The Wackers case file

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by Dogface82

I was finally able to view this segment. It begins at 30 minutes comcludes at 42 minute season 6 episode 23 a two hour special. Dorothy had suffered a blow to the head by the guy who borrowed the phone. Could the "attack" when she let the dog out been an accidental fall? The head injury from that incident could have left her confused. Default would be to assume it was the harasser.

Security lights really tend to be a joke. Most are poorly situated and benefit everyone but the homeowner. I have seen lights that create blind spots or spotlight and blind the homeowner. This hold true on commercial property and military sites as well. So I can understand why Bill removed the lights or refused to add more depending on the version of the story.

The stolen pistol, scanner and movie or video camera sound like a robbery kit. Camera for casing, scanner for casing and real time info, pistol for muscle. It doesn't seem the ballistic characteristics of the pistol were ever tested or put into a system for comparison. The messages on rocks found on the porch could have been launched by a wrist rocket or even a hockey stick from distances well outside of viewing range in darkness.

This could easily be harrasment or gaslighting from a neighbor, an acquaintance or a third party who gained information on them. It seems local law enforcement could have done a better job. I have read the links provided on this thread to the casefiles. I take official police reports with a grain of salt based on personal experience.
Personally I don't think Bill and Dorothy did this to themselves.

Security lights, in my experience, are good but anyone who knows the property like (dun dun dun) a neighbor would know how to get around those. Same for cameras. I have seen it happen.

I'm not one to say, "well, the police are automatically wrong because people on the Internet said so," but in UM we have seen examples where the police came to ONE conclusion and then stuck to it regardless of the evidence. Bias exists. The report mentioning that some people didn't like the Wackers rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like the police went out of their way to dismiss the Wackers or worse.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by Dogface82

I was finally able to view this segment. It begins at 30 minutes comcludes at 42 minute season 6 episode 23 a two hour special. Dorothy had suffered a blow to the head by the guy who borrowed the phone. Could the "attack" when she let the dog out been an accidental fall? The head injury from that incident could have left her confused. Default would be to assume it was the harasser.

Security lights really tend to be a joke. Most are poorly situated and benefit everyone but the homeowner. I have seen lights that create blind spots or spotlight and blind the homeowner. This hold true on commercial property and military sites as well. So I can understand why Bill removed the lights or refused to add more depending on the version of the story.

The stolen pistol, scanner and movie or video camera sound like a robbery kit. Camera for casing, scanner for casing and real time info, pistol for muscle. It doesn't seem the ballistic characteristics of the pistol were ever tested or put into a system for comparison. The messages on rocks found on the porch could have been launched by a wrist rocket or even a hockey stick from distances well outside of viewing range in darkness.

This could easily be harrasment or gaslighting from a neighbor, an acquaintance or a third party who gained information on them. It seems local law enforcement could have done a better job. I have read the links provided on this thread to the casefiles. I take official police reports with a grain of salt based on personal experience.
Personally I don't think Bill and Dorothy did this to themselves.

I never thought about the second attack being a fall. Its certainly more plausible than her hitting herself in the head, she was old. But it happened in the front yard so guessing she would have had to have fallen on something hard maybe a stone, I don't see how she could have injured her head sufficiently to be knocked out just on grass, though I guess its possible.

As far as the lights go, some of my neighbors have them when I've gone to their house, as far as I could tell the generally seem to work pretty well, but then again I'm not really a cat burglar and I don't prowl in people's yards as a hobbie or for a living so there are probably ways to beat them I'm sure, though I don't know off hand what they would be I'm not in that line of work.

The second attack though was part of what cast suspicion on Bill Wacker, cause he was apparently home when it happened whereas the first attack in 1985 he was not, he could have still been working then so maybe he was at work. But I don't guess any motive was found why Bill would do it.

I also wonder why the Wackers didn't get themselves a big dog, like a pitbull or a rottweiler to defend their yard, if someone was indeed prowling around their house pulling this crap that would have definitely complicated things for them. Probably more so than lights. But then dogs like that can be a handful for an elderly couple too.

Like you though, I do believe the harassment was real, and according to the police files there was apparently at least one neighbor who did not think much of the Wackers, as they told the police they were bringing a lot of it on themselves, what does that mean? so that definitely should have been a red flag. You just wonder why they would come to dislike an old couple. The only thing I can think of is that old folks can be cantankerous about loud music and such things, maybe the Wackers told them to hold it down or something and it didn't sit well. This was after all during the age of the hair bands, and many older folks didn't care for the loud rock music that was popular then. But that is just a guess.

I think part of the problem was the Unsolved Mysteries segment in an effort to make this more mysterious like some kind of phantom was doing it, left out some details that made it make more sense like the shoeprints found in the yard in 1993, and as a result inadvertently made a lot of people doubt the Wackers story. Unsolved Mysteries was notorious for that sometimes.

[XCalibur]

Originally Posted by tvscript124

Security lights, in my experience, are good but anyone who knows the property like (dun dun dun) a neighbor would know how to get around those. Same for cameras. I have seen it happen.

I'm not one to say, "well, the police are automatically wrong because people on the Internet said so," but in UM we have seen examples where the police came to ONE conclusion and then stuck to it regardless of the evidence. Bias exists. The report mentioning that some people didn't like the Wackers rubbed me the wrong way. It seemed like the police went out of their way to dismiss the Wackers or worse.

The Wackers apparently had a close neighbor on one side, only like about a few feet away. Makes you wonder if the bumps on the house were caused by someone sticking a long object out the window and beating on the side of the house. Like a rake or pole of some kind. Sounds silly I know, but it would explain why no one was seen and one way they could have circumvented their security lights. And also why a car was never heard.

The rocks with notes could have been thrown onto the front porch as well.

I think a neighbor was behind it. The Wackers may have even suspected them, but couldn't say so on air without proof.

Could have even been a family next door, maybe only one family member was actually doing it and the rest of them were totally innocent. Maybe a teenager or young adult lived next door with his parents and he was the only one doing it and his parents were unaware of it. The Wackers might have trusted the parents and the police only talked to them and decided they didn't seem suspicious. the 1985 attacker could have been a buddy of theirs who didn't live nearby which was why Dorothy didn't recognize him and was visiting and he got them to do it.

As I said above, this is all just speculation but there are feasible scenarios. And like you not sure the police took this seriously and Unsolved Mysteries made it seem more mysterious than it really was.

[Dogface82]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

The Wackers apparently had a close neighbor on one side, only like about a few feet away. Makes you wonder if the bumps on the house were caused by someone sticking a long object out the window and beating on the side of the house. Like a rake or pole of some kind. Sounds silly I know, but it would explain why no one was seen and one way they could have circumvented their security lights. And also why a car was never heard.

The rocks with notes could have been thrown onto the front porch as well.

I think a neighbor was behind it. The Wackers may have even suspected them, but couldn't say so on air without proof.

Could have even been a family next door, maybe only one family member was actually doing it and the rest of them were totally innocent. Maybe a teenager or young adult lived next door with his parents and he was the only one doing it and his parents were unaware of it. The Wackers might have trusted the parents and the police only talked to them and decided they didn't seem suspicious. the 1985 attacker could have been a buddy of theirs who didn't live nearby which was why Dorothy didn't recognize him and was visiting and he got them to do it.

As I said above, this is all just speculation but there are feasible scenarios. And like you not sure the police took this seriously and Unsolved Mysteries made it seem more mysterious than it really was.

Look at the substack on post #1. The overhead view is labeled & numbered on the houses. My estimate is the Maddox house on the west is about 25 feet away. Too far to use a stick or pole. Right idea, wrong method. A pocket fisherman, a tennis ball on a cord, small clods or acorns could be used to thump the house. Light cord or fishing line would be difficult to see in daylight and impossible at night if some looked out a window expecting to see a prankster running away. Objects on a line could be retrieved before anyone made it to the door.

It is stated Bill didn't want lights because he wanted to catch the guy. If you look outside from an unlit room into the darkness you can see a lot because your eyes adapt and the available light is more even. If you have have lights the brightest or closest like a porchlight will give you a pool of visibility. But the contrast will make shadows deeper and you can't see beyond the lighted area. Effectively nightblinding yourself. Motion activated are the worst. Large insects close enough can set them off. June bugs flying into the wall make a healthy thump.

The substack notes police reports lacked accurate detail and conflicted even when written by the same officer. They weren't specific about the neighbors complaints. Were they legitimate? Now that I am a rural cranky old man I tend too see things from Bill's perspective.

TheCars1986 's skill linking to googlemaps would really be handy now. We would be able to check the scene from map or satellite phot overhead and from streetview. I couldn't manipulate or enlarge the view on the substack.

Yard conditions are not mentioned when Dorothy was "attacked" in 1993 eight years after the stranger hit her and bound her. Here in Kansas when it's dry the ground is like concrete and the grass is like a nylon scrubbrush. Add light dew and conditions are perfect for a slip and fall resulting in minor lacerations and possible concussion. At least having your bell rang. Even if the ground is soft, when your feet leave the ground and you drop it will be a hard impact.

A woman and her son had worked for Bill and Dorothy. They knew the house and lived in a nearby town. It doesn't appear they were investigated. Even if they didn't do anything they may have dicussed the Wackers with someone else. Maybe even the initial attacker of 1985. That is how the Clutters were murdered. A third party learned about them from a former employee.

That's why I tend to think it was a combination of events harassment, theft assault and accidents. Some related, some unrelated but perceived to be connected. Except for the pole theory I find all of Excalibers thoughts on this plausible. In any case I recommend everyone read the link provided in comment #1. There is a lot of info and you can reach your own conclusions.

[TheCars1986]

The Wackers address is 10271 Wooster St NWMassillon, OH 44647

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by XCalibur

The Wackers apparently had a close neighbor on one side, only like about a few feet away. Makes you wonder if the bumps on the house were caused by someone sticking a long object out the window and beating on the side of the house. Like a rake or pole of some kind. Sounds silly I know, but it would explain why no one was seen and one way they could have circumvented their security lights. And also why a car was never heard.

The rocks with notes could have been thrown onto the front porch as well.

I think a neighbor was behind it. The Wackers may have even suspected them, but couldn't say so on air without proof.

Could have even been a family next door, maybe only one family member was actually doing it and the rest of them were totally innocent. Maybe a teenager or young adult lived next door with his parents and he was the only one doing it and his parents were unaware of it. The Wackers might have trusted the parents and the police only talked to them and decided they didn't seem suspicious. the 1985 attacker could have been a buddy of theirs who didn't live nearby which was why Dorothy didn't recognize him and was visiting and he got them to do it.

As I said above, this is all just speculation but there are feasible scenarios. And like you not sure the police took this seriously and Unsolved Mysteries made it seem more mysterious than it really was.

If it was an adolescent or young adult doing that just for the lulz, that's pretty sick, especially since Dorothy was attacked. Makes me wonder two things.

1) Did the culprit(s) get scared off with all the media coverage when it got too real? "Unsolved Mysteries" was huge, a hit show, and suddenly there was a national spotlight. If it was an adolescent, maybe they realized they'd really gone too far and were afraid of the consequences, or maybe their conscience bothered them finally.

2) Did the family find out about the harassment and decided not to report it to the police so that the adolescent wouldn't get in trouble, but in return, told him or her, "You ever go near the Wackers again and we will turn you in"? Maybe the kid got shipped off somewhere to reform school.

[tvscript124]

Originally Posted by Dogface82

Look at the substack on post #1. The overhead view is labeled & numbered on the houses. My estimate is the Maddox house on the west is about 25 feet away. Too far to use a stick or pole. Right idea, wrong method. A pocket fisherman, a tennis ball on a cord, small clods or acorns could be used to thump the house. Light cord or fishing line would be difficult to see in daylight and impossible at night if some looked out a window expecting to see a prankster running away. Objects on a line could be retrieved before anyone made it to the door.

It is stated Bill didn't want lights because he wanted to catch the guy. If you look outside from an unlit room into the darkness you can see a lot because your eyes adapt and the available light is more even. If you have have lights the brightest or closest like a porchlight will give you a pool of visibility. But the contrast will make shadows deeper and you can't see beyond the lighted area. Effectively nightblinding yourself. Motion activated are the worst. Large insects close enough can set them off. June bugs flying into the wall make a healthy thump.

The substack notes police reports lacked accurate detail and conflicted even when written by the same officer. They weren't specific about the neighbors complaints. Were they legitimate? Now that I am a rural cranky old man I tend too see things from Bill's perspective.

TheCars1986 's skill linking to googlemaps would really be handy now. We would be able to check the scene from map or satellite phot overhead and from streetview. I couldn't manipulate or enlarge the view on the substack.

Yard conditions are not mentioned when Dorothy was "attacked" in 1993 eight years after the stranger hit her and bound her. Here in Kansas when it's dry the ground is like concrete and the grass is like a nylon scrubbrush. Add light dew and conditions are perfect for a slip and fall resulting in minor lacerations and possible concussion. At least having your bell rang. Even if the ground is soft, when your feet leave the ground and you drop it will be a hard impact.

A woman and her son had worked for Bill and Dorothy. They knew the house and lived in a nearby town. It doesn't appear they were investigated. Even if they didn't do anything they may have dicussed the Wackers with someone else. Maybe even the initial attacker of 1985. That is how the Clutters were murdered. A third party learned about them from a former employee.

That's why I tend to think it was a combination of events harassment, theft assault and accidents. Some related, some unrelated but perceived to be connected. Except for the pole theory I find all of Excalibers thoughts on this plausible. In any case I recommend everyone read the link provided in comment #1. There is a lot of info and you can reach your own conclusions.

Why wasn't the lead of the woman and her son investigated? People who work in and around your home, and people they know, are always prime suspects when something happens, like with the Clutters. Brian David Mitchell worked around the Smart home for one day before he kidnapped Elizabeth Smart. Workers were investigated in the JonBenet Ramsey case.

[Dogface82]

Originally Posted by TheCars1986

The Wackers address is 10271 Wooster St NWMassillon, OH 44647

Thanks for the address. I had seen it but couldn't find it again.

Some interesting information. The house to west (Maddox?) is no longer there. There is a light patch on the ground where it stood. The building north of the now empty lot is derelict and empty. From ground view only the missing house would have had a clear view of the back (north) side, the left (west) side and partial view of the front porch (south). The surrounding homes had that building, trees and distance interfering. There is 4-5 ft high fence less than 6 ft away from the west side of the Wacker home. Is that the property line? If it was there during the mysterious events Excaliber's pole theory comes back into play. A teenager or even a small adult could brace themselves on it and thump the house with a broomhandle, branch etc. If there was no fence a prankster could thump the house and disappear into the basement stairwell on the west side towards the back.

On the lighter side Wooster is the New England pronunciation of Worchester. Like Rolla (Raleigh), Eastern place names travelled West with semiliterate settlers and were spelled like they sounded.

[Dogface82]

First I need to correct a dumb mistake on my part. I stated a rock could be launched with a hockey stick. While this is possible I meant a lacrosse stick.
I appreciate the work put into making the police reports available. I always take these reports with a grain of salt because they are written by humans and we make mistakes. I have seen some wildly inaccurate police reports. I have also seen thorough well written reports.
In my opinion when the theory the Wackers were behind all of this took hold the police work and reports concentrated on proving this to the exclusion of other possibilities.

[mwcarolina]

I still feel whoever did this was a close neighbor OR family member (I lean toward neighbor). What always bothers me about The Wackers doing this to themselves is more of the motive which makes no sense. My guess is the Wackers likely were very close to this neighbor, but this neighbor secretly didn’t like them. The guy who attacked Dorthy was likely a hired man by the neighbor