One wife is dead and two are still missing in one of the most eerie mystery I have seen in my life. USA Today reports that Mary Rose, the mother of missing Annette, has been looking for answers about the disappearance of her daughter in 1984. Anette, along with the two other missing wives, disappeared in Tulsa, Oklahoma almost 32 years ago. Mary Rose has expected foul play by Annette’s husband, Felix Vail, but has not been able to find any evidence promoting this reasoning. All she was told were bewildering stories about her daughter traveling to Mexico with $50,000, which she had just inherited since her father had passed away, and was never heard from again. Rose actually took many steps into solving the mystery, even including taking out the backseats in her van and placing a bed for her to sleep in as she drove 2,000 miles to speak to her son-in-law’s sister, Sue Jordan. Eventually, Rose went as far to get in contact with two other women, both dies of “accidental” deaths. One of these women, who died of an accidental drowning, was previously married to Vail. The other, who was closely associated with him, went on a trip with him and an Australian couple and never returned. Eventually, after searching a trailer behind Vail’s home, Rose found many machetes
This story is appalling and struck me as very important. I imagine that this story made headlines before, but I believe this should be more widely spread. Stories like these, and the Steven Avery trials, have interested me because usually I can make up my mind about if I think a particular suspect and if they are guilty or not, but it is becoming increasingly harder. With the advancements of technology, it has become much easier for murders to cover their tracks and not be found guilty because of certain evidence that may not be able to be traced anymore. I will probably watch the 20/20 interview tonight at 10 p.m. ET because I am interested to see how this mystery will be solved.
check out this interactive website about the murders and pending trials here.
Based off DNA evidence alone, I don’t believe someone should be convicted of that particular evidence alone. However, authorities should use this evidence to further prove the suspect’s innocence or guilty plea.
I found this case to be really interesting, and I’m glad you brought it to my attention. Similarly, I find it easy to make up my mind if someone is guilty or not, this is even easier for me now with the new technological advances. However, do you think that a person can be convicted based off of DNA evidence alone?