn't even visible & in a matter of a minute or so of this innocent person leaving-without even saying thanks & goodbye their attacker just randomly turned up & attacked her?

[James T]

Originally Posted by 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.

And how were people just slipping into the house? One would have to assume that if they weren't locking their doors when they went out in 1984/1985 during the first three burglaries & the supposed assault then they sure as hell would have been after-the police would no doubt have advised/insisted on it & one would also assume that after letting a total stranger in who then knocked the female occupant out cold & tied & gagged her would mean they weren't letting random people in.