The Wackers case file

[GrantHarwood]

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

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

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

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

You can read my piece at:

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

[Allierain]

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

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

[GrantHarwood]

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

[Allierain]

Originally Posted by GrantHarwood

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

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

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

[GrantHarwood]

Originally Posted by Allierain

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

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

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

[StarshineRose]

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

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

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

[GrantHarwood]

Thanks Starshine!

[tvscript124]

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by GrantHarwood

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

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

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

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

You can read my piece at:

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

Unless of course, they were the ones responsible.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by StarshineRose

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

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

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

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

[StarshineRose]

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by tvscript124

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

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

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

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

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

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

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by StarshineRose

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

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

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

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

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

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

[GrantHarwood]

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

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

[Labonte18]

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

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

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

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

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