View Full Version : The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #6
SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
06-15-2012, 01:58 AM
Please continue here!
Thread #1
Thread #2
Thread #3 - pulled
Thread #4
Thread #5
Missouri Mule
06-15-2012, 12:13 PM
Is there any possibility of restoring Thread #3? There were some personal issues which were addressed but those got cleaned up. Never did know why the entire thread was pulled.
neverletgo
06-27-2012, 05:18 PM
:bump:
brit1981
06-29-2012, 01:57 PM
Did they ever re-examine the house. I just wonder if there were any grounds they could have been hidden in, or if they went back and did a luminol test they would find anything. It looks like whoever did this tidied up afterwards - but why? Why make it look like there was no struggle when it was always going to be obvious they did not leave of their own free will?
Hurricane
06-29-2012, 02:44 PM
Did they ever re-examine the house. I just wonder if there were any grounds they could have been hidden in, or if they went back and did a luminol test they would find anything. It looks like whoever did this tidied up afterwards - but why? Why make it look like there was no struggle when it was always going to be obvious they did not leave of their own free will?
I would disagree that there are no signs of a struggle. There is evidence to indicate otherwise but unfortunately we will never know how much evidence was contaminated and destroyed by the 18 people in and out of the house on Sunday. And I would disagree that the house looked tidied up by anyone. The professional hitman/professional cleaners theory was pretty much destroyed by the evidence from the get-go.
There is no basement under the house. There is a crawl space that is literally that with no access from inside the house thru a trap door or anything. If the remains were buried on the grounds it would have been obvious at the time. And besides it would have taken considerable time to bury 3 bodies in a hurry like that. The remains are not there.
brit1981
06-29-2012, 03:31 PM
I would disagree that there are no signs of a struggle. There is evidence to indicate otherwise but unfortunately we will never know how much evidence was contaminated and destroyed by the 18 people in and out of the house on Sunday. And I would disagree that the house looked tidied up by anyone. The professional hitman/professional cleaners theory was pretty much destroyed by the evidence from the get-go.
There is no basement under the house. There is a crawl space that is literally that with no access from inside the house thru a trap door or anything. If the remains were buried on the grounds it would have been obvious at the time. And besides it would have taken considerable time to bury 3 bodies in a hurry like that. The remains are not there.
Fair point, but I thought the handbags had been placed neatly in a line? Was that just a media myth? What were the signs of a struggle. If there was a struggle do you thin that indicates more than one kidnapper. As three women might be able to overpower one person on their own, and a struggle indicates a fight as opposed to someone threatening them into submission with a gun or something. So that makes me thin there was more than one kidnapper and they were not armed. What do you think?
Missouri Mule
06-29-2012, 03:54 PM
My personal opinion is that there was some evidence left behind. Also it is my opinion that the purses may have been looked at by the people who were in the house for clues to where the women were although I don't know that to be a fact. There is one published account where Mrs. McCall was said to have said that stuff was "rolling" out of the purses.
It is possible that whoever entered the house had on gloves and it is possible that the women were not all taken at the same time. Sherrill was "available" to be taken as soon as about 11:15 PM that night a full three and half or more hours before the girls arrived. The girls may not even have known she was not in the home and merely went to bed.
brit1981
06-29-2012, 04:28 PM
True. I think this is possibly one of the creepiest cases I have heard of, the idea that three fit people just living their lives can be just disappeared in these circumstances. It really is chilling.
Missouri Mule
06-29-2012, 08:46 PM
True. I think this is possibly one of the creepiest cases I have heard of, the idea that three fit people just living their lives can be just disappeared in these circumstances. It really is chilling.
I'm not sure how far into this case you are but if I might suggest something it would be to look into the subjects of the grand jury investigation of 1994. The one thing that intrigues me the most is what the motive was.
But you do make an important point, nevertheless. There were certainly some "creepy" people on the streets at that time. There is almost an endless list of names to choose from but I would begin with the GJ3 and work from there.
And also post #562 in Thread #5 is, in my view, very close to what probably happened.
neverletgo
07-11-2012, 01:54 PM
:bump:
Bumping for Suzie, Stacy, and Sherrill. :heartbeat:
fullmoon
07-14-2012, 11:22 AM
I just learned about this case on Disappeared shown on the OWN network. I can't believe I haven't heard of this before. I contacted 48 Hours in hopes of getting a copy of their program on the case, but it is no longer available. It was on Youtube, but not anymore. If anyone has an extra copy, I would be grateful if I could buy it from you. My e-mail is mickfan2000@yahoo.com. Thanks!
wfgodot
07-16-2012, 02:29 PM
Welcome to WS and the 3MW threads, fullmoon.
Auramyst
07-16-2012, 05:59 PM
Fullmoon,
I'll see if I can find anything online.
Meanwhile....
Welcome to WS :)!
former central time
07-17-2012, 01:09 PM
Fullmoon,
I'll see if I can find anything online.
Meanwhile....
Welcome to WS :)!
Yes, and please post whatever you find here. Many thanks !
fullmoon
07-19-2012, 10:24 PM
Thank you Auramyst and wfgodot for the welcome. I can't seem to get enough information on this case. It's been 20 years and I've never even heard of this case other than on Disappeared and websleuths. Amazing. This is truly a mystery. My first impressions watching Disappeared is:
1. The reason given why the two girls left Jannell's house at 2 a.m. is that there was no room for them. I realize there were relatives visiting from out of town staying there, but I can't imagine asking my daughter's friends to leave the house in the middle of the night because there is no room. I would somehow find room.
2. As in all cases of crime and cold cases, you look at who were the last people to see the victims? Again, Janelle. Not saying she is involved, but there may be something she's holding back.
3. Janelle and her bf are first on the scene of the crime. I am a little surprised that they went into the house on their own. I can't imagine doing this myself at that age, or even now, even if the door was unlocked. I may have opened the door and called out, but I would not have gone in. I would have thought the girls were not home because they had planned something else for the day. Moreover, I would never decide to listen to messages on someone's answering machine. It would consider that an invasion of privacy.
4. Janelle said she answered the phone while in the house. Again, I would not have done so. I would figure that if someone wanted to contact me, they would have called me at my own home. Then Janelle said the call was obscene, but she couldn't remember what was said. I have received obscene calls twice in my life, at separate times, and after all these years, I still remember what was said. Something is just odd about Janelle's account.
5. I think all of this went down between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., when it was still dark out and no immediate threat of the sun coming up. I think it was someone the girls knew. Perhaps Suzie peaked out of the blinds because someone she knew had knocked on her window, calling for her to open the door because they didn't want to awaken Sherrill. Since she knows who the person (s) are, she opens the door. Maybe they wanted her to loan them some money. But they were obviously desperate. Sherrill was awakened by the commotion, perhaps she even threatened to call police if they didn't leave, and it went downhill from there. All three could identify the perps so all three had to be dealt with. I don't think this was planned. I firmly believe the perps were known to the girls. There was no sign of forced entry. I don't think it was someone pretending to be a utility worker knocking on the door in the middle of the night as a ruse to get them to open the door. I don't care if it's the police, I'm not opening my door to anyone in the middle of the night. Just not going to happen!
Does anyone know if Janelle's boyfriend who went with her that morning has been identified? Did he go with her because she didn't have a car to go and check on the girls, or was he supposed to be going with the girls to the water park? If the later, I would find that odd. This trip would be planned by the girls. I can't imagine my girlfriends getting together for something like that, and one of them wants to bring a boyfriend on the trip.
Well, those are my first impressions. I better get back to reading the posts on this message board regarding this case so I can catch up. Thanks again for your kind welcome!
Missouri Mule
07-20-2012, 12:32 AM
You're pretty much up to speed. I would add two minor details. The girls left at 2:20 AM from Battlefield and would have arrived at about 2:50 AM if they didn't get delayed. It was about 11.6 miles.
I believe Jannelle's bf was her future husband, Mike Henson. I'm not certain if they are currently married.
I would also add that since Sherrill's whereabouts are unaccounted for after 11:15 PM she could have been abducted anytime after that and may not have been in the house when the girls arrived. It is also possible her car was not in the carport when they arrived and her car was being returned which is why Suzie might have let the perp(s) in. There is no evidence for this but it can't be discounted either.
Since the prosecutor surfaced the GJ3 for some reason (although not indicted) I would want to eliminate them first of all. It is my belief that two of them are in prison and the third one's location is undetermined. Since Robert Cox's name came up during this time and his alibi collapsed his actual participation in this crime is uncertain. Some believe he is knowledgeable of the burial site.
It is probable (as espoused by some) that if the GJ3 were involved, they had help after the fact and more likely than not the women were taken out to the Rogersville/Northview area (east of Springfield) where they may have met their demise although this is a theory based on probable routes out of town.
It is believed by some that the dig in the Cassville (southwest of Springfield) area was based on good information. What was obtained was put under seal and we don't know what was found. The later dig up near Northview is not believed to have any value.
The motive is not known to the public.
Hurricane
07-20-2012, 09:53 AM
Thank you Auramyst and wfgodot for the welcome. I can't seem to get enough information on this case. It's been 20 years and I've never even heard of this case other than on Disappeared and websleuths. Amazing. This is truly a mystery. My first impressions watching Disappeared is:
1. The reason given why the two girls left Jannell's house at 2 a.m. is that there was no room for them. I realize there were relatives visiting from out of town staying there, but I can't imagine asking my daughter's friends to leave the house in the middle of the night because there is no room. I would somehow find room.
2. As in all cases of crime and cold cases, you look at who were the last people to see the victims? Again, Janelle. Not saying she is involved, but there may be something she's holding back.
3. Janelle and her bf are first on the scene of the crime. I am a little surprised that they went into the house on their own. I can't imagine doing this myself at that age, or even now, even if the door was unlocked. I may have opened the door and called out, but I would not have gone in. I would have thought the girls were not home because they had planned something else for the day. Moreover, I would never decide to listen to messages on someone's answering machine. It would consider that an invasion of privacy.
4. Janelle said she answered the phone while in the house. Again, I would not have done so. I would figure that if someone wanted to contact me, they would have called me at my own home. Then Janelle said the call was obscene, but she couldn't remember what was said. I have received obscene calls twice in my life, at separate times, and after all these years, I still remember what was said. Something is just odd about Janelle's account.
5. I think all of this went down between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m., when it was still dark out and no immediate threat of the sun coming up. I think it was someone the girls knew. Perhaps Suzie peaked out of the blinds because someone she knew had knocked on her window, calling for her to open the door because they didn't want to awaken Sherrill. Since she knows who the person (s) are, she opens the door. Maybe they wanted her to loan them some money. But they were obviously desperate. Sherrill was awakened by the commotion, perhaps she even threatened to call police if they didn't leave, and it went downhill from there. All three could identify the perps so all three had to be dealt with. I don't think this was planned. I firmly believe the perps were known to the girls. There was no sign of forced entry. I don't think it was someone pretending to be a utility worker knocking on the door in the middle of the night as a ruse to get them to open the door. I don't care if it's the police, I'm not opening my door to anyone in the middle of the night. Just not going to happen!
Does anyone know if Janelle's boyfriend who went with her that morning has been identified? Did he go with her because she didn't have a car to go and check on the girls, or was he supposed to be going with the girls to the water park? If the later, I would find that odd. This trip would be planned by the girls. I can't imagine my girlfriends getting together for something like that, and one of them wants to bring a boyfriend on the trip.
Well, those are my first impressions. I better get back to reading the posts on this message board regarding this case so I can catch up. Thanks again for your kind welcome!
Since most of this is pure speculation and your opinion I will only address what you appear to state as fact in your point #1: Suzie and Stacy were not told there was no room for them to sleep at the Kirby's. In fact Mrs. Kirby made preparations for them to stay there. Not feeling well all evening, Suzie made the decision to return home and sleep in her new waterbed which was a graduation gift from her mom. She must have extended an invitation to Stacy to go home with her. It has been speculated by others that it was Janelle who sent Suzie away, not expecting Stacy to go with her. That is simply not true.
fullmoon
07-20-2012, 04:28 PM
My apologies to Mrs. Kirby if she invited the girls to stay. I was relying on what was said in the documentary "Disappeared," which states that the girls could not stay there because there was no room at Janelle's house. The clip can be seen on Youbube at Disappeared - The Springfield Three - YouTube. At 6:04 into the clip, it states:
"After a long night of celebrating, the girls are ready to settle in for the night. But Janelle's house is packed with out of town relatives. They can't stay there afterall."
Was that an error in the documentary?
Missouri Mule
07-20-2012, 05:33 PM
Actually, they could have stayed there according to Jannelle. The narration is "sloppy" to be charitable. There is no first person account directing the girls to leave for Suzie's house. In fact, I believe Jannelle states she "begs" them to stay and could have stayed on the living room floor.
It is not so much an "error" but a subjective statement that the circumstances had changed which led Suzie to want to return home instead and Stacy followed her believing the accommodations would be more to her liking.
Like so many things this was the "perfect storm." Had the girls not gone there and only Sherrill went missing Suzie would have, more likely than not, been able to finger a perp or perps. Additionally, if Stacy had not followed Suzie home, and since she was tight with Suzie, she probably would have been able to brief the police on the likely perp or perps.
Almost nothing made this case easy to solve and it may never be solved. From what I gather the police are buried in other more recent cases and this one has had to take a back seat.
I think the informed consensus is that it will take a confession to bring closure to this case or some witness who comes forth to finger the perp or perps.
There is an enormous amount of material accumulated at the police station which has been carefully documented and gone over with a fine toothed comb several times by different officers and agencies.
My personal opinion, for whatever it may be worth, is to look at the GJ3 and Robert Cox. I think that any one of these four individuals knows what happened but isn't talking; at least not now.
Hurricane
07-20-2012, 07:37 PM
My apologies to Mrs. Kirby if she invited the girls to stay. I was relying on what was said in the documentary "Disappeared," which states that the girls could not stay there because there was no room at Janelle's house. The clip can be seen on Youbube at Disappeared - The Springfield Three - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i6r_ADx0fOI). At 6:04 into the clip, it states:
"After a long night of celebrating, the girls are ready to settle in for the night. But Janelle's house is packed with out of town relatives. They can't stay there afterall."
Was that an error in the documentary?
You need to go back and read the documents from the time of the crime and what Kathy Kirby has said, which is that she got back up out of bed when all the kids returned from the Elder's party and prepared a place for both Suzie and Stacy to sleep. It was late and for all she knew the kids (and that was classmates & friends, not just females) planned to leave early for Branson, so she did not want them leaving again to go somewhere else. She was trying to get everyone settled down for the night. But Suzie and Stacy declined to stay there.
I would not use the word "documentary" when discussing the programs "Disappeared", "Vanished", or "48 HRS" and their reporting on this case.
former central time
07-21-2012, 06:01 AM
You need to go back and read the documents from the time of the crime and what Kathy Kirby has said, which is that she got back up out of bed when all the kids returned from the Elder's party and prepared a place for both Suzie and Stacy to sleep. It was late and for all she knew the kids (and that was classmates & friends, not just females) planned to leave early for Branson, so she did not want them leaving again to go somewhere else. She was trying to get everyone settled down for the night. But Suzie and Stacy declined to stay there.
I would not use the word "documentary" when discussing the programs "Disappeared", "Vanished", or "48 HRS" and their reporting on this case.
Hurricane, thanks for the correction or clarification. Most of the general accepted accounts of this story have all either said to the effect it was too crowded at the Kirby house, so the girls left, or given that clear impression. My guess is, it was a supposition made early on and just stuck.
Ms. Kirby may very well have made plans for the girls to stay and said so in the initial reports. May I offer a little skepticism to the effect, would you not have said the same thing ? The two girls stopped by your house and leave, that much is indisputable. They go missing, in the immediate wake what do you say to camera lights, media accounts, LE and other inquiring minds ? A) The house was too full of relatives from out of town, you girls have to go home, or B) I urged them to stay and fixed a place for them to sleep. Exactly, wouldnt we all chose 'B. This isnt to say thats not what happened and Ms. Kirbys intent. Personally, as a dispassionate observer (as a juror would be), I believe she was more agnostic where the real dispute and tension lay with the three girls, to which well never know what about or why as two of them are dead.
I take issue with the blanket condemnation of the national reports on this case. Having worked in the electronic media for over twenty years, I know most people dont like stories reported about them. Not liking something and being 'grossly inaccurate are not the same thing. All too often people will say, 'I never said that, you show them the tape, then it turns to, '...well not in that context, show them the context, it turns to, '...well, thats not what I mean. Politicians are great at it and 'spin doctoring is a sub science. This isnt to say there hasnt been sloppy reporting done, or less than careful in checking simple facts. Or, points have been largely ignored which might be more important to the dialogue. Understand too, with the contemporary stories coming from the, mostly TV media in Springfield, will be done by people often way to young to have remembered that time nor were living in the area then.
Personally, I have only seen the Disappeared program and while not overjoyed by it myself, I found its only real failing was rehashing most of what was known or widely reported. It also appeared spoon fed from LE. While not questioning LEs ethics and accounts, it is one account. We see the Great Civil Rights Movement of the 60s through more windows than those provided by Southern Sheriffs, do we not ? But, the producers of that program are cranking out massive quantity of programing, which to be fair is probably reasonably accurate. Do they give it the 60 Minutes Mike Wallace treatment ? No, neither did 48 Hours when it was kicking. But, that proves my point before. Many also dont like 60 Minutes when they do stories about them either, but not because theyre wrong.
Hurricane
07-21-2012, 09:30 AM
Hurricane, thanks for the correction or clarification. Most of the general ‘accepted accounts’ of this story have all either said to the effect ‘it was too crowded at the Kirby house, so the girls left,’ or given that clear impression. My guess is, it was a supposition made early on and just stuck.
Ms. Kirby may very well have made plans for the girls to stay and said so in the initial reports. May I offer a little skepticism to the effect, would you not have said the same thing ? The two girls stopped by your house and leave, that much is indisputable. They go missing, in the immediate wake what do you say to camera lights, media accounts, LE and other inquiring minds ? A) The house was too full of relatives from out of town, you girls have to go home, or B) I urged them to stay and fixed a place for them to sleep. Exactly, wouldn’t we all chose 'B.’ This isn’t to say that’s not what happened and Ms. Kirby’s intent. Personally, as a dispassionate observer (as a juror would be), I believe she was more agnostic where the real dispute and tension lay with the three girls, to which we’ll never know what about or why as two of them are dead.
I take issue with the blanket condemnation of the national reports on this case. Having worked in the electronic media for over twenty years, I know most people don’t like stories reported about them. Not liking something and being 'grossly inaccurate’ are not the same thing. All too often people will say, 'I never said that,’ you show them the tape, then it turns to, '...well not in that context,’ show them the context, it turns to, '...well, that’s not what I mean.’ Politicians are great at it and 'spin doctoring’ is a sub science. This isn’t to say there hasn’t been sloppy reporting done, or less than careful in checking simple facts. Or, points have been largely ignored which might be more important to the dialogue. Understand too, with the contemporary stories coming from the, mostly TV media in Springfield, will be done by people often way to young to have remembered that time nor were living in the area then.
Personally, I have only seen the ‘Disappeared’ program and while not overjoyed by it myself, I found its only real failing was rehashing most of what was known or widely reported. It also appeared spoon fed from LE. While not questioning LE’s ethics and accounts, it is one account. We see the Great Civil Rights Movement of the 60‘s through more windows than those provided by Southern Sheriffs, do we not ? But, the producers of that program are cranking out massive quantity of programing, which to be fair is probably reasonably accurate. Do they give it the 60 Minutes Mike Wallace treatment ? No, neither did 48 Hours when it was kicking. But, that proves my point before. Many also don’t like 60 Minutes when they do stories about them either, but not because they’re wrong.
Maybe there's a problem with using the "accepted accounts" without verification. Lies, rumors, pure speculation, and opinions which most often are offered without any circumstancial evidence whatsoever at the very least are tainting innocent peoples lives here. Some people should remember, "There but for the grace of God go I". I believe that Kathy Kirby has always been honest and forthcoming, wanting nothing more than to help and see this case solved. As the evening parties wound into the early morning hours she did her best to end it by trying to keep the girls there and attempting to get them down for what was left for the night. And I believe that way too much has been made of this supposed tension between the 3 girls. Could there have been some tension? Probably. Janelle had a steady boyfriend who she later married. Most all of her activities would have centered around their dating relationship as a couple. Could she have wanted it both ways; could she have been jealous of Suzie & Stacy's friendship excluding her? Quite possibly, but I see no evidence of anything more than that.
Since you have not seen the 48 HRS program on this case I will just briefly point out that the program spent something like 12 minutes time (going on memory now but I have actually timed it) covering the kidnapping/abduction of two kids left in a running car by their mom at or near the bridal shop where Stacy had done modeling work. The kidnapper was stealing a car which just happened to have a couple of young kids in the backseat and was caught a couple of hours later on I-44, I believe it was. This clearly had nothing to do with the 3MW case and was resolved by the time 48 HRS was edited before airing on TV that first time. So 48 HRS clearly could have used those 12 minutes for more important details on the 3MW case if they had been more concerned about investigative reporting instead of human interest stories and TV ratings.
"Vanished" was clearly written and produced to make this case appear as if it was front page news again in an effort to get HBO to buy the project and pick up the costs beyond what they had already agreed to. Kathee Baird has said they probably have 6 more hours of taped interviews with her that they didn't use. They probably have twice that much with Janis McCall. HBO is not likely to ever pick up this project because it is not current front page news and really too old (or perhaps not old enough) to be a good human interest story for ratings. It may take another generation or two for that, unless something were to happen such as the remains are found.
As you said, everything has a spin.
Missouri Mule
07-21-2012, 09:56 AM
Hurricane, thanks for the correction or clarification. Most of the general accepted accounts of this story have all either said to the effect it was too crowded at the Kirby house, so the girls left, or given that clear impression. My guess is, it was a supposition made early on and just stuck.
Ms. Kirby may very well have made plans for the girls to stay and said so in the initial reports. May I offer a little skepticism to the effect, would you not have said the same thing ? The two girls stopped by your house and leave, that much is indisputable. They go missing, in the immediate wake what do you say to camera lights, media accounts, LE and other inquiring minds ? A) The house was too full of relatives from out of town, you girls have to go home, or B) I urged them to stay and fixed a place for them to sleep. Exactly, wouldnt we all chose 'B. This isnt to say thats not what happened and Ms. Kirbys intent. Personally, as a dispassionate observer (as a juror would be), I believe she was more agnostic where the real dispute and tension lay with the three girls, to which well never know what about or why as two of them are dead.
I take issue with the blanket condemnation of the national reports on this case. Having worked in the electronic media for over twenty years, I know most people dont like stories reported about them. Not liking something and being 'grossly inaccurate are not the same thing. All too often people will say, 'I never said that, you show them the tape, then it turns to, '...well not in that context, show them the context, it turns to, '...well, thats not what I mean. Politicians are great at it and 'spin doctoring is a sub science. This isnt to say there hasnt been sloppy reporting done, or less than careful in checking simple facts. Or, points have been largely ignored which might be more important to the dialogue. Understand too, with the contemporary stories coming from the, mostly TV media in Springfield, will be done by people often way to young to have remembered that time nor were living in the area then.
Personally, I have only seen the Disappeared program and while not overjoyed by it myself, I found its only real failing was rehashing most of what was known or widely reported. It also appeared spoon fed from LE. While not questioning LEs ethics and accounts, it is one account. We see the Great Civil Rights Movement of the 60s through more windows than those provided by Southern Sheriffs, do we not ? But, the producers of that program are cranking out massive quantity of programing, which to be fair is probably reasonably accurate. Do they give it the 60 Minutes Mike Wallace treatment ? No, neither did 48 Hours when it was kicking. But, that proves my point before. Many also dont like 60 Minutes when they do stories about them either, but not because theyre wrong.
I agree with Hurricane's account of what took place here. I would add that he has done extensive investigation into the case and what he brings to the table should be taken seriously.
I agree completely about the girls and the mother. I don't believe there is anything there.
The account about the attempted kidnappings and apprehension did in fact consume a good deal of time of the program which contributed nothing of substance to the case whatever.
The filming of the cops stopping drunken motorists and the like was also of little value. There was a somewhat interesting segment where a letter from the jail was sent to the Levitt house which also consumed a lot of time as well as the human interest story of the McCalls.
But probably the most interesting and important thing to take away from the "48 Hours" piece was what was not said. The detective who did most of the speaking left open the door to any number of possibilities of which is still being hotly debated even today. He also seemed to spend a lot of time puzzling over Suzie's photos. The latter probably deserves closer scrutiny.
I would add one other thing. I have personally spoken to four reporters who worked on this case. And the one most closely linked to this program left me with the impression that not much had moved on this case in at least a decade after it occurred. Probably the most important thing I learned was that the dig in the Cassville area held the most promise for the prosecutor but whatever came of it was sealed and nothing more has been said of it. And the GJ3 deal fizzled although we learned of Robert Cox which has consumed a lot of debate. Personally, if I were trying to concentrate my efforts on this case it would be with the GJ3 and Cox. I strongly suspect that all or most of these individuals know what happened and where the remains were deposited.
But all in all you have a good handle on the essence of the case.
I believe but do not know that the police know who the perpetrator was but do not have sufficient evidence to produce an indictment by the prosecutor's office. The perpetrator is not necessarily the person or persons who carried out the actual murders.
The bottom line is that it will probably take a confession or a new witness to surface and spill the beans.
Hurricane
07-21-2012, 11:51 AM
I had forgotten about the Greene County jail inmate's letter which was addressed to the McCall's but mailed to 1717.
There was also the letter from "Tin Foil Hat Man" mailed to SPD sealed in tin foil supposedly so that the Illuminati, CIA, or FBI (take your pick) wouldn't be able to read it thru the envelope.
48 HRS following LE on the tip to search the rent controlled apartments; interviewing the resident mom's and children in the back yard all indicate that this was a human interest slant on the story with plenty of filler.
Why else would that stuff be used in the story when there were weeks worth of time to investigate and report on the case and leave the filler on the cutting room floor?
Auramyst
07-21-2012, 11:25 PM
I just learned about this case on Disappeared shown on the OWN network. I can't believe I haven't heard of this before. I contacted 48 Hours in hopes of getting a copy of their program on the case, but it is no longer available. It was on Youtube, but not anymore. If anyone has an extra copy, I would be grateful if I could buy it from you. My e-mail is mickfan2000@yahoo.com. Thanks!
The 48 Hours episode is titled "Have you seen them?". It originally aired on September 2, 1992. I can't find it online anywhere (youtube, google, etc) or for sale anywhere (ebay, etc). Mind you, if it was offered for sale right after it first aired, then it was probably VHS- as DVD wasn't prevalent at that time. Maybe someone will show up on this forum who has a copy- or a copy of a copy.
I do like watching the documentary's about 3MW, but I do realize they edit and revise according to audience appeal- so facts may be slanted or skewed or not mentioned. I, unfortunately, have never seen the 48 Hours episode- but I have seen Vanished and Disappeared.
What I find enlightening, is watching and reading the very earliest news reports about this case from 1992. There are several of these videos on youtube and articles on google. They show the outside and inside of the house and go over information from the very earliest days of the investigation. It also helps me to view the case from the perspective of 1992, rather than from our more technically advanced era (cell phones, internet, etc).
fullmoon
07-21-2012, 11:53 PM
Hurricane, families and friends of missing people are always grateful to the media for doing another story or broadcast of their loved ones in hopes of raising awareness of the case. It brings another round of leads for LE to check out. I'm not sure why you have so much disrespect for the broadcast programs on this case. Do the media make mistakes? Definitely. I did not see 48 Hours, Vanished, or any other program regarding this case other than Disappeared. It seemed well done. I was unable to find the police report or any other documents because they are no longer available so it's hard to determine the facts of this case. I am still reading the threads on this board, and I'm very grateful there is Websleuths to discuss this case. Regarding the media, though, it seems they have done a pretty good job reporting this case. I spent hours reading newspaper articles that are posted on this site and I find them to be very insightful.
fullmoon
07-22-2012, 12:05 AM
Thanks so much, Auramyst, for looking for the video for me. I am also on a message board "FindJodi.com" regarding the missing anchorwoman, Jodi Huisentruit. I posted a message on that board asking for a copy of the 20/20 episode on the case. I was surprised that the message board administrators contacted ABC to ask if they could post the video on the message board, and it was approved! Very cool. Someone also burned me a copy and sent it, which was very nice. I realize the 48 Hours episode was a long time ago. But I am bummed out that CBS told me they could not sell me anything from their archives. I wonder if they realize they could make a good chunk of change by making such items available? A lot of interest out there on older cases. Thanks again for your efforts! Anyone know if Unsolved Mysteries or Cold case Files did anything on this case?
Missouri Mule
07-22-2012, 12:19 AM
Thanks so much, Auramyst, for looking for the video for me. I am also on a message board "FindJodi.com" regarding the missing anchorwoman, Jodi Huisentruit. I posted a message on that board asking for a copy of the 20/20 episode on the case. I was surprised that the message board administrators contacted ABC to ask if they could post the video on the message board, and it was approved! Very cool. Someone also burned me a copy and sent it, which was very nice. I realize the 48 Hours episode was a long time ago. But I am bummed out that CBS told me they could not sell me anything from their archives. I wonder if they realize they could make a good chunk of change by making such items available? A lot of interest out there on older cases. Thanks again for your efforts! Anyone know if Unsolved Mysteries or Cold case Files did anything on this case?
Unsolved Mysteries and America's Most Wanted also profiled this case.
I do know where a DVD is at but I don't know if I can obtain a duplicate for you. I'll look into it but I wouldn't put too much stock in it as a source of information. Some of the scenes in it have been shown on other programs. I've watched it about 25-30 times myself and remember most of what was in the program.
Hurricane pretty much summed up the value of the program. I concur.
Auramyst
07-22-2012, 02:05 AM
Thanks so much, Auramyst, for looking for the video for me. I am also on a message board "FindJodi.com" regarding the missing anchorwoman, Jodi Huisentruit. I posted a message on that board asking for a copy of the 20/20 episode on the case. I was surprised that the message board administrators contacted ABC to ask if they could post the video on the message board, and it was approved! Very cool. Someone also burned me a copy and sent it, which was very nice. I realize the 48 Hours episode was a long time ago. But I am bummed out that CBS told me they could not sell me anything from their archives. I wonder if they realize they could make a good chunk of change by making such items available? A lot of interest out there on older cases. Thanks again for your efforts! Anyone know if Unsolved Mysteries or Cold case Files did anything on this case?
You're welcome :) I wish it was available somewhere.
I agree that they could make some money by selling the episodes on the cold cases. I would definitely buy the episodes of this case and some other cold cases.
It's wonderful that ABC allowed the video to be posted on your other forum. Too bad the other networks don't do the same thing.
Good luck on your research into this sad and baffling case. We're glad you're here! :)
Hurricane
07-22-2012, 06:54 AM
Hurricane, families and friends of missing people are always grateful to the media for doing another story or broadcast of their loved ones in hopes of raising awareness of the case. It brings another round of leads for LE to check out. I'm not sure why you have so much disrespect for the broadcast programs on this case. Do the media make mistakes? Definitely. I did not see 48 Hours, Vanished, or any other program regarding this case other than Disappeared. It seemed well done. I was unable to find the police report or any other documents because they are no longer available so it's hard to determine the facts of this case. I am still reading the threads on this board, and I'm very grateful there is Websleuths to discuss this case. Regarding the media, though, it seems they have done a pretty good job reporting this case. I spent hours reading newspaper articles that are posted on this site and I find them to be very insightful.
Fullmoon, I'm not interested in such programs for their human interest slant or entertainment value. I'm only interested in any evidentiary value they may offer. If you have the chance to see the short trailer for "Vanished" you would quickly realize their slant is the Cox parking garage and getting it dug. I'm not interested in being spoon fed "facts" & innuendos that they have spun likely for maximum shock value and TV ratings. I would prefer just an honest reporting of the true facts of the case. I'm capable of making my own conclusions from there.
Hurricane
07-22-2012, 08:46 AM
Fullmoon, I am pretty confident in the N-L's reporting of the facts in this case, especially during the early weeks when they got their information from the daily press conferences held by SPD. Most of the anniversary reviews have just been a rehashing of previous published accounts with little if any new facts added. Anyone who was expecting more than that from the most recent 20th year anniversary has to be disappointed.
Don't confuse these TV shows as news programs or documentaries because they are not.
fullmoon
07-22-2012, 02:14 PM
I would prefer just an honest reporting of the true facts of the case.
I understand the frustration about little if any information coming from LE regarding a cold case. I don't believe LE should keep any information from the public. I'm for full disclosure, i.e., transcripts of interviews, releasing information that is under seal, particularly on a case that is 20 years old now. It might just help solve the case. Without any new information, you have rehashing of the old and are adding little to the discussion to keep this case alive. But I think the broadcasts of the case, even though they don't add anything new, still bring in new leads, something the families of the missing women welcome. I think the broadcasts may seem lame to some because there is little information on the facts. But unfortunately, the media is only reflecting what little information LE will give to them, hence, some of the filler.
Missouri Mule
07-22-2012, 02:20 PM
Thanks so much, Auramyst, for looking for the video for me. I am also on a message board "FindJodi.com" regarding the missing anchorwoman, Jodi Huisentruit. I posted a message on that board asking for a copy of the 20/20 episode on the case. I was surprised that the message board administrators contacted ABC to ask if they could post the video on the message board, and it was approved! Very cool. Someone also burned me a copy and sent it, which was very nice. I realize the 48 Hours episode was a long time ago. But I am bummed out that CBS told me they could not sell me anything from their archives. I wonder if they realize they could make a good chunk of change by making such items available? A lot of interest out there on older cases. Thanks again for your efforts! Anyone know if Unsolved Mysteries or Cold case Files did anything on this case?
You brought up the Jodi Huisentruit case. There is a very nebulous link to this case. Probably slim to none but I will throw it out for you to chew on. Three years ago there was an individual by the name of Chris Revak who hanged himself in the Douglas county jail where he was suspected in the disappearance and murder of a lady bartender there. There was speculation at the time that he may have been a serial killer. He was a good looking young man, a paramedic and his co-workers found it hard to believe he could do such a thing.
If you check into his background I believe you will find links to Battlefield, Missouri (although don't confuse with a relative of his) and to the town in Iowa where Ms. Huisentruit went missing. Going on memory here, I believe his ex wife lived nearby.
Now where this gets intersting is that some poster claimed that he saw Revak talking to Suzie the night she went missing. He claimed he saw them on the corner of Delmar and Glenstone near her home. Said he looked right into this person's eyes and was convinced that this was Revak. Is there anything to this story? Don't know, but in view of the fact that we know so few hard facts about the case I wouldn't rule it out of hand. Revak would have been 19 years old in 1992.
Thought I would throw that out for you if you are interested in looking into that angle. This may help you if you want to read more.
http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/08/christopher_revak_emt_serial_k.php
Hurricane
07-23-2012, 07:49 AM
I understand the frustration about little if any information coming from LE regarding a cold case. I don't believe LE should keep any information from the public. I'm for full disclosure, i.e., transcripts of interviews, releasing information that is under seal, particularly on a case that is 20 years old now. It might just help solve the case. Without any new information, you have rehashing of the old and are adding little to the discussion to keep this case alive. But I think the broadcasts of the case, even though they don't add anything new, still bring in new leads, something the families of the missing women welcome. I think the broadcasts may seem lame to some because there is little information on the facts. But unfortunately, the media is only reflecting what little information LE will give to them, hence, some of the filler.
I have no frustration concerning what little information and evidence LE has released to the public. I understand why Moore clamped down on the flow of information coming out after the 48 HRS program first aired (the quality of the program and some of the misinformation from it might have contributed in his decision). The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.
I do believe Janis McCall has recently been told by SPD the essence of the case and what it will take to obtain a conviction in a court of law. That seems to have brought her some peace of mind and perhaps some patience to see this thru. As I have said before, I believe this case is solved.
Auramyst
07-23-2012, 08:53 PM
I have no frustration concerning what little information and evidence LE has released to the public. I understand why Moore clamped down on the flow of information coming out after the 48 HRS program first aired (the quality of the program and some of the misinformation from it might have contributed in his decision). The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.
I do believe Janis McCall has recently been told by SPD the essence of the case and what it will take to obtain a conviction in a court of law. That seems to have brought her some peace of mind and perhaps some patience to see this thru. As I have said before, I believe this case is solved.
I'm pleased to hear that Janis McCall has been given some peace of mind. That poor lady and her family have lived a nightmare for more than 20 years.
Do you believe the case was solved recently? Or do you believe it was solved during the beginning of the investigation?
Auramyst
07-23-2012, 11:39 PM
Stacy called Janis to tell her she was staying at Janelle's for the night. Janell's mother knew they were planning on spending the night- she had pallets made for Suzy and Stacy in the living room. So, we know that Stacy and Janelle both told their mother's they were not going to Branson that night.
Did Suzy call Sherrill?
I would hazard a guess that 'yes', Suzy would have called her mother to let her know that their plans had changed. According to all accounts, Suzy and Sherrill were close and it's likely that if Stacy and Janelle were calling/talking to their mothers, then Suzy would most certainly have tried to contact hers.
Janis says Stacy called around 10:30. Sherrill was on the phone with a friend at 9:30. Did Suzy try to call and the line was busy? Did Suzy call and leave a message on the machine? Or did Suzy call and get through to her mother? If so, then Sherrill knew they weren't going to Branson. Sherrill might have suggested that Stacy stay at their house for the night, rather than adding two more people to the amount of guests at Janell's.
If Sherrill knew they weren't going to Branson, and even if Sherrill thought the girls were staying at Janelle's, she (Sherrill) would have known that there was a possibility that Suzy (and possibly Stacy) might be coming home for the night.
Sherrill might have more readily answered a knock on the door- expecting to see the girls (locked out or forgotten key), if Sherrill went to bed, and fell asleep, then she might have dismissed 'unusual' sounds in the house and attributed them to the girls coming home, etc, etc
She also might mention it to any late night visitors- if the perp was a 'friend' who 'happened' to stop by for some reason.
Maybe a minor detail, but one that could have implications on how events of the evening unfolded.
fullmoon
07-25-2012, 05:10 AM
The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.
I'm sure it's a matter of style on how much LE wants to divulge to the public on cold cases. I think the public should receive updates regarding the status of the case without it being compromised by details, i.e., suspects, particularly a case like this that has been cold for 20 years. I don't expect LE to release a list of possible suspects to the public. They could answer some questions, however, to keep ongoing interest in the case in hopes of getting it solved. I doubt a case would be lost because of something said on an Internet forum somewhere. After 20 years, I would hope LE would trust the public enough to release some information that could help jog a memory and solve this case.
Missouri Mule
07-25-2012, 09:55 AM
The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.
I'm sure it's a matter of style on how much LE wants to divulge to the public on cold cases. I think the public should receive updates regarding the status of the case without it being compromised by details, i.e., suspects, particularly a case like this that has been cold for 20 years. I don't expect LE to release a list of possible suspects to the public. They could answer some questions, however, to keep ongoing interest in the case in hopes of getting it solved. I doubt a case would be lost because of something said on an Internet forum somewhere. After 20 years, I would hope LE would trust the public enough to release some information that could help jog a memory and solve this case.
Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
former central time
07-25-2012, 05:00 PM
Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
In some ways thats a little encouraging. It would appear that at least some in the investigation are willing to look outside the box, and put their biases/prejudices aside from being overly familiar with the case and individuals involved. I was also encouraged recently by new technology analyzing old evidence, getting good hard evidence in a case mostly of he said/she said/they said, is nice.
I hear from some here that the case is solved. Great...but that means nothing. Theres a pesky little detail of proving it in a court of law, unless the State is given a gift of an outright confession. I agree with the State holding cards close to its vest, and keeping information regulated. But, the suspect protests his innocents, I dont care if he is the scum of the earth and the States witnesses are angels and saints. Means nothing. You have to convince a dispassionate, detached jury with the facts challenged, analyzed and cross examined. You can cut through all this and right to the chase some systems do, China and some countries in the Middle East come to mind, I prefer ours thank you.
Hurricane
07-25-2012, 06:42 PM
In some ways thats a little encouraging. It would appear that at least some in the investigation are willing to look outside the box, and put their biases/prejudices aside from being overly familiar with the case and individuals involved. I was also encouraged recently by new technology analyzing old evidence, getting good hard evidence in a case mostly of he said/she said/they said, is nice.
I hear from some here that the case is solved. Great...but that means nothing. Theres a pesky little detail of proving it in a court of law, unless the State is given a gift of an outright confession. I agree with the State holding cards close to its vest, and keeping information regulated. But, the suspect protests his innocents, I dont care if he is the scum of the earth and the States witnesses are angels and saints. Means nothing. You have to convince a dispassionate, detached jury with the facts challenged, analyzed and cross examined. You can cut through all this and right to the chase some systems do, China and some countries in the Middle East come to mind, I prefer ours thank you.
That's why arrests have not been made, charges have not been filed, and the case brought into a court of law. Cases are solved all the time but never officially closed because overwelming evidence is just not there to convince a jury of 12 (much easier to obtain a conviction in a civil lawsuit where one jurist can't hang the jury). I too am hopeful that new technology can produce suitable results from the forensic evidence if it was collected and stored properly. Without the additional evidence they seek there is no hurry to take their chance at a conviction. If no further evidence is ever developed then the PA at some time in the future will be forced to take his best shot with the evidence he has. I think that is a part of what has been explained to the McCalls. In the meantime the investigation continues for additional evidence that would make this case and get a conviction.
Most of this "out of the box" stuff and tipsters claiming they weren't taken seriously by LE stems from lies and rumors that have been looked into by LE hundreds of times over the past 20 yrs. Not knowing versions of their tip have already been looked into numerous times before the tipster feels slighted because not enough attention was paid to something he/she strongly believes in. And thus starts another round of the cops are dirty or the cops aren't doing their job talk.
Auramyst
07-25-2012, 09:31 PM
In some ways thats a little encouraging. It would appear that at least some in the investigation are willing to look outside the box, and put their biases/prejudices aside from being overly familiar with the case and individuals involved. I was also encouraged recently by new technology analyzing old evidence, getting good hard evidence in a case mostly of he said/she said/they said, is nice.
I agree and a fresh set of eyes may have helped bring more leads, suspects, and evidence to light. Some of this may have come about from the 3 day conference with NCMEC, and also from SPD 'digitizing' all that evidence.
Auramyst
07-25-2012, 10:18 PM
Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
I hadn't seen 9PM to 6AM anywhere, but I did read the report from the police stating:
"the suspect clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992 into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992."
That time frame is interesting. It leaves the door wide open for someone to have abducted/harmed Sherrill well before the girls allegedly got to the house at 2:30 AM.
Maybe the police are still considering the sighting of a man loitering around the neighborhood to be valid- at least within the context of Saturday evening. If the police thought the only crime that occurred happened after the girls got home- then the time frame would be smaller and say something like "early Sunday morning" rather than including Saturday night as well. I can think of a few reasons why they would include Saturday evening in the time frame:
1) They know something happened to Sherrill late Saturday evening
2) They consider the 'transient' to be the suspect and he was seen by the witness on Saturday evening
3) Both 1 & 2
4) ?
I'm taking the statement "into the morning of Sunday, June 7. 1992" to mean well into the morning. Like 11 AM or later.
I would think that an abduction of three women, driving somewhere to rape/kill/abandon them, and coming back home would take some time. It could be shorter if he left them imprisoned somewhere and returned later to do his thing, but that would be much riskier than killing them right away and being done with the whole deal. With that being said, I wonder what condition his clothes were in when he got home.
I would think that an abduction of three women, driving somewhere to rape/kill/abandon them, and coming back home would take some time. It could be shorter if he left them imprisoned somewhere and returned later to do his thing, but that would be much riskier than killing them right away and being done with the whole deal. With that being said, I wonder what condition his clothes were in when he got home.
That is assuming that the abductor and the murderer are the same person/people. I know that there are a few of us who are not necessarily convinced that this is the only plausible scenario.
Auramyst
07-26-2012, 12:02 AM
That is assuming that the abductor and the murderer are the same person/people. I know that there are a few of us who are not necessarily convinced that this is the only plausible scenario.
Ahhh, yes, another perp or two would certainly open up the possibilities within the "late Saturday night, early Sunday morning" timeframe publicized by the police.
I was actually applying the scenarios based on the timeframe statement released by the police. But, their lack of mentioning another suspect doesn't necessarily eliminate the fact that there may be another suspect.
When I first learned of this case a few years ago (I was stationed in England before coming back to the States), my original theory was that there was just one perp.
I've read extensively, both this forum and through my own research, and developed theories that included everything from one to several perps.
At the moment, I'm back on the one perp theory- but barely. I wouldn't be surprised if there were two, but I would be surprised if there was more than that.
Missouri Mule
07-26-2012, 12:53 AM
I hadn't seen 9PM to 6AM anywhere, but I did read the report from the police stating:
"the suspect clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992 into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992."
That time frame is interesting. It leaves the door wide open for someone to have abducted/harmed Sherrill well before the girls allegedly got to the house at 2:30 AM.
Maybe the police are still considering the sighting of a man loitering around the neighborhood to be valid- at least within the context of Saturday evening. If the police thought the only crime that occurred happened after the girls got home- then the time frame would be smaller and say something like "early Sunday morning" rather than including Saturday night as well. I can think of a few reasons why they would include Saturday evening in the time frame:
1) They know something happened to Sherrill late Saturday evening
2) They consider the 'transient' to be the suspect and he was seen by the witness on Saturday evening
3) Both 1 & 2
4) ?
I'm taking the statement "into the morning of Sunday, June 7. 1992" to mean well into the morning. Like 11 AM or later.
I would think that an abduction of three women, driving somewhere to rape/kill/abandon them, and coming back home would take some time. It could be shorter if he left them imprisoned somewhere and returned later to do his thing, but that would be much riskier than killing them right away and being done with the whole deal. With that being said, I wonder what condition his clothes were in when he got home.
I'm going to eat crow about a recent post as I can't find the specific time frames what I thought I had read. I sincerely thought I had read that somewhere but I haven't been able to lay my hands on it now. (I'm going to have to be more exacting in the future.)
The information I have been getting recently points to at least two perpetrators. Hurricane might want to opine here if he wishes.
This is the best I have been able to find at this time. This comes from "The Crime Scene." Maybe I did imagine it. I apologize for misleading you.
At the very least we know the police are referring to one male subject and if he "clearly" spent a considerable time out and about, etc., this comports with the recent information I have seen. What is particularly interesting about this is that the police state he "may" not have a history of violence. This suggests that he is not someone who has been discussed in the various forums. I would call this person "Mystery Man" and I do not know the identity of this person although I know the identities of the usual suspects bandied about. If, as I believe, two of the GJ3 suspects are in prison (as is Cox) and one's whereabouts are unknown but had a long history of bad behavior it reinforces the view that we are looking at someone not generally known to the public. I do believe this press release was carefully constructed by the police department, although they do leave themselves considerable "wiggle" room in the interpretation of their wording, i.e. "may not" instead of "does not", etc. Stated differently, even Cox could be fitted into this description of the suspect.
"The suspect clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The suspect had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the suspect in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the suspect may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.
-
Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.
-
People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence."
http://crimesceneinvestigations.blogspot.com/search?updated-max=2012-06-16T08:53:00-05:00&max-results=20&start=20&by-date=false
Auramyst
07-26-2012, 12:01 PM
This is the best I have been able to find at this time. This comes from "The Crime Scene." Maybe I did imagine it. I apologize for misleading you.
Oh, no, please don't apologize!
In my post, I was trying to point out that I thought it was significant that the police included "late Saturday night into the morning of Sunday" as a timeframe for the crime.
(I just figured I hadn't seen the info on the 9PM to 6AM, yet, and I was going to search it out.)
I cerainly don't feel that your post was misleading. You and some others on this forum have been most informative! :)
The information I have been getting recently points to at least two perpetrators.
I have also for a long time believed that there are at least 2 perpetrators, but perhaps more- at least 2 involved in the abduction and 1 who murdered the women. I also believe that those who were sent to abduct the women may not have known that they were going to be murdered. If it is true that the police pretty much know what happened but don't have the evidence to prove it, this would make sense and fit with the statement they released earlier this year about this person not necessarily having a history of violence and that those close to him would never suspect that he would commit this type of crime. If they are referring to the person who abducted the women, and if the abductor did not know that the women would be killed, it would make perfect sense for this individual to not have a violent criminal record or be suspected by his family or friends.
Someone without a history of violence does not go out one night and murder 3 women without making a mistake, pulling off a perfect crime.
I offer up the case of Cary Stayner and the Yosemite murders as an example of how one guy can abduct, murder and dispose of the bodies of three women with only a knife. He had no criminal record and a good standing in the community. He would have gotten clean away had he not committed another murder that was not nearly so well executed. I am using this example to illustrate that it is possible for one man to pull off such a crime without any criminal experience.
The girls arived home at around 2:30 AM and appear to have gotten in bed as if everything was OK. We do not know for sure that Sherill was alive or alone in bed when the girls arrived. Was there someone hiding in her closet?, was Sherill already dead? We don't know. We only know that Stacy and Suzy went to bed as if everything was fine. We also know that Sherill did not expect Suzy to come home that night. (if Suzy let her know, it would have been after 2:00 AM). Even a total stranger would know that teenage girls don't always come home on Saturday nights. If some creep was "waiting for Suzy to get home" most likely he would "call it a night" before 2:30AM. This is strongly suggestive that nobody was "waiting" for Suzy to come home but it doesn't rule it out entirely.
There was no sign of forced entry and no signs of a struggle. This again is highly suggestive that someone in the house let the perp in and he was able to control them with minimal struggle. It stands to reason that, confronted with a total stranger in their home, there would have been some resistance.
All this leads to the conclusion that someone the women knew came by after the girls were in bed and someone in the home, who knew and trusted that person, (or persons) let them in where they were caught by surprise.
I'll admit that there are other possible explainations and there may be information out that might change the above senerio, but I feel pretty strongly that this fits strongly with known facts.
Missouri Mule
07-26-2012, 03:33 PM
I offer up the case of Cary Stayner and the Yosemite murders as an example of how one guy can abduct, murder and dispose of the bodies of three women with only a knife. He had no criminal record and a good standing in the community. He would have gotten clean away had he not committed another murder that was not nearly so well executed. I am using this example to illustrate that it is possible for one man to pull off such a crime without any criminal experience.
The girls arived home at around 2:30 AM and appear to have gotten in bed as if everything was OK. We do not know for sure that Sherill was alive or alone in bed when the girls arrived. Was there someone hiding in her closet?, was Sherill already dead? We don't know. We only know that Stacy and Suzy went to bed as if everything was fine. We also know that Sherill did not expect Suzy to come home that night. (if Suzy let her know, it would have been after 2:00 AM). Even a total stranger would know that teenage girls don't always come home on Saturday nights. If some creep was "waiting for Suzy to get home" most likely he would "call it a night" before 2:30AM. This is strongly suggestive that nobody was "waiting" for Suzy to come home but it doesn't rule it out entirely.
There was no sign of forced entry and no signs of a struggle. This again is highly suggestive that someone in the house let the perp in and he was able to control them with minimal struggle. It stands to reason that, confronted with a total stranger in their home, there would have been some resistance.
All this leads to the conclusion that someone the women knew came by after the girls were in bed and someone in the home, who knew and trusted that person, (or persons) let them in where they were caught by surprise.
I'll admit that there are other possible explanations and there may be information out that might change the above scenario, but I feel pretty strongly that this fits strongly with known facts.
A couple of points and I am familiar with the Stayner case.
We don't know where Sherrill was after the phone call to the house at about 11:15 PM. She may not have been in the house when the girls arrived home. Stated differently, she may already have been abducted. We don't know if the girls talked to her when they arrived.
Secondly, I have been getting some information (that I believe to be reliable) that there was in fact some signs of forced entry AND that there was some forensic evidence left behind. If that is true then it goes to the probability that it was someone known to the women.
Minor point. I think it is more likely they arrived at about 2:50 AM as they didn't leave the Kirby house until 2:20 AM according to the mother. It is about 12 miles to the Delmar address from Battlefield.
Auramyst
07-26-2012, 03:38 PM
I offer up the case of Cary Stayner and the Yosemite murders as an example of how one guy can abduct, murder and dispose of the bodies of three women with only a knife. He had no criminal record and a good standing in the community. He would have gotten clean away had he not committed another murder that was not nearly so well executed. I am using this example to illustrate that it is possible for one man to pull off such a crime without any criminal experience.
Controlling three women could be done using the elements of fear and surprise. If the perp was holding a gun to, lets say, Sherrill's head, and demanding Suzy and Stacy comply with his demands, then yes, I think it could happen. The girls would go along with him wanting to believe his promises of 'do as i say and no one will get hurt' or some such stuff. Despite what happens on tv, not everyone turns into a ninja when placed in a dangerous situation.
There's also the example of the Groene's murder and kidnapping. Five people were ambushed, murdered, and attacked by a lone psycho.
Auramyst
07-26-2012, 03:43 PM
Secondly, I have been getting some information (that I believe to be reliable) that there was in fact some signs of forced entry AND that there was some forensic evidence left behind. If that is true then it goes to the probability that it was someone known to the women.
Does the sign of forced entry include something besides the front door? I've never been completely comfortable with the theory that the front door was the entrance/exit point.
I would think that someone trying to get three women out of a house- and avoid detection- would use a darker entrance/exit point. Some place that was not well lit by the porch light and the yard light.
Missouri Mule
07-26-2012, 04:47 PM
Does the sign of forced entry include something besides the front door? I've never been completely comfortable with the theory that the front door was the entrance/exit point.
I would think that someone trying to get three women out of a house- and avoid detection- would use a darker entrance/exit point. Some place that was not well lit by the porch light and the yard light.
Honestly, I don't know but two people whose knowledge of this case I trust have indicated there was some evidence of forced entry.
There were also reports of some shady characters who were in the neighborhood that night and that a pocket knife was dropped by a window that might be used to cut the outside screen. As I recall they were scared off. It may or may not have had something to do with this crime. Which brings up the GJ3. I believe all three had histories of burglaries in their resumes. (And if my recollection is faulty, anyone can readily correct me. It is impossible to keep up with all of the news reports over the years.)
We know for a certainty that at least one of the GJ3 had a rather sordid history of sexual assault. It has been postulated by another poster that a "sexual deviant" might be involved. I think that is entirely possible. There must have been some reason for the prosecutor to present those names to the 1994 grand jury. I don't know what it was or what reason or evidence was provided as there was no indictments handed down.
I am more drawn to the idea that there is someone we haven't discussed much, if at all, who had formed some bond or friendship or other relationship with one or more of the women who could have gotten the door opened at that time of night. The story has become somewhat muddled over time and I wouldn't bet the farm on it but I think it should be strongly considered.
I do believe that one or more of the "usual suspects" probably played a hand in the actual murders of the women later on. And I don't think any of these individuals was necessarily the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. But murder doesn't require a high IQ. Getting that door unlocked probably did.
I do believe that one or more of the "usual suspects" probably played a hand in the actual murders of the women later on. And I don't think any of these individuals was necessarily the brightest bulbs in the chandelier. But murder doesn't require a high IQ. Getting that door unlocked probably did.
I would agree with this. I also don't necessarily think that the bodies are hidden in concrete anywhere or anything complicated like that. I was watching something recently about a college student who had disappeared and every field and body of water around her city was searched extensively. It wasn't until several years later (maybe 8?) that a hiker discovered her remains deep in a wooded area because he had ventured off of the marked trails. LE acknowledged that it was a stroke of luck that her remains were found, because if he hadn't gone off the trail in that exact spot, the woods were so deep that no one would have ever seen her. Anyone who has ever lived in the Ozarks knows how many thousands of acres of densely wooded areas there are around Springfield. I would put my dollar on them being in a remote (or at least secluded) wooded area.
Auramyst
07-26-2012, 06:41 PM
I would agree with this. I also don't necessarily think that the bodies are hidden in concrete anywhere or anything complicated like that. I was watching something recently about a college student who had disappeared and every field and body of water around her city was searched extensively. It wasn't until several years later (maybe 8?) that a hiker discovered her remains deep in a wooded area because he had ventured off of the marked trails. LE acknowledged that it was a stroke of luck that her remains were found, because if he hadn't gone off the trail in that exact spot, the woods were so deep that no one would have ever seen her. Anyone who has ever lived in the Ozarks knows how many thousands of acres of densely wooded areas there are around Springfield. I would put my dollar on them being in a remote (or at least secluded) wooded area.
I agree. I think it's much riskier to dump the bodies in a construction area, and 'hope' nobody discovers them during the time between them being dumped and the concrete being poured.
It's much less of a risk- and much easier- to bury or dump them in a secluded location. Especially a densely wooded location, where the chances of someone stumbling across them are much more remote.
Of course, a body of water would do the same thing, if it was deep enough and remote enough.
I agree with your theory, Jaya, they are in a remote, secluded, wooded area.
Missouri Mule
07-26-2012, 07:20 PM
I would agree with this. I also don't necessarily think that the bodies are hidden in concrete anywhere or anything complicated like that. I was watching something recently about a college student who had disappeared and every field and body of water around her city was searched extensively. It wasn't until several years later (maybe 8?) that a hiker discovered her remains deep in a wooded area because he had ventured off of the marked trails. LE acknowledged that it was a stroke of luck that her remains were found, because if he hadn't gone off the trail in that exact spot, the woods were so deep that no one would have ever seen her. Anyone who has ever lived in the Ozarks knows how many thousands of acres of densely wooded areas there are around Springfield. I would put my dollar on them being in a remote (or at least secluded) wooded area.
That is certainly true. It can be so thick with vegetation that one could literally walk right over the remains and not even seen anything. And after 20 years and the animals there may be little to nothing left of the bones. It is said that some of these places are so dense with trees, bushes, and the like it is necessary to pipe in sunlight.
Indianagirl
07-26-2012, 08:07 PM
Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
Are you saying, according to the news article, there is one specific male that LE has identified in private (unknown to the public) that has unknown whereabouts the night of the crime?
Missouri Mule
07-26-2012, 10:48 PM
Are you saying, according to the news article, there is one specific male that LE has identified in private (unknown to the public) that has unknown whereabouts the night of the crime?
All I can say (or know) is that a source that I have been in touch with has strongly indicated there is such a person and that he is someone not generally discussed. (Yes, I believe the police know his identity) I've tried everything to pry the name out but have been unsuccessful. However, one or more of the "usual suspects" were also strongly suspected as being involved, but apparently after the actual act of abductions.
Hurricane may not want me to say this (and he is not my source) but I believe he knows the name of this male subject. He has done a lot of work on this case, having reviewed much material and I would go with what he brings to the table. He probably has more expertise about this case than anyone who has posted here.
I will tell you this. I believe I know the names of the GJ3. But I can't definitively link them to the crime. And evidently neither could the prosecutor as he didn't bring indictments. How Cox figures in this I am not sure. For a long time I believed he could have been the sole perpetrator, and still hold out that possibility but the consensus of others is that he isn't. I am agnostic at this point.
Auramyst
07-27-2012, 05:42 PM
As a helpful reference, I'm going to post some threads from an earlier discussion referring to possible suspects:
From this forum, thread 5, page 10, post #238:
Kemo:
I came up with the following list. These are names that have come up in various discussions. I have no idea if they include the "12".
1) Gerald Carnahan: DOB 1958 Abducted, raped murdered and concealed body of Jackie Johns in Ozark Mo in 1985. No other known connection.
2) Francis Robb: DOB ? killed three people in early 1990 And disposed of their bodies. This was apparently not sex related. He was convicted and died in prison.
3) Ricky Evans: DOB ? Close friend of Robb who might have been involved in the triple murder. Later convicted of a different double murder (non-sexual) and disposing of bodies by feeding to hogs on his farm.
4) Darrel Felton: DOB ? Friend of Evans, grandson of Robb. Was witness against Evans.
All three above were meth using low-lifes who lived in the rural area east
of Springfield.
5) Melvin Cheney: DOB (early 1960's) convicted of 1/19/91 abduction/rape/murder/ with body disposal of Trudie Davis who was abducted from convenience store where she worked. There are two similar crimes in the general area (about an hour north of Springfield) that are unsolved that he is suspected of.
6) Jesse Rush: DOB 1976 (brother of Melvin) convicted, with Melvin of the Trudie Davis caper. His statement implicated two other men who were never charged (Greg Cheevers and a Marshall Cheevers) and, in a letter to another inmate, made references to having killed several other women Jesse and Melvin were living in Camden county Mo
7) Robert Cox DOB 1960 History of Rape/murder in Fl+ other sex and property crimes. Serving long sentence in Texas. Made statements suggesting he knew something of murder but nothing solid. No known ties to women
8) Stephen Eugene Garrison: DOB ? Raped a student in Springfield in 1993 serving 40 year sentence . He apparently claimed bodies were buried on Francis Robb's farm. No know connection to women.
9) Mike Kovacs:, DOB 1975 Suzie's former boyfriend. Associated with of the
Graverobbers. Supposedly had rock solid alibi
10) Dustin Recla: Graverobber
11) Michael Clay: Graverobber
12) Joseph Riedel: Graverobber All three of the Graverobber have pretty well convinced LE they were not involved. Statements from LE claim they were cleared but there are reports that some involved in the investigation feel they should be investigated further.
13) 36-year-old man from Springfield (Grand Jury three)
14) 28-year-old man from Kansas(Grand Jury three)
15) 28-year-old man who was originally from Cedar County, Mo(Grand Jury three) the Grand Jury Three were recent paroles fm the Kansas system who arrived in Springfield a month before the abduction. As the Grand Jury is conducted in secret, it is not know what, if any connection they had to the crime but no indictment was issued.
16) Bart Streeter: DOB 1965 Brother of Suzie, Long history of Substance abuse and minor crimes. Generally considered to have been leared during initial investigation.
17) Chris Revak DOB 1973 Committed suicide after arrest for sex related murder in Ava Mo. Is a strong suspect in two other similar murders, Internet rumors place him in Springfield area in 1992 but LE has played down any interest in him
and then the following post:
post #239:
Missouri Mule:
That's a pretty complete list. I can tell you that there is one duplicate on there if you look closely. I also do not believe the perps who murdered Trudy Darby were involved. And Revak wasn't on anyone's radar until he turned up dead in jail from a suicide.
I would add to the list any known associates or related people to the elder Francis Robb as well, in particular two other people.
and then a following post:
Hmmmwhoknows:
Add Ricky Eugene Dykes and Teddy Gale Roberts and Mike Hiram Henson to that list.
I thought this might be helpful to folks as a reference to who's who and their possible connection in the 3MW case.
Hurricane
07-28-2012, 07:02 AM
All I can say (or know) is that a source that I have been in touch with has strongly indicated there is such a person and that he is someone not generally discussed. (Yes, I believe the police know his identity) I've tried everything to pry the name out but have been unsuccessful. However, one or more of the "usual suspects" were also strongly suspected as being involved, but apparently after the actual act of abductions.
Hurricane may not want me to say this (and he is not my source) but I believe he knows the name of this male subject. He has done a lot of work on this case, having reviewed much material and I would go with what he brings to the table. He probably has more expertise about this case than anyone who has posted here.
I will tell you this. I believe I know the names of the GJ3. But I can't definitively link them to the crime. And evidently neither could the prosecutor as he didn't bring indictments. How Cox figures in this I am not sure. For a long time I believed he could have been the sole perpetrator, and still hold out that possibility but the consensus of others is that he isn't. I am agnostic at this point.
Maybe you are interpreting SPD's statement incorrectly and reading too much into it. I'm not going to even confirm there is a mystery man, but assuming there is and I know his identity I'm not going to release that info publicly or privately and have it published on every forum that discusses this case within 15 minutes. If true, to do so would be jeopardizing this case.
Missouri Mule
07-28-2012, 09:47 AM
Maybe you are interpreting SPD's statement incorrectly and reading too much into it. I'm not going to even confirm there is a mystery man, but assuming there is and I know his identity I'm not going to release that info publicly or privately and have it published on every forum that discusses this case within 15 minutes. If true, to do so would be jeopardizing this case.
I didn't expect or want you to. I was just trying to be as responsive to the previous posts and knew that you more likely than not had the information I had been seeking. Assuming such a person existed, as I believe, I wanted to look into his background and see if I could make sense of this case.
I think, like most who have looked at this case, we are just frustrated that it hasn't seen justice. Personally, I am out of ideas where to proceed. I appreciate your response and am going to step off the stage until new information is released.
Missouri Mule
07-28-2012, 04:52 PM
I said I was going to leave for a while as I have exhausted any usefulness at this point but let me say this. On another site it brought up the subject of human trafficking. I've been kicking this around for a while and will just throw it out for discussion. I have no evidence of this but the thought has crossed my mind. Make of it what you will.
Auramyst
07-28-2012, 05:18 PM
I said I was going to leave for a while as I have exhausted any usefulness at this point but let me say this. On another site it brought up the subject of human trafficking. I've been kicking this around for a while and will just throw it out for discussion. I have no evidence of this but the thought has crossed my mind. Make of it what you will.
I don't believe anyone has "exhausted any usefulness". There are several 'long termers' (you included) who have investigated this case way before this forum even existed.
There are those of us who have not had the fortune to read the original news articles (N-L does not have them on-line) and we aren't privy to the ins and outs of Springfield and some of the 'players' in the investigation.
We depend on everyone (long term researchers and 'newbies') to add to the wealth of information that has been accumulated in this forum through discussion and research.
This is a frustrating case. It's very easy to get emotionally involved. It's very easy to get 'burned out' due to lack of new information.
This forum can be a haven for those of us, who, although we come from all walks of life, we share the common dream of seeing this case solved. Maybe our little steps of untangling this mess helps everyone achieve a little of this dream. Maybe it just helps us to feel a little connected to like-minded folks who share the same dream of bringing these ladies home.
Either way, to participate or not is a personal decision. Thank you for having participated. Everything, big and small, makes a difference.
wfgodot
07-28-2012, 05:35 PM
I said I was going to leave for a while as I have exhausted any usefulness at this point but let me say this. On another site it brought up the subject of human trafficking. I've been kicking this around for a while and will just throw it out for discussion. I have no evidence of this but the thought has crossed my mind. Make of it what you will.
One I've always resisted, MM, not quite sure why - unlikelihood I guess. Nevertheless, as Hamlet scolded Horatio, "There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Most anything could be.
Such a mystery, this.
Hurricane
07-28-2012, 06:24 PM
I said I was going to leave for a while as I have exhausted any usefulness at this point but let me say this. On another site it brought up the subject of human trafficking. I've been kicking this around for a while and will just throw it out for discussion. I have no evidence of this but the thought has crossed my mind. Make of it what you will.
Get out your tin foil hat! The book "Trance: Formation of America" that is being referred to on the other forum was written by Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips. They make a pretty good living from their books and speaking engagements. In all her books O'Brien claims to have been abducted into and a victim since childhood of the CIA's MK-Ultra Mind Control studies program. I'm not saying there couldn't be something to her claims but most "students" of the program were the young children of military families and scientists. Phillips claims to have been abducted into MK-Ultra's Super Soldier program, I believe. What would the CIA & MK-Ultra want with the 3MW? I've read the book; fascinating to be sure, but hardly pertains to the 3MW case.
Missouri Mule
07-28-2012, 07:29 PM
Get out your tin foil hat! The book "Trance: Formation of America" that is being referred to on the other forum was written by Cathy O'Brien and Mark Phillips. They make a pretty good living from their books and speaking engagements. In all her books O'Brien claims to have been abducted into and a victim since childhood of the CIA's MK-Ultra Mind Control studies program. I'm not saying there couldn't be something to her claims but most "students" of the program were the young children of military families and scientists. Phillips claims to have been abducted into MK-Ultra's Super Soldier program, I believe. What would the CIA & MK-Ultra want with the 3MW? I've read the book; fascinating to be sure, but hardly pertains to the 3MW case.
I never said it was a fact. I just threw it out for discussion. You have indicated that you might know the name of the "mystery man" but wouldn't say and I agree that would be unwise. Having said that it does not preclude that someone lured the women into a trap where they were taken to destinations unknown.
Just to be clear, I do not know what happened. I've never seen any police records but only have what others have told me privately and on open forums to go on. And we have the words of the prosecutor himself a few years ago stating that even he didn't know and wanted the alleged men at George's located and interviewed. Of course that may have all been a smokescreen but who knows?
I'm not willing to go on record as stating that I know the police have solved this crime. I don't. No one in an official capacity has ever approached me and said it was solved and needed only the evidence to bring justice to the case. In the absence of such authoritative information I, along with so many others, are left to speculation. So I am merely speculating. And I never said that I believed this was a likely scenario either. I don't really, but I won't rule it out until I see the case actually going to trial where the facts are laid out for all the see.
Auramyst
07-28-2012, 07:48 PM
I never said it was a fact. I just threw it out for discussion. You have indicated that you might know the name of the "mystery man" but wouldn't say and I agree that would be unwise. Having said that it does not preclude that someone lured the women into a trap where they were taken to destinations unknown.
Just to be clear, I do not know what happened. I've never seen any police records but only have what others have told me privately and on open forums to go on. And we have the words of the prosecutor himself a few years ago stating that even he didn't know and wanted the alleged men at George's located and interviewed. Of course that may have all been a smokescreen but who knows?
I'm not willing to go on record as stating that I know the police have solved this crime. I don't. No one in an official capacity has ever approached me and said it was solved and needed only the evidence to bring justice to the case. In the absence of such authoritative information I, along with so many others, are left to speculation. So I am merely speculating. And I never said that I believed this was a likely scenario either. I don't really, but I won't rule it out until I see the case actually going to trial where the facts are laid out for all the see.
I've wondered what became of the alleged George's sighting. The waitress was familiar with Sherrill and Suzie, so it's difficult to dismiss as mistaken identity. I wonder if she had the right women, but the wrong night. (ie Friday night vs Saturday night). It wouldn't explain the third woman the waitress saw unless Sherrill and Suzy were there with another friend on Friday evening. I would think that if there were men there with the women- no matter what night- the men would want to step forward and identifiy themselves to be eliminated as possible suspects.
Hurricane
07-28-2012, 08:09 PM
I never said it was a fact. I just threw it out for discussion. You have indicated that you might know the name of the "mystery man" but wouldn't say and I agree that would be unwise. Having said that it does not preclude that someone lured the women into a trap where they were taken to destinations unknown.
Just to be clear, I do not know what happened. I've never seen any police records but only have what others have told me privately and on open forums to go on. And we have the words of the prosecutor himself a few years ago stating that even he didn't know and wanted the alleged men at George's located and interviewed. Of course that may have all been a smokescreen but who knows?
I'm not willing to go on record as stating that I know the police have solved this crime. I don't. No one in an official capacity has ever approached me and said it was solved and needed only the evidence to bring justice to the case. In the absence of such authoritative information I, along with so many others, are left to speculation. So I am merely speculating. And I never said that I believed this was a likely scenario either. I don't really, but I won't rule it out until I see the case actually going to trial where the facts are laid out for all the see.
In decending order I would rank the CIA/MK-Ultra Abduction Theory just in front of Nettie's Illuminati Theory, followed by Worsham's Aliens Did It statement that you like to refer to when you want to make SPD look dumb.
As Brad Pitt said in character in one of his movies, "Fas-sa-natin!"
dale417
07-28-2012, 08:39 PM
Not sure how to reply to either Missouri Mules or Hurricane's post except with this info. In the late 80s-early 90s, there was a federal case in connected to Springfield that tied into a case in the Seattle WA area. It involved a man and wife couple by the last name of Peacock. The case involved the trafficking of Oriental women into massage parlors scattered throughout the NW and also in Springfield (Tokoyo Sauna). The parties were found guilty; the wife was also an Oriental. So human trafficking is a possiblity.
Hurricane
07-28-2012, 08:56 PM
Not sure how to reply to either Missouri Mules or Hurricane's post except with this info. In the late 80s-early 90s, there was a federal case in connected to Springfield that tied into a case in the Seattle WA area. It involved a man and wife couple by the last name of Peacock. The case involved the trafficking of Oriental women into massage parlors scattered throughout the NW and also in Springfield (Tokoyo Sauna). The parties were found guilty; the wife was also an Oriental. So human trafficking is a possiblity.
Dale, I'm not familiar with the case you cite but indentured servitude happens frequently, and it is usually an Asian/Oriental crime. The host agrees to pay the way for passage over in return for servitude in the form of "domestic help" for females for a period of time. The victims usually agree but find themselves in prostitution, unable to fullfill their obligation and earn their freedom.
There are cases where young attractive American females take jobs with wealthy families or bachelor males overseas in order to "see the world" and have trouble returning. A young female friend of mine was a private chef for a Saudi family for several years, but had no problems leaving when her contract was up.
dale417
07-28-2012, 09:12 PM
Hurricane, I agree with your statements. I don't see any connections between our case of the 3MW and the one I mentioned. I only recalled it as an event that occurred in the area around the same time frame.
Missouri Mule
07-28-2012, 11:47 PM
I've wondered what became of the alleged George's sighting. The waitress was familiar with Sherrill and Suzie, so it's difficult to dismiss as mistaken identity. I wonder if she had the right women, but the wrong night. (ie Friday night vs Saturday night). It wouldn't explain the third woman the waitress saw unless Sherrill and Suzy were there with another friend on Friday evening. I would think that if there were men there with the women- no matter what night- the men would want to step forward and identifiy themselves to be eliminated as possible suspects.
When I first started looking at this case I put a lot of credence into this possibility. But there are several problems. 1) The timeline almost in and of itself eliminates it as the girls could not arrive back much before about 2:50 AM and the waitress puts it between 1 and 3 AM (going on memory). 2) There are no verifying accounts from any other people that I know anything about. 3) According to a reporter who covered this case there was something about the clothing that did not match what the women normally were known to wear. I believe it was believed the women were wearing western wear (going on memory).
It would have been very helpful if the men had come forth to identify themselves as well as the women themselves but for reasons not known, they never did; at least according to published accounts. As we do know the false sighting of Sherrill at the convenience store was quickly debunked although it was given great prominence in the early days.
But the fact that Moore, the prosecutor, still wanted to run it to ground means that it cannot be ruled out of hand. I would say it is about 95% debunked.
Auramyst
07-29-2012, 02:14 AM
I don't have so much of a disconnect with the timeframe of the alleged George's sighting- it still fits within the loose timeframe of the girls leaving the party and arriving at Suzy's. I understand George's was fairly close to the house, so I can believe it wouldn't have taken much time to get there.
My disconnect with the possible George's sighting is if no one else remembers them being there.
But, that being said, the investigator said that three tips were called in that weren't thoroughly investigated.
If three tips were called in, by three separate people, then I would say the odds are pretty good the three women might have been there.
I understand that George's was the place to go after a night of partying. If witnesses were under the influence, then that would make it harder to pin down the time and what these ladies were wearing. But it wouldn't be impossible. These three ladies were very pretty. I can readily believe that someone would have seen them, but not remembered the details of what they were wearing. If one of them was wearing a hat, I could see someone thinking it was western wear. It would also be the same thing if one of them was wearing boots (I'm thinking Sherrill).
So, if it's true, how much does the George's sighting change the scenario? Well, it would put all three of the women together and unharmed until around 4 AM. It might explain the early news reports that the cars were in different positions at different times of the night- depending on which car they took to George's and where they parked when they got back to the house.
The George's sighting, if proved true, would be an intriguing addition to this sad mystery.
Hurricane
07-29-2012, 08:16 AM
I don't have so much of a disconnect with the timeframe of the alleged George's sighting- it still fits within the loose timeframe of the girls leaving the party and arriving at Suzy's. I understand George's was fairly close to the house, so I can believe it wouldn't have taken much time to get there.
My disconnect with the possible George's sighting is if no one else remembers them being there.
But, that being said, the investigator said that three tips were called in that weren't thoroughly investigated.
If three tips were called in, by three separate people, then I would say the odds are pretty good the three women might have been there.
I understand that George's was the place to go after a night of partying. If witnesses were under the influence, then that would make it harder to pin down the time and what these ladies were wearing. But it wouldn't be impossible. These three ladies were very pretty. I can readily believe that someone would have seen them, but not remembered the details of what they were wearing. If one of them was wearing a hat, I could see someone thinking it was western wear. It would also be the same thing if one of them was wearing boots (I'm thinking Sherrill).
So, if it's true, how much does the George's sighting change the scenario? Well, it would put all three of the women together and unharmed until around 4 AM. It might explain the early news reports that the cars were in different positions at different times of the night- depending on which car they took to George's and where they parked when they got back to the house.
The George's sighting, if proved true, would be an intriguing addition to this sad mystery.
None of her fellow employees working with her at George's that morning would substantiate the waitresses account. No other customer that morning would substantiate her account either and I find all of that very troubling especially when she claimed that one of the girls appeared to be inebriated and brought unwanted attention to the group. The "real women" and the men in her account never came forward because it was all just a story.
Auramyst
07-29-2012, 03:00 PM
None of her fellow employees working with her at George's that morning would substantiate the waitresses account. No other customer that morning would substantiate her account either and I find all of that very troubling especially when she claimed that one of the girls appeared to be inebriated and brought unwanted attention to the group. The "real women" and the men in her account never came forward because it was all just a story.
Was the 'George's sighting waitress' tip one of the ones that came in a few weeks after the disappearance or did it come in right away?
I've never been able to read the original N-L reports (because they are no longer available on line and I don't live near Springfield to go to the library to view them), but I have read this entire forum and there are quotes from the N-L scattered throughout.
If I remember correctly, it was mentioned that this tip came in around the same time as the 'porch lady van sighting' tip, is that true? If so, then yes, I believe the waitress was either mistaken with the identities of the three women, or more likely, got the dates mixed up. She saw Suzy, Sherrill, and a third lady in George's, but not early Sunday morning.
Has it ever been released who the tips came from? One was the waitress (who knew the women), but who called in the other two?
Missouri Mule
07-29-2012, 05:05 PM
In decending order I would rank the CIA/MK-Ultra Abduction Theory just in front of Nettie's Illuminati Theory, followed by Worsham's Aliens Did It statement that you like to refer to when you want to make SPD look dumb.
As Brad Pitt said in character in one of his movies, "Fas-sa-natin!"
As I understood your post you kind of dismissed this possibility as highly unlikely but I'm just now reading that no less than 17 cases in or about Missouri in the past few years; including some from the Springfield area are now documented involving human trafficking.
The way I see this if it cannot be proven to be false, (as a plausible scenario) then I have to conclude it should be on the table for discussion.
This possibility was brought up years ago by a good friend who had followed this case and thought it would be exceedingly easy to put the women in one of the over the road rigs in the cars that are transported into Mexico. At the time I heard that I dismissed it as implausible. Now I'm not so sure.
Auramyst
07-29-2012, 06:21 PM
As I understood your post you kind of dismissed this possibility as highly unlikely but I'm just now reading that no less than 17 cases in or about Missouri in the past few years; including some from the Springfield area are now documented involving human trafficking.
The way I see this if it cannot be proven to be false, (as a plausible scenario) then I have to conclude it should be on the table for discussion.
This possibility was brought up years ago by a good friend who had followed this case and thought it would be exceedingly easy to put the women in one of the over the road rigs in the cars that are transported into Mexico. At the time I heard that I dismissed it as implausible. Now I'm not so sure.
Any situation/scenario, unless it has been explicitly proven false (ie: law enforcement has said the 'convenience store sighting' was false), then 'yes' it can and should be on the table for discussion.
Auramyst
07-29-2012, 06:25 PM
As I understood your post you kind of dismissed this possibility as highly unlikely but I'm just now reading that no less than 17 cases in or about Missouri in the past few years; including some from the Springfield area are now documented involving human trafficking.
The way I see this if it cannot be proven to be false, (as a plausible scenario) then I have to conclude it should be on the table for discussion.
This possibility was brought up years ago by a good friend who had followed this case and thought it would be exceedingly easy to put the women in one of the over the road rigs in the cars that are transported into Mexico. At the time I heard that I dismissed it as implausible. Now I'm not so sure.
Can you tell us about some of those cases? Did those cases have any elements in common with our 3MW case?
wfgodot
07-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Yes, when I think "human trafficking," I think of teen runaways taken away from bus stations, that sort of thing.
Hurricane
07-29-2012, 06:49 PM
Was the 'George's sighting waitress' tip one of the ones that came in a few weeks after the disappearance or did it come in right away?
I've never been able to read the original N-L reports (because they are no longer available on line and I don't live near Springfield to go to the library to view them), but I have read this entire forum and there are quotes from the N-L scattered throughout.
If I remember correctly, it was mentioned that this tip came in around the same time as the 'porch lady van sighting' tip, is that true? If so, then yes, I believe the waitress was either mistaken with the identities of the three women, or more likely, got the dates mixed up. She saw Suzy, Sherrill, and a third lady in George's, but not early Sunday morning.
Has it ever been released who the tips came from? One was the waitress (who knew the women), but who called in the other two?
I don't recall exactly when the waitress came forward but is was several days into the investigation but before the Porch Lady came forward. You can probably find the specifics here in thread #1 or #2. That would have been about when it was discussed. I believe the info in the sticky claiming there were two other callers from George's is incorrect. Those callers were reporting other tips. There is a lot of info in the stickies that is either unverified or incorrect. Speculations and opinions found there way into the stickies and are now used as if they are facts so I wouldn't rely on that info without verification.
My belief and opinion is that the waitress was probably discredited; maybe even admitted to making her story up in a follow up interview; possibly around the time when Moore wanted SPD to take a second look.
Auramyst
07-29-2012, 07:09 PM
I don't recall exactly when the waitress came forward but is was several days into the investigation but before the Porch Lady came forward. You can probably find the specifics here in thread #1 or #2. That would have been about when it was discussed. I believe the info in the sticky claiming there were two other callers from George's is incorrect. Those callers were reporting other tips. There is a lot of info in the stickies that is either unverified or incorrect. Speculations and opinions found there way into the stickies and are now used as if they are facts so I wouldn't rely on that info without verification.
My belief and opinion is that the waitress was probably discredited; maybe even admitted to making her story up in a follow up interview; possibly around the time when Moore wanted SPD to take a second look.
I agree, speculations and opinions becoming 'facts' makes this case very hard to sleuth.
As I find *some* archived news articles on the web, I've been copying and saving them. I'll start posting them on the 'media' sticky.
Anyway, here's the news article and the direct quote:
http://www.news-leader.com/article/20030608/NEWS01/60608040
Here's the quote:
"Moore still holds out hope from Barry County. He says some questions still haven't been answered. One of those relates to the early morning hours the women reportedly disappeared.
Back in 1992, three calls came in to police that the three women were seen in the early morning hours at George's Steakhouse. The callers said they also saw three men with them.
Moore wants to know who those three men are, and if they could be related to suspects developed in Barry County."
Hippy Chick
07-30-2012, 01:22 AM
Bumping for Sherrill, Suzy and Stacy
fullmoon
08-05-2012, 05:23 AM
I am slogging away at reading all the threads hoping to read up as much as possible on this case. I am very impressed with everyone's theories and analyses.
The more I read, the more I believe that Sherrill may have been the target, in my opinion. How many people knew that Sherrill was alone that night? Could she have innocently stated to people she spoke to on the phone, or to a neighbor, that she had the house all to herself that night? I believe it may have been someone she knew, either an acquaintance or someone who may have even overheard her say she was alone that night. Maybe that's why her blinds were parted. If someone had knocked on her door, she would have been looking out the window to see whose car was parked out front in an effort to identify the person. If there were no signs of forced entry, and Sherrill was security conscious, I doubt she would have let someone in unless she knew them.
I also dont think as someone has posted previously on this board, that the perp went through Sherills window, mostly because she had a Yorkie in the house. Dogs, for the most part, start barking loudly when they hear foot steps in the front of the house. I just dont think it was a stranger who sneaked into the house through a window or any other way. No way. Not with the dog in there. Im a long time dog owner, had them in all sizes. All of them barked whenever someone was even near our home. And we never ignored it. Never. There are certain characteristics or patterns of a dog's bark: For example, I always knew when our dogs were barking at another dog, rabbit, etc., compared to a stranger. When they barked regarding another animal wandering around the yard, the bark was pronounced before trailing off to a whimper or cry because they wanted to go outside. When it was a "stranger" bark, the sound was very loud and booming, with little space between the barks, as if the dog was trying to alert the family. Those of you who have had dogs know pretty much what I'm talking about.
There has been some reference to a footprint left by Stacy at the front of the house. I have been reading all of the articles, but I have not found anything about that. Is this fact?
I am trying to find the original police report, since the link on the board does not work. If anyone has a copy, I would appreciate it if you could post it for me. Thanks.
Missouri Mule
08-05-2012, 04:06 PM
I am slogging away at reading all the threads hoping to read up as much as possible on this case. I am very impressed with everyone's theories and analyses.
The more I read, the more I believe that Sherrill may have been the target, in my opinion. How many people knew that Sherrill was alone that night? Could she have innocently stated to people she spoke to on the phone, or to a neighbor, that she had the house all to herself that night? I believe it may have been someone she knew, either an acquaintance or someone who may have even overheard her say she was alone that night. Maybe that's why her blinds were parted. If someone had knocked on her door, she would have been looking out the window to see whose car was parked out front in an effort to identify the person. If there were no signs of forced entry, and Sherrill was security conscious, I doubt she would have let someone in unless she knew them.
I also dont think as someone has posted previously on this board, that the perp went through Sherills window, mostly because she had a Yorkie in the house. Dogs, for the most part, start barking loudly when they hear foot steps in the front of the house. I just dont think it was a stranger who sneaked into the house through a window or any other way. No way. Not with the dog in there. Im a long time dog owner, had them in all sizes. All of them barked whenever someone was even near our home. And we never ignored it. Never. There are certain characteristics or patterns of a dog's bark: For example, I always knew when our dogs were barking at another dog, rabbit, etc., compared to a stranger. When they barked regarding another animal wandering around the yard, the bark was pronounced before trailing off to a whimper or cry because they wanted to go outside. When it was a "stranger" bark, the sound was very loud and booming, with little space between the barks, as if the dog was trying to alert the family. Those of you who have had dogs know pretty much what I'm talking about.
There has been some reference to a footprint left by Stacy at the front of the house. I have been reading all of the articles, but I have not found anything about that. Is this fact?
I am trying to find the original police report, since the link on the board does not work. If anyone has a copy, I would appreciate it if you could post it for me. Thanks.
I've got a hard copy of the police report. Perhaps I could respond to some specific questions. I'm not very accomplished at scanning paperwork.
The footprint has been corrected by some to merely be DNA on the front side of the house. I'm not clear on that myself.
I believe the various LE agencies (four in all) more or less concluded that Sherrill was the likely target and it was sexual assault. But that is based more on theory than substance from what we have been privy to. The hole in that theory is that anytime after 11:15 PM she would have been available to abduct and there was no reason to wait until perhaps 3:30 AM in the morning. However, it is not known, so far as I know, that she was even in the house when the girls arrived. So it is just speculation for the most part.
SmoothOperator
08-07-2012, 05:50 PM
Below is c/p post with particular focus BBM and is followed by my thoughts/opinions regarding that particular item of focus as well as my thoughts/views about various different options concerning the globe as well as the entry point/time made by the perp(s)..
All jmo, of course..
Quote:
Originally Posted by monkeymann (c/p from thread #5 post#593)
The only problem with that theory is that, do you really think that Sherrills closet would have become that noticeably discombobulated/disorganized due to one random event of her quickly searching for a pair of shoes.*
And, wouldn't you think that she would have reached for the shoes or house slippers she had been wearing last, prior to her climbing into bed, where it is assumed that Sherrill had been at the time of the start of the abduction.
I'd say it is more likely that:
1.) Sherrills closet was just naturally cluttered.
2.) Someone had gone through the closet looking for something.
-OR_
3.) Someone had hidden in the closet at some point....either Perp. or Victim.
To my knowledge there has never been further clarification on the state of Sherrill's closet.. Initially due to the factoids being presented as such indicating the two girls had long since arrived home PRIOR to any of the perps making entry into the home(ie.. Their state of undress or changing of clothes, make up removed, bed covers pulled down, tv on, etc).. I do not at this time believe that necessarily had to be true(IMO it really could go either way.. The girls arrive PRIOR TO entry of perps.. Or the girls arrive AFTER the entry of perps)...*
I find it both plausible and possible that if planned that Sherrill was the intended victim, and the perp made entry into the home when Sherrill was home alone.. I believe the entry into a window given as a possibility by Hurricane, if there is indeed truth to Sherrill's window or any other window not being locked I find it very easy to believe that as the initial entry point.. If for some reason the detail of such a window being unlocked that night is not true..then I refer back to entry point of front door..
IMO the globe very easily could go several different ways..It could have been broken nearing the end and final stages of the abduction when the women were being forcefully removed or carried from the home, and it not believed to have been of any importance in feeling it needed to be cleaned up and discarded.. I also believe it possible to have occurred at the very beginning stages of the crime prior to the perp gaining entry.. It too forks and could go either of two ways IMO..
First in that the perp was on the front porch and for any number of reasons wanted to extinguish the bright and visible porch light.. With his being on the outside of the home of course that renders him unable to simply switch off the porch light.. Therefor he's left with only the option to unscrew the bulb as a means of extinguishing that particular light.. And the globe would have to removed in order to have access to unscrew the bulb.. I can see how in this instance the globe is dropped&broken in that process of getting to the bulb by complete accident and was not the intent of the perp.. Upon his doing so he has to forego unscrewing the bulb and extinguishing the light as he knows the shattered glass has now brought immediate attention to the front porch(as in he could hear the dog start barking crazily... Or See lights turning on as Sherril made her way to the front of the house to see why she'd heard glass breaking&her dog barking).. The perp doesn't have time to unscrew the bulb and is forced to hide or crouch out of plain sight while quickly reassessing the situation&how to proceed from there..
I find it altogether possible that the perps accidentally dropping/shattering the globe actually may have thereby presented itself with the perfect opportunity for him to now gain entry to the home.. This due to the fact that Sherrill opens the front door for the purpose to merely inspect what/why she'd heard breaking glass on her front porch..and in her doing so this allowing the perp to take advantage of that perfect opportunity as it presented itself by overpowering and pushing Sherrill and himself thru the front doors entrance and therefor now successfully inside the home..(and the other of the two possibilities is that whereas the above described mode of gain accessed was presented via an accidental breaking of the globe while the perp was attempting to unscrew bulb so as to better operate under the cover of darkness.. The second possibility was that the globe was actually broken intentionally with and for this exact same motive.. Both ending with the same result of the perp having successfully gained entry into the home via the front door)...
If the globe was broken in the initial stages of the crime as just described then IMO the bedroom closet may not play as big a role as I earlier pondered on.. But if the entry point into the home was made elsewhere from the front door via Sherrills opening it..rather the perp enters of his own doing&volition without Sherrills assistance or even knowledge then I find a possible role involving the closet to more believeable.. In that Sherrill once becoming aware that a perp is actually inside her home that she intends to hide possibly using the closet as that chosen area to seek cover.. Her hoping that the intruder would be of the mindset that he'd entered a home where no one was presently home(yes, her car was there but that by no means guaranteed the cars owner was definitely there).. I find it possible(regardless whether Sherrill was hidden in her closet with initial contact between she&the perp not yet made.. Or whether that initial contact was already made with Sherrill already under the control of the perp).. Either way I do believe it possible that the girls arrived home AFTER the perp was already In the home(if that occurred ill state that moo is that the globe HAD NOT YET BEEN BROKEN.. Due to the fact that I believe that if the globe was shattered that upon entering Suzie would have Immediaely initiated contact w/her mom to ask/tell about the globe.. Check to see mom was ok).. So, the girls enter the home and for the following 10-20minutes go about their regular routine of undressing, washing face, and getting ready for bed.. I find it absolutely plausible that during that amount of time that they would have no idea as to what possible situation was presently happening in moms room..Suzie believing mom to be fast asleep and therefor her&her friend prep for bed. .. I think we'd all agree that Sherrill wouldn't make a single peep of a sound regardless of whether she was still hidden in her closet or was in her bedroom along with the perp.. She'd remain quiet in hopes of the perp not harming the girls.. If she was hidden in the closet I find it possible that the girls are exactly what forced her to emerge either due to hearing the perp having made initial contact with the girls at some point, therefor Sherrill emerges in hopes to somehow keep the girls from being harmed(any mother would sacrifice their life for their child in a heartbeat)..*
Or more likely is the fact that Sherrill and the perp are in her bedroom when the girls arrive and they prep for bed Sherrill cooperating fully in not making a sound in hopes that the girls will quickly go to sleep, and thereby the perp allowing the girls to remain unharmed and unaware of even his existence.. I find that scenario almost probable IMO.. But for various different reasons either due to Suzie after having finished getting ready for bed, she then goes into her moms room to let mom know they'd come home&were going to sleep.. And it is at that point that Suzie becomes aware of the situatiom(and many have theorized from that point on including of Stacy's having possibly heard the situation and attempted to flee at that point..)..
Or even if Suzie did not go into moms room, it's also altogether possible, especially with sexual motive that the perp(s) waited til the 2 girls were at their most vulnerable, in bed, possibly even asleep when the perps at that point made themselves known to the girls.. Resulting in all 3 females being forcefully removed from the home and the globe is broken in those last stages of the crime while in the process of taking the victims out of the home..
Again I am still very much comfortable with the several varying details above described as truly possible of having gone any of those various ways all resulting in the same, sad ending of all 3 eventually becoming victims..
IMO definitely one thing I'm certain of is that there did not have to be a level of trust, or even familiarity known between any of the three victims and the perps.. There are very plausible, if not even probable modes of easy entry into the home, access and control of all 3 victims WITHOUT any of the victims having to have willfully allowed or permitted the perps entry into the home no matter what the actual entry point proves to be..
Again all jmo, tho..
SmoothOperator
08-08-2012, 05:41 PM
Originally Posted by central time (c/p from thread #5 post#612)
This is another reason why I've been skeptical of the 'First Responders.' The casual line from Jannelle, when coming and leaving the vacant Levitt house, '...guess they went to Branson.' If Stacy didn't have a bag, was she going to go to Branson anyway ? Particularly if Suzie had one or could pack one one the fly from home ? Not that the previous Saturday was Jannelle's day to watch Stacy, but couple this with all we know about the empty house that Sunday morning; the cars parked, purses, smokes and so on. Mrs. McCall's basic published statement was to the effect that Stacy was out there in '...just her panties...' meaning she had nothing else with her (not even her medicine). With all these changes, in front of Jannelle's eyes the previous day, would Stacy not have to stop by her home to 'get ready' ?
Maybe, from Jannelle's perspective, Stacy's mom came by the Levitt house real early to pick her AND Suzie up...but Sherill too ? She was going to Branson ? Then given all the physical evidence in the house, they would leave that behind ? It appears real clear to me that, however casual, the plans were pretty firm on the trip to Branson. But, given what was left and what wasn't part of the equation, it doesn't add up.
For Stacy's part, and this was raised before, she might have left the house in a rush, grabbing, maybe Sherill's bathrobe or something. I believe it's been established there was a footprint of hers in the living room of the house facing out the front door.
Quote: Originally Posted by Luzer (c/p thread5 post#620)
A purse is a woman's home away from home. A purse is not intentionally left behind.
Originally Posted by former central time (c/p thread5 post#622)
Hummm...I think we're on to something there.
To me the purses, empty house, three cars and so on screams 9-1-1. But it took a score of family and friends most of Sunday to get around to it..
In the last few days refreshing my memory on this case I cannot easily equate especially Jannelle's actions/statements/behaviors with having zero meaning, unimportant, and irrelevant to the case.. As much as IMO I truly believe her to not be involved with the 3WM I still however cannot easily find a legitimate explanation as for why those initial behaviors/statements/actions were what they were that day/evening/night immediately following the abductions..
IMO her statements/behaviors/actions should have be easily transparent and benign in nature.. a very obvious meaning/reason/cause for why they were said or done that day by Janelle..
I can absolutely understand fully what we know,Or have been told about her very, first initial thoughts and actions of that early Sunday morning.. Last Janelle saw&heard her 2 BFF were headed to Suzies merely to grab a few hours of shut eye before they were all 3 to unite&head on to Branson to White Water Park.. So, as would be expected Janelle begins to attempt contact with the two girls around 7:30-8:00am in her calling the Delmar residence.. For me that makes perfectly logical sense.,
This action continues with her repeating to attempt contact via calling the Delmar home.. No answer., leave message.. Wait for returned phonecall.. When that did not occur Janelle obviously would again Rinse and Repeat.. This leaving several voice messages on the Delmar home answering machine.. I also believe that with each message left and recorded that Janelle's tone likely was to continue to escalate and increase with anger, irritation, and hurt.. IMO all still perfectly understandable and in no way suspicious that at that time Janelle would have much more likely been expressing anger/hurt rather than fear/worry.. She was increasingly more upset feeling they were intentionally ignoring, if not even having totally left her out that morning.. That IMO naturally creates anger/hurt rather than fear/worry of something actually being wrong with her friends as in danger or harmed..
**contd in post below**
SmoothOperator
08-08-2012, 05:43 PM
**contd from above post**
...She and her bf Mike drive to the Delmar residence at some point after the repeated attempts at her making phone contact with Stacy/Suzie and each time frustratingly ending with no contact made.. IMO Janelle's having at some point mid morning deciding to physically go to the Delmar home is absolutely logical¬ in any way suspicious(I do very much have unanswered inquiries as to exactly what/why Mike was involved in the events of that morning.. But that likely can be logically explained as well I am just personally not aware of those particular details)..
Mike&Janelle arrive at the Delmar residence.. Obviously the very first realization that IMO would cause an initial bodily response would be upon their pulling onto the street&visually seeing Sherrill, Suzie& yes even Stacy's vehicles ALL THREE PARKED IN THE DRIVEWAY OF THE DELMAR HOME.. To me that would be the first tiny pang of suspicion.. They exit their vehicle&make their way to the front door which IMO they naturally believed they were about to actually be face to face with both Stacy/Suzie&were very anxious to hear what could possibly have been their reason for not Answering or returning Janelle's many calls.. It's said that upon nearing the front porch it became quickly evident of there being broken glass(which Janelle especially would've been mindful of due to the fact she was barefoot).. It's stated this was quickly remedied with Mike having swept up&discarded the broken glass from the porch(also noted is that tho the globe was broken, however the actual porch light still was on).. I assume they knock, no answer, see its unlocked&both without heaitation enter into the Delmar residence with IMO zero real worry or suspicion at that time..
IMO.. Even still at this point in time MO is that all of the events/statements/actions of the two are completely normal, understandable&in no way suspicious or the least bit imdicative of anything nefarious.. once inside the Delmar home IMO from what info we've been told it literally would have only been mere moments into being in the home that the pangs of suspicion would quickly begin to mount..IMO the 2 quickly looked around the small home assessing no one was there..after that was determined IMO the likely next action was by Janelle in her playing the answering machine msgs..I've early touched on this issue&my opinion being that the entire motive of her ever even choosing to press play on that machine was directly due to the fact that Janelle,herself had left numerous,messages just that morning in her attempts at contacting her friends..as I said earlier I feel it completely understandable that Janelle's initial feelings in making those calls was increasing anger/frustration/hurt rather than worry/fear..there for I'd not be surprised in the least that several of the messages left by her weren't exactly what you'd call polite or endearing ..much different IMO I wouldn't doubt that by the latter messages she left that morning they weren't downright rude in lashing out in hurt/anger..I absolutely believe this is the motive of why Janelle ever took the initiative to press play on an answering machine in another persons home..I Aldo believe its one&the same motive as to why Janelle took it upon herself to press the ERASE button(which is why/how that the obscene msg from Sat.ended up inadvertently being erased as well)...
So..still with all of this said and IMO clear understanding of how/why the actions/statements thus far came to be and IMO still very comfortable in moo that they are consistent and logical.. It is from this point forward that they begin to make less logical sense,there is no easily explainable reason or cause for certain actions/statements,and is exactly why I even have questions regarding Janelle and anything at all on the day of discovery..
Because what is baffling is that Janelle states as having no recollection of the obscene msg that played on the Levitt/Streeter answering machine..the msg that was among her own msgs she'd left&IMO likely regretted&therefore deleted..IMO by the time that Janelle was playing the msgs I cannot with any certainty whatsoever believe that Janelle could not have been in a somewhat worried state of mind...at the very least in a state of mind wgicg was definitely looking for some answers as to where her 3 friends were..thereby when especially that obscene msg played IMO ANYONE WITH HALF A BRAIN CELL WOULD HAVE IMMEDUATELY PERKED UP&TAKEN NOTICE OF THE WORDS/DEMEANORS EXPRESSED ON THE UNUSUAL PHONE MSG PLAYING....
So beginning at that moment marks the inconsistent and somewhat nonsensical actions/statements where Janelle is concerned..would all not agree that by this time that Janelle would be of a concerned state of mind??...IMO I find it virtually impossible for her not to have been feeling a very real stir of concern at the very very least..yet there's zero recall of not only the recorded/erased obscene msg,but equally strange&quite honestly IMO against all odds of being mere coincidence very soon thereafter hearing the obscene msg the actual home phone then rings&she actually takes it upon herself to answer it as well...and lo and behold it is none other than the actual obscene phone caller himself that just so happens to be in the other end of the line..my God what are the chances??__we know the obscene msg had been left days prior&it just so happens as she is standing there having just listened to that exact msg,'that the very next phone call is none other than he????.. I'd say pretty astounding coincidence..along with the fact that after the obscene call ends..the caller immediately calls back with the second obscene call literally back to back..if that isn't against all odds..well then the following certainly is every bit of that and more IMO...
Because according to Janelle she has zero recall of either of the obscene calls or msg??.really how can that be?.IMO it cannot be true..
And from there the actions/behaviors only become that much more strange and nonsensical .. Janelle and Mike spend an indefinite amount of time in the Delmar home that morning..listening and erasing messages.and going thru each of the three women's purses..those we know for certain that they did while in the home..
So, how is it that Janelle upon leaving the Delmar residence says that she thought the three were in Branson at the water park..huh??..47 year old Sherill, too??..so how did Janelle figure they got to Branson and what did she conclude in her mind for all three of their purses, keys, cars to have been at the Delmar home?? ..that doesn't even begin to jive and I don't care if Janelle wasn't the sharpest tool in the shed NO ONE WOULD HAVE LEFT THAT HOME WITH THE BELIEF THESE THREE WOMEN WERE ALL AT A WATERPARK!
Yet Janelle does and in fact her and Mike actually chose to go and spend a good majority of the St of that Sunday at a nearby watepark.. but we know when Janelle late returns to the Delmar home she is over come with emotion and is hysterical outside the home...why?
I know also that Janis McCall became aware that Stacy did not spend the night at Janelle's home as was expected.when did Janis learn this and by whom?.and what time was it that Janis McCall went to the Delmar home with the intent to teach Stacy a lesson by taking her car home..what time was this and who entered the Delmar home with Janis at that time?
I certainly by no means whatsoever believe there were 18 friends/family in the Delmar home..I do however believe it entirely possible that the number 18 is the number of different prints/evidence of 18 different individuals..as far as I know the only real "testing" done was LDT and nothing else forensically whatsoever from any individuals to do a thorough comparison if for no other reason than to rule out..
All jmo..
monkeymann
08-09-2012, 02:18 PM
It was my understanding, based on a couple of the early news accounts that the phone call came in WHILE Janelle and Mike were in the house. My understanding was that Janelle answered the phone when it randomly rang, in the short time they had been in the house, she answered it, and it was the obscene caller. She hung up on him, he imeadiately called back, and this time instead of answering it, Janelle let it go to the answering machine.
Ms. McCall stated that there was a message on the answering machine, from a man that was of a vulgar nature, but that she couldn't remember what the man had said, because the answering machine messages accidently got erased.
I found it strange that she couldn't remember what the man had said though. I think she DOES know what the man said, (Janelle and Ms. McCall) but its possible that LE have told them not to talk about the details of the phone call. If not though, for me anyway, I can't understand why someone WOULDN'T REMEMBER the details of a phone call like that.
I can't remember if I ever saw anywhere that stated who had actually erased the messages.
I know that a least two of the early stories, as well as in some of the subsequent stories that were written, it has Janelle ANSWERING the phone and receiving the obscene phone call PERSONALLY, while she and Mike were in the house.
Kathee
08-09-2012, 07:28 PM
As a helpful reference, I'm going to post some threads from an earlier discussion referring to possible suspects:
From this forum, thread 5, page 10, post #238:
Kemo:
I came up with the following list. These are names that have come up in various discussions. I have no idea if they include the "12".
1) Gerald Carnahan: DOB 1958 Abducted, raped murdered and concealed body of Jackie Johns in Ozark Mo in 1985. No other known connection.
2) Francis Robb: DOB ? killed three people in early 1990 And disposed of their bodies. This was apparently not sex related. He was convicted and died in prison.
3) Ricky Evans: DOB ? Close friend of Robb who might have been involved in the triple murder. Later convicted of a different double murder (non-sexual) and disposing of bodies by feeding to hogs on his farm.
4) Darrel Felton: DOB ? Friend of Evans, grandson of Robb. Was witness against Evans.
All three above were meth using low-lifes who lived in the rural area east
of Springfield.
5) Melvin Cheney: DOB (early 1960's) convicted of 1/19/91 abduction/rape/murder/ with body disposal of Trudie Davis who was abducted from convenience store where she worked. There are two similar crimes in the general area (about an hour north of Springfield) that are unsolved that he is suspected of.
6) Jesse Rush: DOB 1976 (brother of Melvin) convicted, with Melvin of the Trudie Davis caper. His statement implicated two other men who were never charged (Greg Cheevers and a Marshall Cheevers) and, in a letter to another inmate, made references to having killed several other women Jesse and Melvin were living in Camden county Mo
7) Robert Cox DOB 1960 History of Rape/murder in Fl+ other sex and property crimes. Serving long sentence in Texas. Made statements suggesting he knew something of murder but nothing solid. No known ties to women
8) Stephen Eugene Garrison: DOB ? Raped a student in Springfield in 1993 serving 40 year sentence . He apparently claimed bodies were buried on Francis Robb's farm. No know connection to women.
9) Mike Kovacs:, DOB 1975 Suzie's former boyfriend. Associated with of the
Graverobbers. Supposedly had rock solid alibi
10) Dustin Recla: Graverobber
11) Michael Clay: Graverobber
12) Joseph Riedel: Graverobber All three of the Graverobber have pretty well convinced LE they were not involved. Statements from LE claim they were cleared but there are reports that some involved in the investigation feel they should be investigated further.
13) 36-year-old man from Springfield (Grand Jury three)
14) 28-year-old man from Kansas(Grand Jury three)
15) 28-year-old man who was originally from Cedar County, Mo(Grand Jury three) the Grand Jury Three were recent paroles fm the Kansas system who arrived in Springfield a month before the abduction. As the Grand Jury is conducted in secret, it is not know what, if any connection they had to the crime but no indictment was issued.
16) Bart Streeter: DOB 1965 Brother of Suzie, Long history of Substance abuse and minor crimes. Generally considered to have been leared during initial investigation.
17) Chris Revak DOB 1973 Committed suicide after arrest for sex related murder in Ava Mo. Is a strong suspect in two other similar murders, Internet rumors place him in Springfield area in 1992 but LE has played down any interest in him
and then the following post:
post #239:
Missouri Mule:
That's a pretty complete list. I can tell you that there is one duplicate on there if you look closely. I also do not believe the perps who murdered Trudy Darby were involved. And Revak wasn't on anyone's radar until he turned up dead in jail from a suicide.
I would add to the list any known associates or related people to the elder Francis Robb as well, in particular two other people.
and then a following post:
Hmmmwhoknows:
Add Ricky Eugene Dykes and Teddy Gale Roberts and Mike Hiram Henson to that list.
I thought this might be helpful to folks as a reference to who's who and their possible connection in the 3MW case.
The murder charges in the case you refer to that was connected to Evans and his wife were dropped after the witness refused to testify for the state.
Kathee
08-09-2012, 08:05 PM
It was my understanding, based on a couple of the early news accounts that the phone call came in WHILE Janelle and Mike were in the house. My understanding was that Janelle answered the phone when it randomly rang, in the short time they had been in the house, she answered it, and it was the obscene caller. She hung up on him, he imeadiately called back, and this time instead of answering it, Janelle let it go to the answering machine.
Ms. McCall stated that there was a message on the answering machine, from a man that was of a vulgar nature, but that she couldn't remember what the man had said, because the answering machine messages accidently got erased.
I found it strange that she couldn't remember what the man had said though. I think she DOES know what the man said, (Janelle and Ms. McCall) but its possible that LE have told them not to talk about the details of the phone call. If not though, for me anyway, I can't understand why someone WOULDN'T REMEMBER the details of a phone call like that.
I can't remember if I ever saw anywhere that stated who had actually erased the messages.
I know that a least two of the early stories, as well as in some of the subsequent stories that were written, it has Janelle ANSWERING the phone and receiving the obscene phone call PERSONALLY, while she and Mike were in the house.
Great post, MM!
monkeymann
08-09-2012, 10:37 PM
I wanted to add something to this that stood out to me as well.
In an interview with Det. Mark Webb I think it was, I think it was on the Disappeared Video that came out awhile back, Det. Webb was talking about the alibis of a couple of the Grave Robber perps, he didn't mention which ones he was referring to, but it sounded like it was at least two of them. He very clearly stated that, "Their Alibi's could not be completely confirmed or denied".
To me, that is a pretty clear indication that at least two of the grave robbers were never completely ruled out as suspects......Don't you think?????
10) Dustin Recla: Graverobber
11) Michael Clay: Graverobber
12) Joseph Riedel: Graverobber All three of the Graverobber have pretty well convinced LE they were not involved. Statements from LE claim they were cleared but there are reports that some involved in the investigation feel they should be investigated further.
Missouri Mule
08-09-2012, 10:57 PM
I wanted to add something to this that stood out to me as well.
In an interview with Det. Mark Webb I think it was, I think it was on the Disappeared Video that came out awhile back, Det. Webb was talking about the alibis of a couple of the Grave Robber perps, he didn't mention which ones he was referring to, but it sounded like it was at least two of them. He very clearly stated that, "Their Alibi's could not be completely confirmed or denied".
To me, that is a pretty clear indication that at least two of the grave robbers were never completely ruled out as suspects......Don't you think?????
10) Dustin Recla: Graverobber
11) Michael Clay: Graverobber
12) Joseph Riedel: Graverobber All three of the Graverobber have pretty well convinced LE they were not involved. Statements from LE claim they were cleared but there are reports that some involved in the investigation feel they should be investigated further.
This is the crux of the whole problem from the beginning. As I recall it was the police chief himself who cleared these guys and this didn't sit well with the regular detectives. And I believe it is correct to say that at least two of the primary detectives believed the investigation should have moved in that direction only to be dissuaded and eventually they threw in the towel. One could speculate that there was pressure that came to bear on the case from some quarter and it prevented this case from having a proper investigation.
This says much: "Their Alibi's could not be completely confirmed or denied".
Of some interest is that Recla had a high priced lawyer and Clay had a public defender. Not sure what this means exactly but it may be that it was feared he would be the weak link if a bigger problem was potentially going to be exposed.
So far as I know the person who allegedly failed the polygraph has never been revealed. And Cox, I believe, refused to take one.
monkeymann
08-10-2012, 02:21 AM
This is the crux of the whole problem from the beginning. As I recall it was the police chief himself who cleared these guys and this didn't sit well with the regular detectives. And I believe it is correct to say that at least two of the primary detectives believed the investigation should have moved in that direction only to be dissuaded and eventually they threw in the towel. One could speculate that there was pressure that came to bear on the case from some quarter and it prevented this case from having a proper investigation.
This says much: "Their Alibi's could not be completely confirmed or denied".
Of some interest is that Recla had a high priced lawyer and Clay had a public defender. Not sure what this means exactly but it may be that it was feared he would be the weak link if a bigger problem was potentially going to be exposed.
So far as I know the person who allegedly failed the polygraph has never been revealed. And Cox, I believe, refused to take one.
Anytime you hear police make the public statement, "Can't be confirmed or denyed", especially when it comes to them commenting on weather or not someone is a suspect, I've always felt that that is their way of answering the question with out technically coming out and saying "Yes, this person is considered a suspect". Generally the "Yes, this person is considered a suspect" is a statement they make publically AFTER they arrest someone.
So...For Det. Webb to make that statement, here and now 20yrs later, I feel comfortable in thinking that police still have one or more of the Grave Robbers on the list of possible suspects.
monkeymann
08-10-2012, 02:37 AM
I have a couple questions for everyone:
Steve Garrison lead police to a farm east of Springfield back in the early/mid 90's I think it was. At some point after had been arrested for the Rape crime that he's currently incarcerated for.
My understanding of this incident was that Steve Garrison told police that he knew what happened to the 3MW and where they were buried. They way I understood it, he wanted to try and exchange that information in the form of a plea bargan for a lighter sentence on the Rape charge.
However, as the story goes, after Steve Garrison lead them to the farm east of Springfield, he clammed up and wouldn't reveal the exact location on the large farm property he lead them to, when one of the Detectives supposidly made a reference to the possibility that he could/would be charged as an assessory if the bodys were located. Something to that effect.
Anyway, my question is:
Does anyone know the finer points of this story, in a little more detail.
And:
Does anyone think that Steve Garrison actually lead police to the farm where the 3MW were buried? Do you think Steve Garrison actually knew anything about the 3MW crime, or was he just BS'n the police.
I mean, I will say this....they apparently took what ever he told them seriously enough to go out and conduct a search of the property that included a large law enforcement presence, as well as, the use of a backhoe. So in my opinion, Steve Garrison must have told police something that really had to have convinced them that he actually knew something.....or I really feel that they wouldn't have conducted the scale of the search that they did at the property that Steve Garrsion supposidly lead them to.
What do you all think about this?
Kathee
08-10-2012, 02:36 PM
I wanted to add something to this that stood out to me as well.
In an interview with Det. Mark Webb I think it was, I think it was on the Disappeared Video that came out awhile back, Det. Webb was talking about the alibis of a couple of the Grave Robber perps, he didn't mention which ones he was referring to, but it sounded like it was at least two of them. He very clearly stated that, "Their Alibi's could not be completely confirmed or denied".
To me, that is a pretty clear indication that at least two of the grave robbers were never completely ruled out as suspects......Don't you think?????
10) Dustin Recla: Graverobber
11) Michael Clay: Graverobber
12) Joseph Riedel: Graverobber All three of the Graverobber have pretty well convinced LE they were not involved. Statements from LE claim they were cleared but there are reports that some involved in the investigation feel they should be investigated further.
That was actually Detective Allen Neal who said their stories couldn't be corroborated or denied.
I was told by several investigators that DR, MC and JR were cleared by the former SPD chief after he met with them for lunch.
At this point, I just don't think MC had anything to do with it.
I was told recently by one of the investigators on the case that, "Everyone who was ever interviewed is still a suspect."
I have a lot of respect for most of the investigators on this case. That being said, I am upset with them that after repeated phone calls, and a promised meeting over 6 weeks ago, to bring in someone that may have vital information about the case I still have not heard back from them.
Guess that goes back to me being a pain in their ass! Oh well....I will continue to be a pain in their asses as I continue to fight for justice for our girls!
Missouri Mule
08-10-2012, 05:09 PM
That was actually Detective Allen Neal who said their stories couldn't be corroborated or denied.
I was told by several investigators that DR, MC and JR were cleared by the former SPD chief after he met with them for lunch.
At this point, I just don't think MC had anything to do with it.
I was told recently by one of the investigators on the case that, "Everyone who was ever interviewed is still a suspect."
I have a lot of respect for most of the investigators on this case. That being said, I am upset with them that after repeated phone calls, and a promised meeting over 6 weeks ago, to bring in someone that may have vital information about the case I still have not heard back from them.
Guess that goes back to me being a pain in their ass! Oh well....I will continue to be a pain in their asses as I continue to fight for justice for our girls!
I believe it is also correct to say that a former high ranking detective (perhaps two) didn't want to let loose of the grave robbers as viable suspects.
What about those two posters on the other forum? Are the police listening to them? I'm not asking for their names but have they been interviewed yet and if not, why not? You imply one of them has not even to this date been interviewed. Have you talked to the MSHP about this yet?
Why should we believe that the former chief made anything but a horribly misplaced judgment call on the grave robbers? From what I gather this didn't sit well with the rank and file detectives who wanted to follow normal police protocol.
SmoothOperator
08-10-2012, 06:57 PM
It was my understanding, based on a couple of the early news accounts that the phone call came in WHILE Janelle and Mike were in the house. My understanding was that Janelle answered the phone when it randomly rang, in the short time they had been in the house, she answered it, and it was the obscene caller. She hung up on him, he imeadiately called back, and this time instead of answering it, Janelle let it go to the answering machine.
*
Ms. McCall stated that there was a message on the answering machine, from a man that was of a vulgar nature, but that she couldn't remember what the man had said, because the answering machine messages accidently got erased.
I found it strange that she couldn't remember what the man had said though. I think she DOES know what the man said, (Janelle and Ms. McCall) but its possible that LE have told them not to talk about the details of the phone call. If not though, for me anyway, I can't understand why someone WOULDN'T REMEMBER the details of a phone call like that.
*
I can't remember if I ever saw anywhere that stated who had actually erased the messages.
I know that a least two of the early stories, as well as in some of the subsequent stories that were written, it has Janelle ANSWERING the phone and receiving the obscene phone call PERSONALLY, while she and Mike were in the house.
Thanks for this further clarification about the phonecalls(I suppose if we're going to specifically discuss the calls/msgs from here out we should move to that thread..lol.. But I'll reply here for now).
So Now, we have a recorded message on the machine that was left by the obscene caller that very day of Sunday, June 7.. This due to the fact that Janelle answered the first of the two obscene calls, hung up, the caller made the second of the two calls that was not answered therefor he left an obscene/vulgar MSG on the machine.. So, what about the obscene message from Saturday???.. Was that not true?? Was there only the one vulgar MSG that was left Sunday, June 7 while Mike/Janelle were in the Delmar home???.. Is it that MSG that was earlier to have said it was left on Saturady????
Or is what I stated originally in my post ALL OF IT ACCURATE as far as Mike/Janelle having entered the Delmar home the afternoon of*Sunday, June 7th *While inside the home Janelle pressed play on the answering machine.. And also whether purposefully or not erased all the msgs on the machine.. One of those messages being an obscene/vulgar message that had actually been left on the machine the day prior, Saturday, June 6.. <---- ARE ALL OF THESE DETAILS CORRECT???..
If so, is from that point on where the remainder of details you shared occur???.. As in AFTER THE FACT of Janelle playing and erasing the answering machine messages(INCLUDING A VULGAR/OBSCENE MSG that was LEFT ON SATURDAY, JUNE 6).. And then the home phone rang and Janelle answered it.. It was an obscene phone call to which she hung up on.. Immediately after hanging up the obscene caller calls right back and Janelle does NOT answer the second call, but rather allows the answering machine to pick up.. To which a second, obscene/vulgar message was left on the machine..<--- ARE THESE DETAILS CORRECT AND ARE IN THE CORRECT SEQUENCE(if not would u mind putting them in the correct sequence:).. TIA..
If all of these details are correct it means that there were actually 2 obscene/vulgar messages(that we know of) that were recorded on the Delmar residence answering machine??.. Am i understanding that correctly??..One that was supposedly left at some point prior to the women's disappearance(Saturday, June 6).. And one that was actually left while Janelle/Mike were in the Delmar residence on the afternoon of Sunday, June 7(obviously after the women's disappearance)..
I also have questions in now hearing that Janis McCall was also able to hear ATLEAST one of the obscene/vulgar answering machine messages.. This obviously means that the messages were again listened to later in the evening of June 7 when Janis mcCall was present in the Delmar home.. Or are you saying that it was just the one instance of listening to the phone messages and that was later in the evening of June 7 when both Janis McCall and Janelle Kirby were in the Delmar residence??.
That's where I really am confusing myself and honestly believe that it's actually very very simple and the wording and clarification is actually not at all discombobulated as it certainly is appearing to be in my attempting to piece it all back together as a whole(ie. Janelle/Mike at the Delmar residence around 12:30 played/erased msgs(including obscene MSG from Sat,6/6).. Phone rang while they were in the home, Janelle answers and it's obscene call, hangs up, obscene caller immediately calls back, Janelle does NOT answer so machine records obscene MSG(this making the second recorded obscene msg)..At some point later Sunday evening when both Janelle and Janis McCall are at the home Janis has a chance to hear ATLEAST the obscene MSG that'd been left earlier that same day).. Not certain about if/when the second obscene MSG was actually erased as well..
:crazy:.. So, whoever has a moment to untangle me from the discombobulated mess of details concerning phones, msgs, people, and times..:crazy: .. I'd be ever so very grateful:)*
**and I just wanted to say that I by no means whatsoever am under the impression that what I am discussing is in any way new info.. I am very well aware that any subject that I broach re:3MW will have long since already been sleuthed, evaluated, up one side&down the other.. A thousand times over.. I know that and I've followed along for many years on this case and know and have seen the hard work&dedication that so many have put into this case.. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not attempting to jump in here and it seem as tho I'm under the guise of these details being new, unknown, and not already combed over with a fine tooth comb..
Moo is that what can it possibly hurt to discuss the events, evidence, etc again??.. Moo it can't and by some grand miracle maybe just maybe one day someone will come upon information or the one detail needed in order to lead to the break that so very many people have been waiting 20long years for already.. IMO that day has got to come one of these days.. Why not today??.. It's as just a good of a day as any..:sigh:
It's frustrating to think about just how long this case has been without resolve..
All jmo, tho!
Missouri Mule
08-10-2012, 08:10 PM
Thanks for this further clarification about the phonecalls(I suppose if we're going to specifically discuss the calls/msgs from here out we should move to that thread..lol.. But I'll reply here for now).
So Now, we have a recorded message on the machine that was left by the obscene caller that very day of Sunday, June 7.. This due to the fact that Janelle answered the first of the two obscene calls, hung up, the caller made the second of the two calls that was not answered therefor he left an obscene/vulgar MSG on the machine.. So, what about the obscene message from Saturday???.. Was that not true?? Was there only the one vulgar MSG that was left Sunday, June 7 while Mike/Janelle were in the Delmar home???.. Is it that MSG that was earlier to have said it was left on Saturady????
Or is what I stated originally in my post ALL OF IT ACCURATE as far as Mike/Janelle having entered the Delmar home the afternoon of*Sunday, June 7th *While inside the home Janelle pressed play on the answering machine.. And also whether purposefully or not erased all the msgs on the machine.. One of those messages being an obscene/vulgar message that had actually been left on the machine the day prior, Saturday, June 6.. <---- ARE ALL OF THESE DETAILS CORRECT???..
If so, is from that point on where the remainder of details you shared occur???.. As in AFTER THE FACT of Janelle playing and erasing the answering machine messages(INCLUDING A VULGAR/OBSCENE MSG that was LEFT ON SATURDAY, JUNE 6).. And then the home phone rang and Janelle answered it.. It was an obscene phone call to which she hung up on.. Immediately after hanging up the obscene caller calls right back and Janelle does NOT answer the second call, but rather allows the answering machine to pick up.. To which a second, obscene/vulgar message was left on the machine..<--- ARE THESE DETAILS CORRECT AND ARE IN THE CORRECT SEQUENCE(if not would u mind putting them in the correct sequence:).. TIA..
If all of these details are correct it means that there were actually 2 obscene/vulgar messages(that we know of) that were recorded on the Delmar residence answering machine??.. Am i understanding that correctly??..One that was supposedly left at some point prior to the women's disappearance(Saturday, June 6).. And one that was actually left while Janelle/Mike were in the Delmar residence on the afternoon of Sunday, June 7(obviously after the women's disappearance)..
I also have questions in now hearing that Janis McCall was also able to hear ATLEAST one of the obscene/vulgar answering machine messages.. This obviously means that the messages were again listened to later in the evening of June 7 when Janis mcCall was present in the Delmar home.. Or are you saying that it was just the one instance of listening to the phone messages and that was later in the evening of June 7 when both Janis McCall and Janelle Kirby were in the Delmar residence??.
That's where I really am confusing myself and honestly believe that it's actually very very simple and the wording and clarification is actually not at all discombobulated as it certainly is appearing to be in my attempting to piece it all back together as a whole(ie. Janelle/Mike at the Delmar residence around 12:30 played/erased msgs(including obscene MSG from Sat,6/6).. Phone rang while they were in the home, Janelle answers and it's obscene call, hangs up, obscene caller immediately calls back, Janelle does NOT answer so machine records obscene MSG(this making the second recorded obscene msg)..At some point later Sunday evening when both Janelle and Janis McCall are at the home Janis has a chance to hear ATLEAST the obscene MSG that'd been left earlier that same day).. Not certain about if/when the second obscene MSG was actually erased as well..
:crazy:.. So, whoever has a moment to untangle me from the discombobulated mess of details concerning phones, msgs, people, and times..:crazy: .. I'd be ever so very grateful:)*
**and I just wanted to say that I by no means whatsoever am under the impression that what I am discussing is in any way new info.. I am very well aware that any subject that I broach re:3MW will have long since already been sleuthed, evaluated, up one side&down the other.. A thousand times over.. I know that and I've followed along for many years on this case and know and have seen the hard work&dedication that so many have put into this case.. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not attempting to jump in here and it seem as tho I'm under the guise of these details being new, unknown, and not already combed over with a fine tooth comb..
Moo is that what can it possibly hurt to discuss the events, evidence, etc again??.. Moo it can't and by some grand miracle maybe just maybe one day someone will come upon information or the one detail needed in order to lead to the break that so very many people have been waiting 20long years for already.. IMO that day has got to come one of these days.. Why not today??.. It's as just a good of a day as any..:sigh:
It's frustrating to think about just how long this case has been without resolve..
All jmo, tho!
Yes, this is very confusing to say the least. I believe the "disappeared" video has this account where Mrs. McCall says something to this effect.
What I don't understand AT ALL is why the police didn't go over the matter of the tape in excruciating detail at the very outset (or did they?) and we are left to wonder exactly who they still have on their suspect list. We do know, from an erased TV interview, that Jannelle was extremely irked at having repeated questions to her by numerous detectives when she complained that she wondered if they talked to one another since they kept asking her the same questions.
And another thing which irks me is when people such as ourselves ask these questions is why some others seem so willing to gloss over such things as unimportant or inappropriate to ask. You can probably figure out where I am going with this but this has always been a concern. Stated differently, in the earlier days of this investigation, everyone's stories should have been EXACTLY the same and the timelines also meshed correctly. One can't but help wondering what kind of investigation this really was.
former central time
08-10-2012, 10:23 PM
**and I just wanted to say that I by no means whatsoever am under the impression that what I am discussing is in any way new info.. I am very well aware that any subject that I broach re:3MW will have long since already been sleuthed, evaluated, up one side&down the other.. A thousand times over.. I know that and I've followed along for many years on this case and know and have seen the hard work&dedication that so many have put into this case.. I just wanted to be clear that I'm not attempting to jump in here and it seem as tho I'm under the guise of these details being new, unknown, and not already combed over with a fine tooth comb..
Moo is that what can it possibly hurt to discuss the events, evidence, etc again??.. Moo it can't and by some grand miracle maybe just maybe one day someone will come upon information or the one detail needed in order to lead to the break that so very many people have been waiting 20long years for already.. IMO that day has got to come one of these days.. Why not today??.. It's as just a good of a day as any..:sigh:
It's frustrating to think about just how long this case has been without resolve..
All jmo, tho!
Smooth...No need to apologize for backtracking through what has been hashed over umteen times. For if nothing else, folks like you, and to some degree me (somewhat of a newerBee) give a flavor of a reasonable person standard, and reasonable doubt which a case like this, resting so heavily on he said/she said/they said, requires. Those extremely familiar with the case, while providing an excellent source of facts and knowledge can and may lack some sensitivities that may matter someday.
Without hijacking this tread, just to be clear, since I was quoted several times earlier, I will have to agree to disagree with some, in that, the actions of Jennelle and her boyfriend upon discovery of the vacant house as odd. She calls all morning to no answer, gets to the house 11 AM/12 noon (accounts vary in reporting), house unlocked, three cars parked outside, three purses (smokes), dont remember if she sees Stacys shorts or not, but later leaves for the waterpark. As the kids say, WTF. It doesnt pass my smell test. The creepy calls just adds to my bewilderment.
To be clear and fair, I will concede that people handle things differently and I am NOT accusing Mike and Jennelle of anything criminal or foul, perhaps just bad judgment. There may be a logical explanation for this and maybe one day it will be aired in court. But also, it could be used by one side to discredit Jennelle as a witness or failing the reasonable person standard, and Im confident there are plenty attorneys up to the task in criminal law.
What sprung this board alive recently was the reexamination of the physical evidence to outside investigators. While Im told not to get hopes up it could do wonders. Some blade of hair in Sherills blanket matches a person of interest/suspect or whatnot, would go a looooong way to turning much of the rest of this story into just scenery.
monkeymann
08-10-2012, 11:25 PM
I posted this on Topix and wanted to share this with everyone here too.
This is a post from a long time ago by a poster named Hurricane. I have always regarded Hurricane as having a sincere interest in solving this case, and have never known this poster to "Play Games".
Point being Everyone Needs To Read This:
Garrison told police a friend had confessed to killing the three women during a drunken party. He told police information unknown to the public that led investigators to serve three search warrants at two sites in western Webster County; that they would find the women’s bodies and clues about their abduction and deaths.He also said a moss green van believed used to take the women would be found about 12 miles away, south of Fordland.
The property searched was the same site where in 1990 LE searched for two of three missing Springfieldians. Property owner Francis Lee Robb Sr. pleaded guilty to two counts of second-degree murder in a case authorities said at the time they believed involve a drug deal gone awry.
Garrison was believed enough that a gag order concerning the three search warrants was issued by a judge.“…certain aspects of the information we received fit with other (private) aspects of the case,” Springfield Police Capt. Todd Whitson said. Whitson said the gag order was rare, but he could not say why it was issued,“other than to say there is such an order, and it governs the operation and everything related to the operation out here.” Added Webster County Sheriff C.E. Wells:“We can’t tell you anything about it until the order’s lifted.”
Info comes from the News-Leader, Aug. 29 & 31, 1993.
monkeymann
08-10-2012, 11:42 PM
Also this is one from a long time back from Olddog, another poster of whom I've always felt had a sincere interest in this case and wasn't playing games:
"Garrison was said to have told LE the girls were dumped in an old well"
Now if Garrison did indeed tell them that, and they subsequently searched the farm of Francis Robb Sr., and according the the account posted by Hurricane in which Garrison had supposidly given police "Private" information that was only known by them, which was what compelled them to obtain the search warrants and search the farm......You'd think there would have to be something of merit to Garrisons story that lead police to Francis Robb Sr.'s farm.
Also, I want to note too: Francis Robb Sr.'s 1st Degree Murder trial, which had been moved from Springfield, to Benton County on a change of venue appeal, was scheduled to began June 1, 1992.
Doesn't that just make you think Hummmmmm. Garrison told police the bodys were on Francis Robb Sr's Farm, Garrison supposidly had a connection to the Grave Robbers, Francis Robb, Sr.'s is awaiting charges for 1st Degree Murder of which the trial is scheduled to begain June 1, 1992, was that just a coincidence, or did Francis Robb Sr have other things going on that were connected to someone who was connected to Sherrill or Susie, and Susies statement to police put enough parinoia into Robb, or others that Susie may have ratted their operation out too, and there for she had to be taken care of.
Seems like a plausable theory of which most of the connections seem to be valid........
monkeymann
08-11-2012, 12:05 AM
Also, I need to correct the statement I posted earlier, it wasn't the police that told Garrison he could be charged, it was his lawyer. I found this old post:
Originally Posted by Hurricane http://www.websleuths.com/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif
When Garrison’s court appointed attorney on the weapons charge advised him that he could be charged as an accessory to murder he ceased his cooperation with LE.
Hurricane
08-11-2012, 10:54 AM
Also this is one from a long time back from Olddog, another poster of whom I've always felt had a sincere interest in this case and wasn't playing games:
"Garrison was said to have told LE the girls were dumped in an old well"
Now if Garrison did indeed tell them that, and they subsequently searched the farm of Francis Robb Sr., and according the the account posted by Hurricane in which Garrison had supposidly given police "Private" information that was only known by them, which was what compelled them to obtain the search warrants and search the farm......You'd think there would have to be something of merit to Garrisons story that lead police to Francis Robb Sr.'s farm.
Also, I want to note too: Francis Robb Sr.'s 1st Degree Murder trial, which had been moved from Springfield, to Benton County on a change of venue appeal, was scheduled to began June 1, 1992.
Doesn't that just make you think Hummmmmm. Garrison told police the bodys were on Francis Robb Sr's Farm, Garrison supposidly had a connection to the Grave Robbers, Francis Robb, Sr.'s is awaiting charges for 1st Degree Murder of which the trial is scheduled to begain June 1, 1992, was that just a coincidence, or did Francis Robb Sr have other things going on that were connected to someone who was connected to Sherrill or Susie, and Susies statement to police put enough parinoia into Robb, or others that Susie may have ratted their operation out too, and there for she had to be taken care of.
Seems like a plausable theory of which most of the connections seem to be valid........
Monkeymann, I would not discourage you from looking into the Robb family angle. Keep in mind that both Sr and Jr were in jail; Timothy was not. Also keep in mind that Sr's trial for murder was to start on June 1 but was postponed. If the key lies somewhere in the Robb murder trial why wait until after the trial was postponed to take Suzie? Wouldn't you think the abduction would have happened during the weeks leading up to June 1? I always thought that Sr had a little more on his mind at that time then drugs or stolen tractors, being charged with murder and all. For all he knew he could have been in line for multiple counts of murder which hadn't even been filed yet. He obviously ended up pleading guilty to second degree murder and the case never went to trial. For all we know LE might have negotiated away the prospect of seeking the death penalty and charges in other murder cases in which he was a suspect in exchange for his guilty plea.
Having said that doesn't preclude others from being worried about what may have come out in testimony during the Robb trial. But I believe they would have simply told Francis Robb Sr that it's time you take one for the team and take your medicine; take a plea and don't let this go to trial. Members of organized crime do that all the time. For all we know that is exactly what happened and why he pleaded quilty to second degree. I don't believe they were worried about anything any of the 3MW might have known. Close friends of the 3MW down to the very last one all say there was no testimony from any of the 3MW coming up in either the Robb trial or the grave robbing case. And regardless of what posters on Topix who can hide behind their anonymity say, close friends of the 3MW including the boarder who lived in the Levitt household for 18 months all say there was no drug use. That doesn't mean the grave robbers get a free pass on drugs however.
Suzie gave a simple statement about the use of her car the night the mausoleum was vandalized. That's all there was to it. If other individuals in the drug distribution business were worried about what might come out in testimony if the grave robbing incident went to trial then why are the grave robbers still alive? Can't Say has said the grave robbers were low level minions of the drug trade and Goose wannabe's, and I would agree with him. Those kind are a dime a dozen, so why not just kill them for what they know? What makes these guys so important that those calling the shots would kill the 3MW instead; just to put fear in the hearts of the grave robbers?
It still all filters down to this being a simple case of sexual assault gone bad. Multiple individuals became involved after the women were abducted from the home when Suzie and Stacy came home unexpectedly.
Missouri Mule
08-11-2012, 11:07 AM
Monkeymann, I would not discourage you from looking into the Robb family angle. Keep in mind that both Sr and Jr were in jail; Timothy was not. Also keep in mind that Sr's trial for murder was to start on June 1 but was postponed. If the key lies somewhere in the Robb murder trial why wait until after the trial was postponed to take Suzie? Wouldn't you think the abduction would have happened during the weeks leading up to June 1? I always thought that Sr had a little more on his mind at that time then drugs or stolen tractors, being charged with murder and all. For all he knew he could have been in line for multiple counts of murder which hadn't even been filed yet. He obviously ended up pleading guilty to second degree murder and the case never went to trial. For all we know LE might have negotiated away the prospect of seeking the death penalty and charges in other murder cases in which he was a suspect in exchange for his guilty plea.
Having said that doesn't preclude others from being worried about what may have come out in testimony during the Robb trial. But I believe they would have simply told Francis Robb Sr that it's time you take one for the team and take your medicine; take a plea and don't let this go to trial. Members of organized crime do that all the time. For all we know that is exactly what happened and why he pleaded quilty to second degree. I don't believe they were worried about anything any of the 3MW might have known. Close friends of the 3MW down to the very last one all say there was no testimony from any of the 3MW coming up in either the Robb trial or the grave robbing case. And regardless of what posters on Topix who can hide behind their anonymity say, close friends of the 3MW including the boarder who lived in the Levitt household for 18 months all say there was no drug use. That doesn't mean the grave robbers get a free pass on drugs however.
Suzie gave a simple statement about the use of her car the night the mausoleum was vandalized. That's all there was to it. If other individuals in the drug distribution business were worried about what might come out in testimony if the grave robbing incident went to trial then why are the grave robbers still alive? Can't Say has said the grave robbers were low level minions of the drug trade and Goose wannabe's, and I would agree with him. Those kind are a dime a dozen, so why not just kill them for what they know? What makes these guys so important that those calling the shots would kill the 3MW instead; just to put fear in the hearts of the grave robbers?
It still all filters down to this being a simple case of sexual assault gone bad. Multiple individuals became involved after the women were abducted from the home when Suzie and Stacy came home unexpectedly.
Thank you very much for this most informative post. It lays out the essential facts leading up to the abductions. The unanswered question I continue to have is how entry was gained. You suggested, I believe, (at some point) that entry was actually gained through possibly forced entry. I extrapolate that we could be looking at accomplished burglars or those having such skills. If that were the case then we might be looking at a crime of opportunity and not, as I have opined, and as have others, that this was a planned event.
In rereading your comment you seem to suggest that the perp(s) were in the home at the time the girls got home as I read it. If this were true, then he/they must have been in Sherrill's bedroom. I was told it was quite small so perhaps he/they were in the closet for a period of time.
SmoothOperator
08-11-2012, 05:37 PM
So, it certainly appears to Imo quite clearly be one of two motives and perhaps even both in some odd intertwining of the two... Those two motives being sexual and/or for the purpose of tying up loose ends WRT someone in the Delmar residence that night "possibly" having any info/details/knowledge which could at some point in the future be used against one or more people involved in the organized crime that was very much alive and well in this particular area/era (imo just from what I gather the organized crime of this era&area was widely varying from small time, more petty crimes.... All the way to major crimes of rape, assault, and murder)..
One main and key question that I've often always gone back to when looking at this case over the years is this... Who had the most to gain from any/all of the 3 women being murdered/disappeared?.. And what specifically is it that would be gained by that/those individual(s) having any/all of the 3 women murdered/disappeared?..
Those two key questions Imo are most relevant when looking specifically at the motive being "the tying up of loose ends"..so, in looking at that particular motive first the murder(s) were for the purpose of individuals that were involved in organized crimes(OC) needing/wanting one or all of the three victims to no longer be a *threat* to one or more of those individuals involved with the OC(note that the *threat* imo does NOT necessarily have to even be a true or real "threat" to these particular individuals.. All that matters is that there was a perceived "threat" to one or more of those involved in the OC...).. I SAY THAT FOR THE SPECIFIC REASON that no, Suzie actually posed no threat to any of these individuals.. She quite likely did not have knowledge of anything that could be actually used against any of these people.. But the important factor IS ONLY that one or more of the individuals merely perceived/believed/or were of the opinion that Suzie was a threat and "thought" she had knowledge that could very much bring them down.. Or at least bring some of those involved in OC down and thereby definitely and most importantly shining a light.. In fact a bright unwanted spotlight on to the OC that seems to have been deeply entrenched in this area, at the time of the murders..
Imo when viewed from that particular angle for me things appear to fit much more nicely, as well as Imo actually begin to make some sense to what has been for the most part completely nonsensical..
In going with this theory and attempting to in a nutshell to sum up what/why/how the 3MW were murdered.. The deeply entrenched OC perceived Imo likely Suzie Streeter of being very much a potential threat to some Imo lowly players involved likely on the peripheral(grave robbers)... That in and of itself Imo wouldn't be what necessarily got her killed.. Imo it was the already unstable atmosphere surrounding the higher ups of the OC(for example Robbs awaiting 1st degree murder charges). This made the OC even more aware, if not even paranoid to having their entire existence being brought to the light of day and the entire OC of this era/area being brought to its knees... Therefor they were damn certain to NOT HAVE any other problems or people that would bring about more unwanted attention to an existence that was already on shaky ground..
That's why I say that Suzie in reality did not even have to be an actual, true threat.. She didn't have to actually have any knowledge whatsoever that the OC would be threatened by.. The only thing that had to actually be present and factual is that members of the OC "perceived" Suzie as a threat and that she had knowledge that once given to LE would bring about further unwanted attention onto those involved in the OC...
Therefor I find that notion not only possible, but even quite plausible in that the instability of the OC being what it was at that present time that they could not allow for any further attention to be brought about via someone like Suzie that had connection to those measly, low rung, maybe even peripheral players such as the "grave robbers"...
In closing I would theorize that it was likely Suzie Streeter that was the entire nexus of why these three were murdered.. She was the intended target and the other two merely casualties that the OC would Imo have seen as just further loose ends therefor they too must be disappeared from the equation..
That's the first of the two motives that I strongly believe that the murders have been narrowed to in answering the *why* the abductions/murders occurred.. The second motive being sexual motivated Imo could either be closely intertwined with the above described motive of the OC of this area/era.. <--this Imo the most likeliest... Or what Imo is less likely in it being strictly a sexually motivated crime with zero intertwining with the OC of this area/era... Moo is that is likely a combination of BOTH SEXUAL MOTIVATION AS WELL AS A TYING UP OF LOOSE ENDS THAT THE OC *PERCEIVED AS A THREAT* TO THEIR ALREADY SHAKY, UNSTABLE EXISTENCE AS IT WERE AT THAT TIME...
*******************************************...
I want to add to this the question and what is my personal answer to that question of why then would not the low rung, possibly even what some may refer to as peripheral players, the grave robbers.. Why then were they not killed as a way of ensuring ALL LOOSE ENDS WERE SECURED along with Suzie Streeter(and by proxy of course Levitt and McCall)?..
And my answer to this is whose to say that was not the intended plan.. That when the higher ups called for Suzie to be taken out Imo I find it altogether possible that the higher ups involved one or more of the actual low rung grave robbers to be involved in Suzie's "abduction" at the very least.. Possibly even having one or more of the grave robbers actually participate in the murder as a way of ensuring the low rung players silence.. I see that as a very real possibility and even possibly that the plan was to then kill off the low rung players but when the 3MW murders exploded into such a sensational nationwide case that there was no way the OC could have murdered the 3 low rung grave robbers without more unwanted bright spotlighted attention onto the OC of that area/era than what they were already enduring..
I believe it's very possible that one or more of the grave robbers were coerced or even forced into playing a large part in the abductions/murders for the obvious reasons of ensuring their continued silence regarding the 3MW....
All in all jmo, tho!!
SmoothOperator
08-11-2012, 06:13 PM
In sticking with the above detailed theory I will say that with this theory it does in fact bring about the answer to Missouri Mule's long posed question of how was entry gained into the home on Delmar?...
Was it via an unlocked window or by other means where the perpetrators gained access without any inside help/assistance.?... Or was it as Missouri Mule has long since theorized that at least one of the perpetrators had some level of familiarity and even trust in place with one of the three women inside the Delmar home?..
In my believing it altogether quite possible for the higher ups of the OC of this area/era to have coerced or even forced at least one or more of the lower rung players, the grave robbers to participate AT MINIMUM in the abductions of the 3MW..This leading me to speculate at one of those actually being Suzie Streeter's ex-boyfriend that for whatever reasons was involved with at the very very least with ensuring the perpetrators gained entry into the Delmar home...
Some may say that's not likely as she/he were not together by any stretch of the imagination at the time of the murders... But I will bring to attention that we have from none other than Suzie's very own brother, Bartt Streeter that states that EVEN AFTER THE FACT of the grave robbing scandal having taken place(which inadvertently is what led to his and Suzie no longer living together.. Nor even being on speaking terms due to Bartt's strong negative feelings about the grave robbing boyfriend of his sister).. Bartt stated that it was actually his very last contact(visually/verbally) with his sister, Suzie when she came to the town home the two had shared to deliver some Important papers to Bartt.. Again of most importance is when this last meeting between Bartt/Suzie was AFTER THE SCANDALOUS GRAVE ROBBING.. Bartt stated that Suzie actually had the ex-boyfriend with her when she came by Bartt's town home.. He too seemed a bit surprised that his sister was in the company of the now ex-boyfriend after all that had happened.. He also said that the ex boyfriend knew to keep his distance and when the two came to Bartt's front door that the boyfriend actually stood back a ways from Bartt's front porch as Suzie gave Bartt the important papers and they briefly spoke...
So, the fact remains Imo that tho Suzie and the boyfriend had broken up, and the grave robbing scandal had already blown up and occurred.. That in spite of all of that Suzie and the ex boyfriend remained to have some relationship, if even just merely as acquaintances of some sort..
My point being that it's truly irrelevant to distinguish to what exact extent their loose relationship was.. Imo the important factor IS that some level of familiarity and possibly even some level of trust was very much still in existence between Suzie and the grave robbing ex-boyfriend.. Most importantly Imo indicative that *if* this ex-boyfriend were to knock on Suzie's door.. Or window.. Either way indicating for her to let him in... Or either indicating for her to step out of the house for a moment in his needing to talk to her..
Whatever the actual scenario may be I can say that Imo I have no doubt that Suzie would absolutely have opened the door to the Delmar home with the intention on letting him inside.. Or her briefly stepping outside.. Both with the intent to speak with him... Thereby of course as is obvious allowing entry to be made into the Delmar home..
Missouri Mule the answer to your long since posed question of who could it have been that had a level of familiarity or even trust in place with one of the three women inside the Delmar home that they would have opened that front door to?
Imo without a doubt Suzie Streeter's ex-boyfriend is an individual who absolutely fits the bill.. The level of familiarity and trust in place would absolutely have Suzie Streeter open the front door of the home with the intention on speaking with him..
As with everything its all jmo, tho!!
As with everything all its all jmo, tho!!
Missouri Mule
08-11-2012, 06:36 PM
Could he have been urged by others to go to the home to gain entry at which time the perp or perps took control of the situation and abducted the women?
The problem I have with this, although it makes perfect sense as to how to gain entry, is that 1) the police chief personally cleared the grave robbers of involvement which remains controversial in and of itself. 2) I believe it is correct to say that he passed a polygraph. Would he have been skilled enough to evade detection at his age and experience?
As I understand your thoughts it appears there were bigger fish up the food chain who had a vested interest in not having Suzie testify the next weekend. Hurricane tells us, however, that she had no information to really impart. Now it is possible that the forces behind these abductions believed otherwise and decided to remove all doubt.
What you say about Bartt's views toward her ex boyfriend is rooted in fact. Of course that is an opinion he has expressed and it may be biased for one reason or another.
You are correct that he (the ex-boyfriend) would the be a most likely person to believe he could have talked his way into the house.
And then again, we have Hurricane's hypothesis that this was simply a sexual assault gone badly. So we are left to wonder.
It seems unlikely to me that with three cars in the driveway/carport that anyone would want to get into the house. For that matter, the perp(s) wouldn't necessarily have known that only three women were in the house, if they came later. There might have been a half dozen or more people in there. How would they know? Hurricane seems to suggest the perp(s) were in the house at the time the girls arrived as best I understand his post.
I still believe we need a motive.
Hurricane
08-11-2012, 08:10 PM
No offense intended to anyone but I will stand with the friends and family who knew these women best. That's where the facts are. If Suzie was guilty of anything during the last couple of years of her short life it would be making a couple of poor decisions in allowing a couple of men to come into her life. To those still interested along these lines I would recommend that you look into how & when she and Recla met, how long they dated, & who else they each dated during that short timeline. Then I would keep that timeline in mind when claims are made by anon posters that Suzie was seen with Recla at parties where drugs were being used and apartments were drugs were being distributed from. You will find that such claims are being made where the timeline simply doesn't work.
But as you say, everything you have is just your opinion.
Missouri Mule
08-11-2012, 08:26 PM
No offense intended to anyone but I will stand with the friends and family who knew these women best. That's where the facts are. If Suzie was guilty of anything during the last couple of years of her short life it would be making a couple of poor decisions in allowing a couple of men to come into her life. To those still interested along these lines I would recommend that you look into how & when she and Recla met, how long they dated, & who else they each dated during that short timeline. Then I would keep that timeline in mind when claims are made by anon posters that Suzie was seen with Recla at parties where drugs were being used and apartments were drugs were being distributed from. You will find that such claims are being made where the timeline simply doesn't work.
But as you say, everything you have is just your opinion.
May I ask you this question? Do you believe the perp(s) were in the home at the time the girls arrived that night (at approximately 2:50 A.M.) I had been led to believe Sherrill's bedroom was quite small and would have, of necessity, required the perp or perps to have secreted himself/themselves in the bedroom so as to escape notice by the girls.
So far as I know, we only have the GJ3, Cox, and the "usual suspects" from the Rogersville area who were initially or subsequently potentially involved in this crime. Can you speak to this group or do you believe there was another person or persons we do not know of?
SmoothOperator
08-11-2012, 10:05 PM
No offense intended to anyone but I will stand with the friends and family who knew these women best. That's where the facts are. If Suzie was guilty of anything during the last couple of years of her short life it would be making a couple of poor decisions in allowing a couple of men to come into her life.
I did not mention, insinuate, nor even remotely imply anything good, bad, or otherwise about Suzie Streeter being guilty of ANYTHING...
To those still interested along these lines I would recommend that you look into how & when she and Recla met, how long they dated, & who else they each dated during that short timeline.
In theory the only relevance made was that as far as the particular timeline of which I put forth was regarding their relationship being over/broken up..And that there was info put forth that lent credence to their still having amicable contact after their boyfriend/girlfriend relationship was no more..
Then I would keep that timeline in mind when claims are made by anon posters that Suzie was seen with Recla at parties where drugs were being used and apartments were drugs were being distributed from.
As for me personally.. tho, you don't have a clue who I am by no means whatsoever equates to my being anonymous.. That sir, is far from accurate.. I've posted here for years and in that time have been open about exactly who I am along with details/information that make me anything but anonymous..
Furthermore I do not post under a guise of anonymity, nor do I make statements as an anonymous, nameless, faceless joker carelessly throwing accusations about recklessly with zero regard for victims, their loved ones and just my fellow mankind in general.. That is NOT me, nor how I operate.
Parties, Apts where drugs are distributed?? What the hell are you talking about?.zero claim or even mention about drugs or parties has been made.. Now as for Suzie and Bartt having lived together in apt/town home.. That sir, IS FACT! and according to Bartt Streeter the last time he laid eyes on, or spoke go his sister was when she and Recla showed up at his apt to drop off important papers to Bartt.. According to Bartt Suzie/Recla were no longer together in boyfriend/girlfriend relationship at that point in time..
I don't know and frankly don't give a damn about any of apartments that Suzie/Recla "partied" at, if/when they did so.. Those are your words/statements and subjects you alone broached and felt compelled to bring forth..
You will find that such claims are being made where the timeline simply doesn't work.
As I said before the length, duration, and the exact dates of when it started and when it ended re:Suzie/Recla dating is irrelevant to what I purposed.. The only *fact* I'm dealing with in theory was the fact that Recla robbed a grave and pawned gold he'd stolen from that grave.. The fact Recla did so ended in Suzie having to be brought in and give a statement to LE... That's fact!
Now my theorizing about Recla *possibly* having ties to Organized Crime in that area/at that time is far from some new, unheard of thought or theory.. GMAB!... IN fact to be completely honest and accurate about what I chose to state in my posts not nary a detail could even be misconstrued into being negative toward Suzanne Streeter..
But as you say, everything you have is just your opinion.
And as I said I don't know where in the hell or rather what in the hell 75% of this post rattles on about.. The vast majority of what you chose to take issue with was never mentioned, nor even alluded to by myself.. And furthermore actually could not be more irrelevant to the case.. Ya may wanna reread what I stated(or put me on ignore one) because obviously you are talking about and pointing out details that I could care less about,did not make mention of, much less make personal judgements on how a young victim chose to live her life..
All my replies are obviously in Red.
All in all of course I'm stating my opinion, unlike some who may pretend to have all the answers, be in the know, and hemhaw around like they're actually heading up the investigation.(and that is in no way speaking of this case specifically but rather in general on these boards on any number of cases) . I am posting my opinions and theorizing on possibilities of what happened to three beautiful women whose lives were stolen before the dawning of that Sunday morning 20 years ago.. It's a tragedy and even more so that 20 years later that their bodies have still not been laid to rest as each of their families so see fitting... Nor justice on each of their behalf..
I by no means claim to have a single answer but I sure as hell can have opinions about different aspects and no where in any of those opinions will you find anything close to petty, bull$hit judgements of three innocent victims.. That's one thing I can guarantee I will not be posting about..
All in all jmo, tho!.. Not sure what else it could or should be??!
Hurricane
08-11-2012, 10:49 PM
All my replies are obviously in Red.
All in all of course I'm stating my opinion, unlike some who may pretend to have all the answers, be in the know, and hemhaw around like they're actually heading up the investigation.(and that is in no way speaking of this case specifically but rather in general on these boards on any number of cases) . I am posting my opinions and theorizing on possibilities of what happened to three beautiful women whose lives were stolen before the dawning of that Sunday morning 20 years ago.. It's a tragedy and even more so that 20 years later that their bodies have still not been laid to rest as each of their families so see fitting... Nor justice on each of their behalf..
I by no means claim to have a single answer but I sure as hell can have opinions about different aspects and no where in any of those opinions will you find anything close to petty, bull$hit judgements of three innocent victims.. That's one thing I can guarantee I will not be posting about..
All in all jmo, tho!.. Not sure what else it could or should be??!
In my previous post madam, I was not responding to your's since I specifically did not quote it as I am doing now. The anon posters I refer to are those all over these various forums which discuss this case who make the claim to have personally seen Suzie at various locations where drugs were used or distributed with Dustin Recla, etc. When LE pays little attention to their tip because the timeline does not fit they accuse LE of being dirty or not working the case and blowing them off.
By all means madam, please carry on with your opinions. I won't bother you again.
Auramyst
08-12-2012, 10:47 PM
Monkeymann, I would not discourage you from looking into the Robb family angle. Keep in mind that both Sr and Jr were in jail; Timothy was not...
Not sure where I stand on the Robb involvement theory, but this is an interesting coincidence: Timothy fits the general description (height/weight) of the 'transient type' seen in the Delmar neighborhood in the weeks leading up to the abduction (not sure about Timothy's age, but I do believe he would have been younger than the transient's description).
Lawrence Journal-World, June 17th, 1992
http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YYoyAAAAIBAJ&sjid=tuYFAAAAIBAJ&pg=5970,4784619&dq=stacy+mccall&hl=en
http://springfieldmugshots.com/mug/timothy-e-robb
Auramyst
08-12-2012, 11:39 PM
It seems unlikely to me that with three cars in the driveway/carport that anyone would want to get into the house. For that matter, the perp(s) wouldn't necessarily have known that only three women were in the house, if they came later. There might have been a half dozen or more people in there. How would they know?
I go back to the very earliest news reports and the theory of a 'ruse'. For instance: Perp beating VERY LOUDLY on the door. One of the women answers and he flashes a badge at her, says in a loud urgent voice something about being an undercover cop and 'there's suspicious activity in the neighborhood and we need to verify the identity of everyone in the house.'
In the early morning hours, I can see the sleepy women groggily looking around for their purses, trying to find their ID's to show to this undercover cop. Meanwhile, 'undercover cop' gets his answer to how many people are in the house. He could easily step into the house during this time (or be invited in)
Overpowering the three would be fairly easy- he only needs to get control of and threaten one of them (probably Sherrill) the other two would comply with his demands 'and no one gets hurt'.
All four walk out of the house, he herds them into his van and they're gone.
fullmoon
08-13-2012, 10:48 AM
Overpowering the three would be fairly easy- he only needs to get control of and threaten one of them (probably Sherrill) the other two would comply with his demands 'and no one gets hurt'.
All four walk out of the house, he herds them into his van and they're gone.
I also think one of them was threatened to get the others to go along.
Auramyst
08-13-2012, 04:54 PM
Can someone please summarize Francis Robb for the forum? I find very little on-line and most of what I find is what's referenced on various forums.
So far I've got that he killed three people and fed them to his hogs, he killed three people and buried them, he put bodies in acid in a barrel, he put bodies in acid and dumped them in a pond, he burned up three people, he's part of a motorcycle gang, he kidnapped and sex trafficked women at bike rallies, he has 13 children, he's KKK, he's killed police officers, he raped women and young children, he abused drugs, people, and animals, he had a meth lab, he's part of the mob, he runs guns, he's head of a satanic cult, and is behind every unsolved crime from Missouri to Arkansas.
I have no idea who this notorious character is.
Would someone mind posting a quick brief about him? Or at least point me in the right direction to learn more about him? Thank you.
Hurricane
08-13-2012, 05:38 PM
Can someone please summarize Francis Robb for the forum? I find very little on-line and most of what I find is what's referenced on various forums.
So far I've got that he killed three people and fed them to his hogs, he killed three people and buried them, he put bodies in acid in a barrel, he put bodies in acid and dumped them in a pond, he burned up three people, he's part of a motorcycle gang, he kidnapped and sex trafficked women at bike rallies, he has 13 children, he's KKK, he's killed police officers, he raped women and young children, he abused drugs, people, and animals, he had a meth lab, he's part of the mob, he runs guns, he's head of a satanic cult, and is behind every unsolved crime from Missouri to Arkansas.
I have no idea who this notorious character is.
Would someone mind posting a quick brief about him? Or at least point me in the right direction to learn more about him? Thank you.
You missed one. He's dead; died in prison. Jr. is dead also.
Auramyst
08-13-2012, 07:39 PM
You missed one. He's dead; died in prison. Jr. is dead also.
Yes, you're right, I should have said he was dead. Instead, I was listing what I've seen him accused of within the different forums.
My question was: can someone please summarize him?
His name comes up over and over with various other names such as Garrison and others.
His property has been mentioned in reference to the missing women being buried there.
Why is this man so notorious throughout Springfield and the county? Was he a known drug dealer? Part of the KKK? A grumpy old man? I know that he was imprisoned, I know that he died, but I don't understand why his name comes up over and over as someone who would have 'ordered' the abduction or 'let' the bodies be buried on his property.
In reference to the 3MW case, I get why Garrison's name comes up, I get why Cox's name comes up, I get why the graverobbers, and all the other names come up. I do not 'get' why Francis Robb's name continually comes up. And when Francis Robb's name does come up, it's always in the context of 'he ordered the abduction' or 'he buried the bodies'. It's never that he actually did the abduction, but it's always in the context that he 'was behind it' somehow.
So, I would like to know- from those who know the answer- who is this man and why would it be believable that he would have enough 'pull' to order the abduction of three women. And why would somebody 'obey' his orders?
Hurricane
08-13-2012, 08:55 PM
Yes, you're right, I should have said he was dead. Instead, I was listing what I've seen him accused of within the different forums.
My question was: can someone please summarize him?
His name comes up over and over with various other names such as Garrison and others.
His property has been mentioned in reference to the missing women being buried there.
Why is this man so notorious throughout Springfield and the county? Was he a known drug dealer? Part of the KKK? A grumpy old man? I know that he was imprisoned, I know that he died, but I don't understand why his name comes up over and over as someone who would have 'ordered' the abduction or 'let' the bodies be buried on his property.
In reference to the 3MW case, I get why Garrison's name comes up, I get why Cox's name comes up, I get why the graverobbers, and all the other names come up. I do not 'get' why Francis Robb's name continually comes up. And when Francis Robb's name does come up, it's always in the context of 'he ordered the abduction' or 'he buried the bodies'. It's never that he actually did the abduction, but it's always in the context that he 'was behind it' somehow.
So, I would like to know- from those who know the answer- who is this man and why would it be believable that he would have enough 'pull' to order the abduction of three women. And why would somebody 'obey' his orders?
Sorry, I was short of time earlier. Really, the only way to come up to speed with the facts on Francis Robb Sr., Francis Robb Jr., and Timothy Robb is to research their criminal history thru Greene County records or Missouri Casenet records. There are no on line N-L articles about his cases that I know of. His history predates that timeline.
Francis Robb Sr. is another Greene County boogieman. What is absolutely true is the shooting at Panther Creek and what followed, which is what he pleaded second degree murder to and put him in prison for the last time. He had been convicted of being in possession of stolen property previously; he was a fence and that is probably why every petty criminal in 2 - 3 counties knew who he was. And it is fact that included in the search warrant by LE when Garrison led the charge to the Robb farm looking for the remains of the 3MW was also the remains of a male in his 40's I believe it was, that LE thought was another victim of Robb's. LE wanted to make sure that they were legal and the remains would be good evidence in a court of law should they be found during the search. The male victim had nothing to do with the 3MW case.
I don't believe thsa Francis Robb Sr ordered the abduction of the 3MW or had anything to do with this crime. I believe he knew that he had run his race, and that the powers that be told him he was not getting out; to take the best plea he could get; and to do his time. And that is exactly what he did and he died while still in prison. That doesn't mean that Timothy Robb gets a free pass from any participation in this case of the 3MW.
Most of everything else you have listed may also be true but is pure speculation at this point.
Auramyst
08-13-2012, 09:27 PM
Sorry, I was short of time earlier. Really, the only way to come up to speed with the facts on Francis Robb Sr., Francis Robb Jr., and Timothy Robb is to research their criminal history thru Greene County records or Missouri Casenet records. There are no on line N-L articles about his cases that I know of. His history predates that timeline.
Francis Robb Sr. is another Greene County boogieman. What is absolutely true is the shooting at Panther Creek and what followed, which is what he pleaded second degree murder to and put him in prison for the last time. He had been convicted of being in possession of stolen property previously; he was a fence and that is probably why every petty criminal in 2 - 3 counties knew who he was. And it is fact that included in the search warrant by LE when Garrison led the charge to the Robb farm looking for the remains of the 3MW was also the remains of a male in his 40's I believe it was, that LE thought was another victim of Robb's. LE wanted to make sure that they were legal and the remains would be good evidence in a court of law should they be found during the search. The male victim had nothing to do with the 3MW case.
I don't believe thsa Francis Robb Sr ordered the abduction of the 3MW or had anything to do with this crime. I believe he knew that he had run his race, and that the powers that be told him he was not getting out; to take the best plea he could get; and to do his time. And that is exactly what he did and he died while still in prison. That doesn't mean that Timothy Robb gets a free pass from any participation in this case of the 3MW.
Most of everything else you have listed may also be true but is pure speculation at this point.
Thank you, Hurricane, for providing a detailed summary of this guy. 'Greene County Boogieman' sounds like a perfect nickname for him.
I agree with you- I don't believe Francis Robb had anything to do with this crime. He's an easy tie-in to the criminal community, so I can see where people could make those connections and place him at the scene of the crime. But no, I don't believe he was involved.
Thanks again for your informative post.
Auramyst
08-14-2012, 02:45 PM
I have a couple questions for everyone:
Steve Garrison lead police to a farm east of Springfield back in the early/mid 90's I think it was. At some point after had been arrested for the Rape crime that he's currently incarcerated for.
My understanding of this incident was that Steve Garrison told police that he knew what happened to the 3MW and where they were buried. They way I understood it, he wanted to try and exchange that information in the form of a plea bargan for a lighter sentence on the Rape charge.
However, as the story goes, after Steve Garrison lead them to the farm east of Springfield, he clammed up and wouldn't reveal the exact location on the large farm property he lead them to, when one of the Detectives supposidly made a reference to the possibility that he could/would be charged as an assessory if the bodys were located. Something to that effect.
Anyway, my question is:
Does anyone know the finer points of this story, in a little more detail.
And:
Does anyone think that Steve Garrison actually lead police to the farm where the 3MW were buried? Do you think Steve Garrison actually knew anything about the 3MW crime, or was he just BS'n the police.
I mean, I will say this....they apparently took what ever he told them seriously enough to go out and conduct a search of the property that included a large law enforcement presence, as well as, the use of a backhoe. So in my opinion, Steve Garrison must have told police something that really had to have convinced them that he actually knew something.....or I really feel that they wouldn't have conducted the scale of the search that they did at the property that Steve Garrsion supposidly lead them to.
What do you all think about this?
Hmmmm.... Garrison...
I'm also referencing your post (#101 in this thread) where it's stated: His attorney told him to stop talking because he could be accused of conspiracy to murder.
Conspiracy leads us to think that there is someone else involved.
The last PR from the police say they are looking for someone who does not necessarily have a violent history. The police PR would lead us to believe that they are not describing Garrison. Anyone who knows Garrison would probably say he has a violent history.
So, if Garrison is telling the police the truth- that he knows where the bodies are, then there is definitely a second person involved- the one without a violent history.
Who did Garrison hang around with?
Since Garrison pointed to the Robb land as where the bodies were buried, then it would have to be someone either within the Robb family or a very, very close friend of the Robbs.
Was Garrison close to the Robbs?
Even though, Robb Sr. was a bad guy involved in bad things, I find it very hard to believe that the Robb's would be ok with an 'aquaintance' showing up with three dead bodies and wanting to bury them on their land.
So, to me, this points to Garrison either being very, very close to the Robbs and/or him having an accomplice and the two of them being involved in the abduction and murder.
Within the premise that Garrison did tell the police he knew where the bodies were, and they dug up Robb land based on his tip, then it seems to me that it was a pretty strong tip.
There are several things the police can do in this situation. One would be to offer him a deal to solve this case. If he's the murderer, though, they would want to find his accomplice and lean on him or charge him to solve the case.
Hence the PR recently released looking for a suspect with a description that does not match Garrison's.
So, to me, for Garrison to be involved, it would have had to been him and this second mystery guy- the one without a violent history.
Was Garrison close to the Robbs? In what situation would Garrison and mystery guy be allowed to bury bodies on the Robb property?
Who lived on the property at the time of the abductions? Robb Sr. was on trial and presumably in jail. Would one of the other Robb's be living there and have full access to bury bodies and hide a van?
That to me, would seem likely.
Another thing I look at is the night it happened. In any scenario, it is not ideal to kidnap three women versus one. I think the night it happened was important to the abductor(s). I think it had to happen that night, or
soon, because the abductor(s) would not have access to either an 'empty' home and/or the van. I believe they knew when they entered the home that the crime was not going to happen in the home. They entered with a plan to remove the women- hence the lack of evidence, the lack of a struggle, and the police saying the women were 'captured'.
Another interesting note: There was a welding shop on the Robb
property. The van could have been hidden there, and then 'welded' apart with the pieces scattered, the engine scattered or used in another vehicle.
So, yes, I can see a scenario where Garrison and mystery perp hung out watching the house, hatched a plan for the abduction for a sexual assault, captured the women early Sunday morning because the house/van was not going to be available to them within the next few days, took the women to the Robb property, raped and murdered them, and buried them somewhere out there. Also, the bodies could have been moved several times. It's gross, but there are cases where the body is moved around to elude being found.
Esperanza
08-16-2012, 05:39 AM
Auramyst,
You have some good ideas of what might have happened in this case. Your speculations and questions of the facts are similar to what I have been thinking. I've always imagined a ruse used to gain entry as many have discussed and you have also mentioned in a recent post.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course only someone connected somehow to this crime would really know what happened. This person should come forward now. Families of the missing and citizens of Springfield need answers and justice if possible. However connected, this person would be protected by investigators, would receive a large cash reward, and live in peace for doing the right thing.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what I visualize (yes it's narrated--I'm a creative writer):
As Suzie and Stacy pull into the driveway, Sherrill is awakened by bright car lights and loud doors closing. Parting the window shade blinds, she sees who has arrived and welcomes them home. The excited girls persuade the proud mom to all head down the street to the popular 24 hour restaurant. Over early breakfast and coffee at George's, they talk about the graduation night celebrations and the plans for the future they hope to lead. One night might have blended into another and eventually led them to that future, but in the early hours of June 7th, 1992, as fate would have it, a criminal or two would take notice of such attractive ladies and follow them back home.
The three women are secure back in their home now and have started to go to bed. But the perps will not have it. They have rehearsed and practiced before. They know what to do and how to get away with it. The sun is not quite up yet. In the rush before dawn, one of them takes off the porch light globe and unsrcews the light bulb. Suddenly, he slams the glass globe on the porch floor and then hides in the shadows.
Sherrill or one of the other women come to the door to see what is the matter. She flips on the light switch and discovers it must be out along with the shattered fixture. She opens the door to get a close look at the broken glass, "fallen on the porch." Planning to come right back, she leaves the door ajar and turns around to get a broom and dust pan--the ruse is complete. Whatever coercion transpires over the next mere seconds of time, all three women are out of the house and into the van. Just before sun up and as they are stolen from their home, he screws the light bulb back in--like nothing ever happened.
The perpetrator/s followed them home in perhaps the same neighborhood in which they have always lived and lurked. Or possibly they were only passing through one night. Or is it that organized crime was hired to make them disappear? Either way, the result is the same. Three women went missing and are still missing.
Where are they now?
Who wants to talk to us after 20 years?
Tell us your story.
HmmWhoKnows
08-16-2012, 11:32 AM
I honestly think Garrison straight up did it. With the help of MR and/or RW (the other GJ3 members). As long as the prosecution wasn't just offering up usual players then these are probably the likely culprits. Or at least stems out from there.
There might be another person involved but I think Garrison reeks of being involved. Let's go over Garrison FACTS:
-Owned guns, had them on him (weapons charges on record)
-Member of the original Grand Jury Three suspect list
-Rapist
-Broke into homes in a sneaky way
-Always tried to cover his tracks. (made rape victim shower and clean prints)
-Fit the profile picture released by police and the media
-Claimed to know body location
Name any suspect that seems more likely than Garrison. I dare you. And I'm not a big fan of posing theories but my best guess is that Garrison may have been eying Suzie at some party and couldn't get her out of his head. I think the girls were taken somewhere far away from Delmar to be killed. I don't know if Garrison killed them but I can see him setting the crime into motion with raping on his mind.
Missouri Mule
08-16-2012, 12:34 PM
I honestly think Garrison straight up did it. With the help of MR and/or RW (the other GJ3 members). As long as the prosecution wasn't just offering up usual players then these are probably the likely culprits. Or at least stems out from there.
There might be another person involved but I think Garrison reeks of being involved. Let's go over Garrison FACTS:
-Owned guns, had them on him (weapons charges on record)
-Member of the original Grand Jury Three suspect list
-Rapist
-Broke into homes in a sneaky way
-Always tried to cover his tracks. (made rape victim shower and clean prints)
-Fit the profile picture released by police and the media
-Claimed to know body location
Name any suspect that seems more likely than Garrison. I dare you. And I'm not a big fan of posing theories but my best guess is that Garrison may have been eying Suzie at some party and couldn't get her out of his head. I think the girls were taken somewhere far away from Delmar to be killed. I don't know if Garrison killed them but I can see him setting the crime into motion with raping on his mind.
You make a compelling argument. My personal opinion is that there was someone else who actually gained entry, however. If he did this, he had help, in my opinion. I was hopeful that Hurricane would provide a clue but he will neither confirm nor deny any potential "mystery man." I lean yes.
monkeymann
08-20-2012, 04:21 PM
I honestly think Garrison straight up did it. With the help of MR and/or RW (the other GJ3 members). As long as the prosecution wasn't just offering up usual players then these are probably the likely culprits. Or at least stems out from there.
There might be another person involved but I think Garrison reeks of being involved. Let's go over Garrison FACTS:
-Owned guns, had them on him (weapons charges on record)
-Member of the original Grand Jury Three suspect list
-Rapist
-Broke into homes in a sneaky way
-Always tried to cover his tracks. (made rape victim shower and clean prints)
-Fit the profile picture released by police and the media
-Claimed to know body location
Name any suspect that seems more likely than Garrison. I dare you. And I'm not a big fan of posing theories but my best guess is that Garrison may have been eying Suzie at some party and couldn't get her out of his head. I think the girls were taken somewhere far away from Delmar to be killed. I don't know if Garrison killed them but I can see him setting the crime into motion with raping on his mind.
Who is MR?? (M. Ridel?) Also, who is RW?? I hope you're not refering to someone with the same initials who posts on here all the time.....are you?
Hippy Chick
08-20-2012, 04:46 PM
I haven't posted on this case for awhile but been thinking... is it possible that the girls never made it back to the house that night and maybe the crime scene was staged? The reason I say this is the purses stacked side by side dosen't make any sense to me. If I was a guest in the home as Stacy was I would have taken my purse to the bedroom with me. Unless of course they were stacked there after all the guest the next day had gone thru them. Thats another thing that has always bothered me why would these people go thru the womens purses, I can see Mrs. McCall looking in Stacy's purse but these other people rifiling thru purses and erasing messages off the machine I don't get that at all. Especially if they thought the women would be back soon. I would have hated to be going thru the purses and the women walk in and catch me. Its dosen't make sense to me. Were any other girlfriends talked to besides Janelle? If so I wonder what their take was on what happened, and they were probably at the party as well.
Just sone questions I have ha in my mind
Hippy Chick
08-20-2012, 06:26 PM
Yes, this is very confusing to say the least. I believe the "disappeared" video has this account where Mrs. McCall says something to this effect.
What I don't understand AT ALL is why the police didn't go over the matter of the tape in excruciating detail at the very outset (or did they?) and we are left to wonder exactly who they still have on their suspect list. We do know, from an erased TV interview, that Jannelle was extremely irked at having repeated questions to her by numerous detectives when she complained that she wondered if they talked to one another since they kept asking her the same questions.
And another thing which irks me is when people such as ourselves ask these questions is why some others seem so willing to gloss over such things as unimportant or inappropriate to ask. You can probably figure out where I am going with this but this has always been a concern. Stated differently, in the earlier days of this investigation, everyone's stories should have been EXACTLY the same and the timelines also meshed correctly. One can't but help wondering what kind of investigation this really was.
Do u think maybe at first the police didn't take the investigation as serious as they should have? Thinking maybe the girls had went to Branson with some young men and maybe Sheryl has either went with them or maybe at first thought she was out to breakfast or something of that nature? When my daughter was that age it wouldn't have been beyond the realm of possibilites that I would have went with her and her friends to a water park but that goes back to how they would have got there unless some boyfriends were involved. I also agree with SO that Janelle was probably mad at first thinking her two friends had dumped her and went with out her maybe thats why she erased the messages they probably weren't very nice.
Luzer
08-20-2012, 08:09 PM
Do u think maybe at first the police didn't take the investigation as serious as they should have? Thinking maybe the girls had went to Branson with some young men and maybe Sheryl has either went with them or maybe at first thought she was out to breakfast or something of that nature? When my daughter was that age it wouldn't have been beyond the realm of possibilites that I would have went with her and her friends to a water park but that goes back to how they would have got there unless some boyfriends were involved. I also agree with SO that Janelle was probably mad at first thinking her two friends had dumped her and went with out her maybe thats why she erased the messages they probably weren't very nice.
The police left a note on the door of the Delmar home asking Sherrill to call in when she returned home. They did not take the information for a missing person's case until the next day, when Mr. McCall went to the police station. Not very serious, IMO. I know 20 years ago this type of crime would never have been imagined in Springfield. Certainly different these days.
When I had a stalker in the 80s in Springfield, I was never able to get the police to come to my home, even when I would call nightly to let the police know he was sitting outside my home. The wanted me to go outside and get a license plate number. One of my brothers stayed all night with me a few nights and stood outside on the porch holding a baseball bat after the guy drove up. The guy stopped showing up after that. Guess I became a little jaded after that incident.
Hippy Chick
08-20-2012, 08:22 PM
The police left a note on the door of the Delmar home asking Sherrill to call in when she returned home. They did not take the information for a missing person's case until the next day, when Mr. McCall went to the police station. Not very serious, IMO. I know 20 years ago this type of crime would never have been imagined in Springfield. Certainly different these days.
When I had a stalker in the 80s in Springfield, I was never able to get the police to come to my home, even when I would call nightly to let the police know he was sitting outside my home. The wanted me to go outside and get a license plate number. One of my brothers stayed all night with me a few nights and stood outside on the porch holding a baseball bat after the guy drove up. The guy stopped showing up after that. Guess I became a little jaded after that incident.
if that wasen't so sad it would almost be funny. So they wanted a woman being stalked to go outside and get the stalkers liscence # did they want u to hold him there for them until they got there too? I don't have much faith in any LE unless its something to get their name in the paper or on the news they are not very interested. IMO If the perps that did this were in motorcycle gangs or associated with such folks may the local LE there are a little scared to stir this up to much. I can't believe in 20 yrs that they don't have a inkling of who is involved. If it wasen't for the MHP Gerald C would still be running loose and Jackie Johns would not have gotten any justice cause local LE was not going to persue him. These ladies deserve justice as well they were mothers, sisters, daughters, friends and to think its been so long I feel sorry for their families.
Indianagirl
08-20-2012, 08:48 PM
There are lots of good theories and questions being posted here! After studying this case for several years, I have to admit my mind is not set on any one theory. However, I am 99.9% sure this was a crime motivated by sexual assault.
I will say that I'm convinced beyond any doubt that Sherrill was alerted to the girls' arrival. No matter what was going on in that house (whether Sherrill was alone awake or sleeping, entertaining company or being held by an intruder), she knew they were there. I base this opinion on the fact that Sherrill's bedroom was in the front of that small house, allowing her to hear cars and see headlights pulling in the driveway. Also, the fact that she had a dog that would have been almost certainly barking at pretty much any activity in and/or around that house (like others have mentioned on here).
Another point that I can't get over is the fact that these were two young girls out late at night driving. What are the odds they end up missing that same night? By no means am I certain their being out late is related to their disappearance, it's just something I find highly coincidental. Were they spotted by some perp/s and followed home?
Then again if you look at statistics, victims are more likely to know their assailants vs. it being a stranger.
This case is just very mysterious. So many questions and so little evidence to profile...
Hippy Chick
08-20-2012, 11:00 PM
I know when my daughter still lived at home it didn't matter what time she came in I would hear her, and teenage girls are usually not the quietest of creatures especially ones that have had a drink or two. So, yes if Sheryl was home I am sure she heard them and if she was being attatacked she probably did what ever was in her power to protect them. I feel the perp was there when the girls arrived they weren't expected and I think it put a monkey wrench in the plans. Susie more than likely went in to see her mom if Sheryl didn't come out to greet them. She may have well walked in on her mother being attacked. How horrible for all involved and how scared these ladies must of been.
Hippy Chick
08-20-2012, 11:02 PM
Also I wanted to know where was Gerald Carnahan at when these girls disappeared. I believe I read somewhere that he lived not far from there. I wouldn't rule him out he was certaintly capable.
Missouri Mule
08-21-2012, 12:23 AM
Do u think maybe at first the police didn't take the investigation as serious as they should have? Thinking maybe the girls had went to Branson with some young men and maybe Sheryl has either went with them or maybe at first thought she was out to breakfast or something of that nature? When my daughter was that age it wouldn't have been beyond the realm of possibilites that I would have went with her and her friends to a water park but that goes back to how they would have got there unless some boyfriends were involved. I also agree with SO that Janelle was probably mad at first thinking her two friends had dumped her and went with out her maybe thats why she erased the messages they probably weren't very nice.
Based on the accounts of the top police officials who discussed the case it appeared they did take the case very seriously. They believed there was something very wrong almost immediately from what I recall. The police report that night was professionally done and it was reasonable to leave a note on the door to contact the police if they did show up which was always possible.
IMO, the rest of your post is remotely plausible but I believe unlikely. Your take on Jannelle is probably rooted in some factual basis. She did say in the Disappeared program that Stacy had never been to Suzie's house before that night. Also Jannelle would socialize with either or both Suzie and Stacy but that Suzie and Stacy had not socialized with one another before that night if I recall correctly. So it is possible that she was put out about it especially at that age. And it is possible that she was ashamed of unfriendly messages on the answering machine which she erased as she thought better of it.
SmoothOperator
08-21-2012, 02:58 AM
Could he have been urged by others to go to the home to gain entry at which time the perp or perps took control of the situation and abducted the women?
The problem I have with this, although it makes perfect sense as to how to gain entry, is that 1) the police chief personally cleared the grave robbers of involvement which remains controversial in and of itself. 2) I believe it is correct to say that he passed a polygraph. Would he have been skilled enough to evade detection at his age and experience?
As I understand your thoughts it appears there were bigger fish up the food chain who had a vested interest in not having Suzie testify the next weekend. Hurrica[/ne tells us, however, that she had no information to really impart. Now it is possible that the forces behind these abductions believed otherwise and decided to remove all doubt.
What you say about Bartt's views toward her ex boyfriend is rooted in fact. Of course that is an opinion he has expressed and it may be biased for one reason or another.
You are correct that he (the ex-boyfriend) would the be a most likely person to believe he could have talked his way into the house.
And then again, we have Hurricane's hypothesis that this was simply a sexual assault gone badly. So we are left to wonder.
It seems unlikely to me that with three cars in the driveway/carport that anyone would want to get into the house. For that matter, the perp(s) wouldn't necessarily have known that only three women were in the house, if they came later. There might have been a half dozen or more people in there. How would they know? Hurricane seems to suggest the perp(s) were in the house at the time the girls arrived as best I understand his post.
I still believe we need a motive.
Above bbm referencing the problem with my theory involving Recla.. This bbm is not correct as far as Recla being cleared.. As recently as September's 2011 we have one of the lead detectives stating that Recla is NOT cleared, he does NOT have an airtight alibi(he actually states his alibi could never be confirmed) , and he is very much still considered a POI in the case of the women's disappearance..
Now does that mean that my theory is true?.. Of course not, but it does however still leave it as possibility on the table..
(the 41 minute footage is still available on YouTube where the detective states that Recla is not cleared-Sept 2011)
Auramyst
08-21-2012, 11:02 AM
Then again if you look at statistics, victims are more likely to know their assailants vs. it being a stranger.
This case is just very mysterious. So many questions and so little evidence to profile...
I've often wondered if it was a 'stranger' or a 'friend of a friend'. If it was, it could partially account for why this case has not yet been solved. Friends and relatives would have been questioned early on. As the police widened their investigation, they would have included the 'friends of a friend' in their interview process. 'A stranger' would have been much, much harder to investigate.
I agree with you 100%. This case is very, very mysterious.
HmmWhoKnows
08-21-2012, 11:18 AM
Who is MR?? (M. Ridel?) Also, who is RW?? I hope you're not refering to someone with the same initials who posts on here all the time.....are you?
No.. MR and RW3 are the other GJ3 members. Can't say their names publicly.
Monkey I've emailed you the names before.
SmoothOperator
08-21-2012, 07:17 PM
Theorized loose time line of the events surrounding 3MW
Near 2am 6/7/92-
Suzie,Stacy,Janelle,Mike,Shane leave last party and head to Janelle's
Near 2:15am-
Supposedly due to overcrowding a sudden change of plans for Suzie and Stacy have them leave Janelles home to go to Suzie's home.
Around 2:45am-
Both Suzie and Stacy arrive home to Sherrill whose been home all evening. They prep for bed and Sherrill crawls into bed with her book.
Around 3-3:30am-
There is a tap on Suzie's window that causes her to go to the Window and part the blinds to look out. She sees its Recla and he explains he needs to speak with her for a moment.
Suzie goes to the front door opening it with the intent on speaking with Recla. She is immediately grabbed and commotion ensues..mom, Sherrill hearing the ruckus she lays down her book and rushes toward the front of the home to see what is happening(quite possibly Stacy also heads to the front upon hearing the ruckus.. Thus the reason her front print is found heading towards the front door.. I'm not opposed to the possibility that Stacy attempted to flee out the back as some have theorized and was met around the side of the home and grabbed from there.. Either way is plausible Imo.).. I do believe that the ambush on the 3women was quick and I also find it possible the perps never actually entered into the home(notice I say possible and not for certain).. In this ambushed abduction the globe to the front porch light is broken.
I believe the three were quickly loaded into the van and were gone within mere mins of Recla having made initial contact with Suzie at her Window.
Immediately after the abduction from the Delmar home~
I believe the three were handed off to different individuals.
Very soon thereafter I believe that Sherrill Levitt was killed. I find it possible that arrangements were made for her body to be concealed under the early morning concrete pour at PFI(again notice I say possible and not a certain fact)
Likely within those first 24hours-
I believe it's possible the two girls were then taken out to the Sweets property where they would for the most part remain the duration of what was left in their last few days of life.
Sometime around 6/10/92-
I believe it's possible that at this point when Carnahan had returned from being out of town that he became directly involved with the sexual assaults on both of the girls.. Sadly Imo its likely the girls life in those last few days were more horrific than words can describe with the brutal sexual assaults by multiple men on multiple occasions.
Within a week of the abductions-
I believe that the girls were murdered after having been brutalized by many for days. I believe they were possibly initially placed in barrels and put in the lake on/near the Sweets property(that soon thereafter became little Ricky's)..
At some point their remains were removed and placed elsewhere(possible in more than one locale sadly)
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Again I'll reiterate that this is just a very loosely theorized time line of the events.. As I've detailed before one of the main questions is what is the motive and *if* these men were the murderers what was their connection to the three victims..
I fully admit that very well could be information that is unknown to the majority of us that could explain clearly the motive and connection of murderers to victims.. Only working with what very little that we know I do find the Recla/grave robbing to be *possibly*(again please note possibly not stating as certain fact:crazy:) what is the tie that connects the victims to their murderers(*refer to my previous posts for more detailed theory of the connection involving Recla... I'll not bore everyone with a repeat of those details)
I will reiterate that with the people that are people theorized as possibly responsible for the women's deaths(Dykes, Sweet, Carnahan, Robb, etc) they have Imo murdered for a helluva a lot less motive than what possibly was the motivation with these murders. I believe that Suzie's having to be taken in and given a statement of Recla&Co grave robbing is the trigger which set in motion the events that eventually led to the 3MW's deaths. I personally believe Suzie likely had nothing of grave importance info wise that would have led to these men's(Dykes,Sweet,etc) deep criminal activities being brought to LE. I absolutely believe that Recla&Co have definite ties to the men that murdered the women and that these men found it not only an easy mission to carry out "disappearing" a possible problem, Suzie.. But these men actually found it enjoyable.. We are talking the epitome of evil here with these individuals and men that are not at all mentally stable.. I believe with the unstable atmosphere surrounding this particular criminal element only further led to their paranoia and wanting to leave no loose ends or even questionable, possible loose ends(ie. Suzie) which thereby led to Sherrill and Stacy as well..
I believe it possible that Recla WAS NOT AT ALL involved,nor even had prior knowledge of what these men's ultimate intentions were.. I find it plausible that he was basically used as a pawn by them to gain entry and access to Suzie(his tapping on her window after 3am 6/7)..As I said Imo in this theory I believe all 3women were immediately handed off after the initial abduction from the Delmar home(at which time likely ended Dustin's involvement.. Nevertheless his involvement in the abduction is what directly led to the three murders thereby making him legally culpable as well.. Major reason along with saving his hide for him to have kept mum).. Tho to this day two decades later, Recla is still NOT CLEARED AND IS IN FACT STATED AS REMAINING A POI IN THE 3MW CASE...
*extremely bare boned time line working with this particular theory involving Recla.. I will say firmly that tho, I do still believe their are ties between Recla and these men that I do take into account other possibilities such as what Hurricane has suggested in it being a more opportunity, sexually motivated crime..
In going with that as the basis of a theory I would begin with the entry into the Delmar home quite possibly occurring prior to Suzie/Stacy arriving home at/around 2:45am..
Sometime prior to 2:45am-
I believe entry was possibly made thru an open Window of the home(possibly even Sherrill's Window due to the fact the detective specified it was actually in Sherrill's room that she was stripping/varnishing a piece of furniture)..
At/around 2:45am-
Stacy/Suzie arrive at the Delmar home with no knowledge that Sherrill is under the control of a perp in her bedroom
The girls prep for bed as usual and at/around approx. 3:30am I find it possible that after the girls had prepped for bed and Stacy likely in bed that Suzie goes to moms room to tell her they're home and going to bed, possibly telling mom of revised early morning Branson plans.. Suzie enters Sherrill's room at which time she then becomes fully aware of the situation. And commotion ensues with Stacy possibly attempting to flee the home at which time she is met with an accomplice who quickly shuttles her into a vehicle.. (also when the globe is broken possibly causing Stacy's dna to be found outside of the home..)
With mother already restrained from earlier the perp in Sherrill's room easily takes control of small statured, Suzie and then both mother and daughter are easily and quickly shuttled outside into vehicle.
From this point on my theory basically refers back to my original above theory where Sherrill is killed early on and the girls taken to property and brutally assaulted and murdered..
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Anywhoo my apologies for another lengthy post just some thoughts and theories of mine regarding possibilities of what happened to the 3MW..
As always jmo, tho!
Auramyst
08-21-2012, 09:15 PM
Theorized loose time line of the events surrounding 3MW
Near 2am 6/7/92-
Suzie,Stacy,Janelle,Mike,Shane leave last party and head to Janelle's
Near 2:15am-
Supposedly due to overcrowding a sudden change of plans for Suzie and Stacy have them leave Janelles home to go to Suzie's home.
Around 2:45am-
Both Suzie and Stacy arrive home to Sherrill whose been home all evening. They prep for bed and Sherrill crawls into bed with her book.
Around 3-3:30am-
There is a tap on Suzie's window that causes her to go to the Window and part the blinds to look out. She sees its Recla and he explains he needs to speak with her for a moment.
Suzie goes to the front door opening it with the intent on speaking with Recla. She is immediately grabbed and commotion ensues..mom, Sherrill hearing the ruckus she lays down her book and rushes toward the front of the home to see what is happening(quite possibly Stacy also heads to the front upon hearing the ruckus.. Thus the reason her front print is found heading towards the front door.. I'm not opposed to the possibility that Stacy attempted to flee out the back as some have theorized and was met around the side of the home and grabbed from there.. Either way is plausible Imo.).. I do believe that the ambush on the 3women was quick and I also find it possible the perps never actually entered into the home(notice I say possible and not for certain).. In this ambushed abduction the globe to the front porch light is broken.
I believe the three were quickly loaded into the van and were gone within mere mins of Recla having made initial contact with Suzie at her Window.
Immediately after the abduction from the Delmar home~
I believe the three were handed off to different individuals.
Very soon thereafter I believe that Sherrill Levitt was killed. I find it possible that arrangements were made for her body to be concealed under the early morning concrete pour at PFI(again notice I say possible and not a certain fact)
Likely within those first 24hours-
I believe it's possible the two girls were then taken out to the Sweets property where they would for the most part remain the duration of what was left in their last few days of life.
Sometime around 6/10/92-
I believe it's possible that at this point when Carnahan had returned from being out of town that he became directly involved with the sexual assaults on both of the girls.. Sadly Imo its likely the girls life in those last few days were more horrific than words can describe with the brutal sexual assaults by multiple men on multiple occasions.
Within a week of the abductions-
I believe that the girls were murdered after having been brutalized by many for days. I believe they were possibly initially placed in barrels and put in the lake on/near the Sweets property(that soon thereafter became little Ricky's)..
At some point their remains were removed and placed elsewhere(possible in more than one locale sadly)
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_- _-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Again I'll reiterate that this is just a very loosely theorized time line of the events.. As I've detailed before one of the main questions is what is the motive and *if* these men were the murderers what was their connection to the three victims..
I fully admit that very well could be information that is unknown to the majority of us that could explain clearly the motive and connection of murderers to victims.. Only working with what very little that we know I do find the Recla/grave robbing to be *possibly*(again please note possibly not stating as certain fact:crazy:) what is the tie that connects the victims to their murderers(*refer to my previous posts for more detailed theory of the connection involving Recla... I'll not bore everyone with a repeat of those details)
I will reiterate that with the people that are people theorized as possibly responsible for the women's deaths(Dykes, Sweet, Carnahan, Robb, etc) they have Imo murdered for a helluva a lot less motive than what possibly was the motivation with these murders. I believe that Suzie's having to be taken in and given a statement of Recla&Co grave robbing is the trigger which set in motion the events that eventually led to the 3MW's deaths. I personally believe Suzie likely had nothing of grave importance info wise that would have led to these men's(Dykes,Sweet,etc) deep criminal activities being brought to LE. I absolutely believe that Recla&Co have definite ties to the men that murdered the women and that these men found it not only an easy mission to carry out "disappearing" a possible problem, Suzie.. But these men actually found it enjoyable.. We are talking the epitome of evil here with these individuals and men that are not at all mentally stable.. I believe with the unstable atmosphere surrounding this particular criminal element only further led to their paranoia and wanting to leave no loose ends or even questionable, possible loose ends(ie. Suzie) which thereby led to Sherrill and Stacy as well..
I believe it possible that Recla WAS NOT AT ALL involved,nor even had prior knowledge of what these men's ultimate intentions were.. I find it plausible that he was basically used as a pawn by them to gain entry and access to Suzie(his tapping on her window after 3am 6/7)..As I said Imo in this theory I believe all 3women were immediately handed off after the initial abduction from the Delmar home(at which time likely ended Dustin's involvement.. Nevertheless his involvement in the abduction is what directly led to the three murders thereby making him legally culpable as well.. Major reason along with saving his hide for him to have kept mum).. Tho to this day two decades later, Recla is still NOT CLEARED AND IS IN FACT STATED AS REMAINING A POI IN THE 3MW CASE...
*extremely bare boned time line working with this particular theory involving Recla.. I will say firmly that tho, I do still believe their are ties between Recla and these men that I do take into account other possibilities such as what Hurricane has suggested in it being a more opportunity, sexually motivated crime..
In going with that as the basis of a theory I would begin with the entry into the Delmar home quite possibly occurring prior to Suzie/Stacy arriving home at/around 2:45am..
Sometime prior to 2:45am-
I believe entry was possibly made thru an open Window of the home(possibly even Sherrill's Window due to the fact the detective specified it was actually in Sherrill's room that she was stripping/varnishing a piece of furniture)..
At/around 2:45am-
Stacy/Suzie arrive at the Delmar home with no knowledge that Sherrill is under the control of a perp in her bedroom
The girls prep for bed as usual and at/around approx. 3:30am I find it possible that after the girls had prepped for bed and Stacy likely in bed that Suzie goes to moms room to tell her they're home and going to bed, possibly telling mom of revised early morning Branson plans.. Suzie enters Sherrill's room at which time she then becomes fully aware of the situation. And commotion ensues with Stacy possibly attempting to flee the home at which time she is met with an accomplice who quickly shuttles her into a vehicle.. (also when the globe is broken possibly causing Stacy's dna to be found outside of the home..)
With mother already restrained from earlier the perp in Sherrill's room easily takes control of small statured, Suzie and then both mother and daughter are easily and quickly shuttled outside into vehicle.
From this point on my theory basically refers back to my original above theory where Sherrill is killed early on and the girls taken to property and brutally assaulted and murdered..
-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-_-
Anywhoo my apologies for another lengthy post just some thoughts and theories of mine regarding possibilities of what happened to the 3MW..
As always jmo, tho!
I agree that the scenario of someone Suzie (or any of the women) knew luring them outside would be a very good way to get them out of the house. It would also leave no evidence of the perp(s) in the house.
I do have a question, though. The purses all being bunched together in Suzie's room has always bothered me and never seems to work within my theories.
So, in your opinion, how do you think the purses all ended up together in Suzie's room? Do you think this happened after Suzie was lured out? Or before the perp(s) showed up?
monkeymann
08-22-2012, 08:20 AM
I agree that the scenario of someone Suzie (or any of the women) knew luring them outside would be a very good way to get them out of the house. It would also leave no evidence of the perp(s) in the house.
I do have a question, though. The purses all being bunched together in Suzie's room has always bothered me and never seems to work within my theories.
So, in your opinion, how do you think the purses all ended up together in Suzie's room? Do you think this happened after Suzie was lured out? Or before the perp(s) showed up?
Heres what I'm curious about. Is the photo of the purses piled up, that is posted on the Proforms/Airalex site a picture of how the purses were found by Law Enforcement? The picture shows all the womans purses piled next to each other, but also shows their wallets out of the purses, as well as a cigerette holder with cigerettes falling out of it.
If this is the way that LE found the purses, and the wallets and cigerette case with cigerettes falling out of it was the way it was found by the people who were at the house prior to LE arriving at the house......then this would indicate that someone else other than the 3MW put the purses there.
Missouri Mule
08-22-2012, 11:45 AM
I agree that the scenario of someone Suzie (or any of the women) knew luring them outside would be a very good way to get them out of the house. It would also leave no evidence of the perp(s) in the house.
I do have a question, though. The purses all being bunched together in Suzie's room has always bothered me and never seems to work within my theories.
So, in your opinion, how do you think the purses all ended up together in Suzie's room? Do you think this happened after Suzie was lured out? Or before the perp(s) showed up?
I wasn't asked this personally but I think they were moved by visitors to the home. I recall somewhere reading that Mrs. McCall said something; perhaps on television that she found stuff "rolling" out of the purses. I can speculate that visitors were rifling through their purses trying to get some clue where they might have gone to.
I once had (actually several times) a LE officer tell me that this case would never be solved because the crime scene was so badly contaminated. He wasn't directly involved but had a pipeline into the investigation. He and I argued and argued about this because it baffled me how if so much time and effort went into the crime it couldn't be solved but it appears on hindsight that he was correct and I wasn't. Until and unless all the visitors to that home come clean with what they did or didn't do we don't know the facts, starting with the phony-baloney about the erased taped messages. We have differing accounts of who erased what and what was there and no definitive indication of what was actually on the tape. So the crime scene was contaminated; perhaps irrevocably so that is is truly "unsolvable."
SmoothOperator
08-23-2012, 09:31 PM
Yes regarding the obscene calls/msg.. Where did we get the info about a msg being from actually Saturday?.. Because now there no mention of that and only mention of the obscene msg that came in while Janelle and Mike were there.. Imo its this msg that Janis McCall refers to hearing.. So where did info of a Saturday msg originate?
HmmWhoKnows
08-24-2012, 03:44 PM
The obscene calls didn't have anything to with the perps.
Honestly, the perps are KNOWN by police. I think we're just all bored with our thumb up our ass.
These clowns in the GJ3 were offered up because of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence isn't enough to lock this guy up. I've heard that he is already locked up and that the buddy of his is on the loose. But if you want to know the perp, then start at the GJ3. Find THEIR associates and find their crowd and people they know if you want to do your own investigating.
"Charles Tuna" appeared to have known Garrison. Find people like that. Speculating on the phone calls and stuff is just tired rehashing of what we've all done for years.
SmoothOperator
08-24-2012, 06:18 PM
Thanks HmmWhoKnows.. Thanks for the info that we're all aware of.. Quite obviously we cannot discuss topix, posters and their info here.. Again we are all aware of the information but it cannot be discussed here.
Auramyst
08-25-2012, 12:45 AM
The obscene calls didn't have anything to with the perps.
Honestly, the perps are KNOWN by police. I think we're just all bored with our thumb up our ass.
These clowns in the GJ3 were offered up because of circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence isn't enough to lock this guy up. I've heard that he is already locked up and that the buddy of his is on the loose. But if you want to know the perp, then start at the GJ3. Find THEIR associates and find their crowd and people they know if you want to do your own investigating.
"Charles Tuna" appeared to have known Garrison. Find people like that. Speculating on the phone calls and stuff is just tired rehashing of what we've all done for years.
Well, don't include all of us with whatever you're doing with *your thumb*
If you don't want to 'speculate and rehash' then you're perfectly welcome to not do so.
Meanwhile, there are several people who would like to 'discuss' this case on this 'discussion forum'.
Auramyst
08-25-2012, 12:50 AM
Yes regarding the obscene calls/msg.. Where did we get the info about a msg being from actually Saturday?.. Because now there no mention of that and only mention of the obscene msg that came in while Janelle and Mike were there.. Imo its this msg that Janis McCall refers to hearing.. So where did info of a Saturday msg originate?
I've heard this discussed a few ways. The way I understood it happened was that there was an obscene message on the machine when the messages were listened to by the people in the house looking for the three missing women.
And then, after the messages were listened to, and sometime during the afternoon, there were two more obscene phone calls made to the house.
This account could be wrong- maybe someone has the original news articles on these events.
But, to simplify- I believe there were both obscene phone messages AND obscene phone calls.
Hurricane
08-25-2012, 03:35 AM
Well, don't include all of us with whatever you're doing with *your thumb*
If you don't want to 'speculate and rehash' then you're perfectly welcome to not do so.
Meanwhile, there are several people who would like to 'discuss' this case on this 'discussion forum'.
In my opinion there are problems with speculation and rehash that is not based in the facts of the case. To post something just to see what response it will elicit is just wrong. This case as discussed here on Websleuths has always been held tightly to the facts and that is why so many want to read and post here. In my opinion there are many other forums on the internet in which to speculate without evidence to back up the speculation.
I know I'll get in trouble for my comment but it needed to be said.
Auramyst
08-25-2012, 11:52 AM
In my opinion there are problems with speculation and rehash that is not based in the facts of the case. To post something just to see what response it will elicit is just wrong. This case as discussed here on Websleuths has always been held tightly to the facts and that is why so many want to read and post here. In my opinion there are many other forums on the internet in which to speculate without evidence to back up the speculation.
I know I'll get in trouble for my comment but it needed to be said.
I agree that Websleuths is an excellent forum. I, too, appreciate the discussions here are 'fact based.'
I disagree with folks who come onto this forum to dictate what facts should and shouldn't be discussed.
Any answers to the question of 'who did it' is speculation. Some may have come to a conclusion- based on their own investigation- of 'who did it'. I appreciate their 'opinion' and 'conclusions' but do not appreciate them shutting down a 'discussion'.
Most of the posters on this forum are either asking for clarification, asking others for their opinions based on their views of the facts, or coming to their own 'conclusions' based on their interpretations of that facts.
Many are new to this case, they are in the early process of their investigations and are going to discuss the purses, the phone messages, and whatever they deem relevant to their investigative process.
Nowhere in this process am I endorsing 'speculation and rehash that is not based in fact'. Most who post here are trying very hard to base their posts on facts. They may not know all the facts that you claim to know, but as I said, they are learning.
For those who are years into this investigation, and get impatient with what you deem are petty questions- well, I apologize that we are all not as advanced in this process as you are.
This is a 'discussion forum'. The poster in the above discussion has a right to ask a question. If someone knows the answer, then by all means answer the question. If the question is 'beneath their level of expertise', then it would be much more appropriate to remain silent. Inflammatory and demeaning posts are disruptive and quite cruel. Hurricane, you are right to point out the TOS. They do apply to everyone.
Hurricane
08-25-2012, 01:45 PM
I agree that Websleuths is an excellent forum. I, too, appreciate the discussions here are 'fact based.'
I disagree with folks who come onto this forum to dictate what facts should and shouldn't be discussed.
Any answers to the question of 'who did it' is speculation. Some may have come to a conclusion- based on their own investigation- of 'who did it'. I appreciate their 'opinion' and 'conclusions' but do not appreciate them shutting down a 'discussion'.
Most of the posters on this forum are either asking for clarification, asking others for their opinions based on their views of the facts, or coming to their own 'conclusions' based on their interpretations of that facts.
Many are new to this case, they are in the early process of their investigations and are going to discuss the purses, the phone messages, and whatever they deem relevant to their investigative process.
Nowhere in this process am I endorsing 'speculation and rehash that is not based in fact'. Most who post here are trying very hard to base their posts on facts. They may not know all the facts that you claim to know, but as I said, they are learning.
For those who are years into this investigation, and get impatient with what you deem are petty questions- well, I apologize that we are all not as advanced in this process as you are.
This is a 'discussion forum'. The poster in the above discussion has a right to ask a question. If someone knows the answer, then by all means answer the question. If the question is 'beneath their level of expertise', then it would be much more appropriate to remain silent. Inflammatory and demeaning posts are disruptive and quite cruel. Hurricane, you are right to point out the TOS. They do apply to everyone.
Not sure if you are accusing me of dictating what facts may be discussed or not, or of killing discussions or not. My whole point is simply support theories with documented facts that others may verify from the source should they choose to. If a poster is unwilling or unable to do so then don't use the fact. Thread #3 was locked down because of all the baloney that was being thrown about in violation of TOS with the idea of editing out the violations and reopening the thread. When it became apparent it was not possible to edit out all the violations that had been allowed to go on for so long the thread was lost forever. I personally don't want to see that happen again.
Look at Proboards for another example. That was set up after AirAlex deteriorated to the point of being mostly boasts and baloney by users with multiple screen names. Proboards was going to be factually based and your participation was not welcome if you weren't willing to share all your factual information. You can see how long that lasted. It went down hill pretty quick. The only thing it possibly eliminated was the use of multiple screen names.
In any event this case will not be solved by sitting behind a computer screen in a group think tank.
Missouri Mule
08-25-2012, 02:12 PM
Pardon me for butting in here but isn't it true that in the absence of a solution to a criminal case such as this that the police would brainstorm ideas of what might explain what happened? So I am not really getting the admonition that is is wrong to speculate. The police won't tell us because they use the boilerplate "this is an open case" and that's the extent of what we know. So what are we to do? And what, really, is the purpose of this forum? If we are to stick to the "facts", then why don't we list these provable "facts" and work from there?
I'll start.
Three women were taken between the hours of 11:15 PM and 7 AM the next morning. That allows enough time to get all three women either individually or together.
What else do we know? What do we REALLY know?
Yes, some of us know who the GJ3 are but does that advance the case? Are they even involved? We don't even know that for a certain fact. Was Cox involved? Every time I have brought up his name I have been shouted down. But is it a fact that he wasn't involved? One "fact" we do know is that he concocted a phony alibi. So I guess we have two "facts" in total.
Now I will "speculate." I believe that some here know who took these women. Some have studied the case extensively and have reliable sources. Again this is "speculation."
So we have two provable facts and one "speculation" on my part.
Help me out here.
Hurricane
08-25-2012, 03:22 PM
Pardon me for butting in here but isn't it true that in the absence of a solution to a criminal case such as this that the police would brainstorm ideas of what might explain what happened? So I am not really getting the admonition that is is wrong to speculate. The police won't tell us because they use the boilerplate "this is an open case" and that's the extent of what we know. So what are we to do? And what, really, is the purpose of this forum? If we are to stick to the "facts", then why don't we list these provable "facts" and work from there?
I'll start.
Three women were taken between the hours of 11:15 PM and 7 AM the next morning. That allows enough time to get all three women either individually or together.
What else do we know? What do we REALLY know?
Yes, some of us know who the GJ3 are but does that advance the case? Are they even involved? We don't even know that for a certain fact. Was Cox involved? Every time I have brought up his name I have been shouted down. But is it a fact that he wasn't involved? One "fact" we do know is that he concocted a phony alibi. So I guess we have two "facts" in total.
Now I will "speculate." I believe that some here know who took these women. Some have studied the case extensively and have reliable sources. Again this is "speculation."
So we have two provable facts and one "speculation" on my part.
Help me out here.
Richard, I can't help you out and you know why.
Auramyst
08-25-2012, 05:23 PM
Not sure if you are accusing me of dictating what facts may be discussed or not, or of killing discussions or not. My whole point is simply support theories with documented facts that others may verify from the source should they choose to. If a poster is unwilling or unable to do so then don't use the fact. Thread #3 was locked down because of all the baloney that was being thrown about in violation of TOS with the idea of editing out the violations and reopening the thread. When it became apparent it was not possible to edit out all the violations that had been allowed to go on for so long the thread was lost forever. I personally don't want to see that happen again.
Look at Proboards for another example. That was set up after AirAlex deteriorated to the point of being mostly boasts and baloney by users with multiple screen names. Proboards was going to be factually based and your participation was not welcome if you weren't willing to share all your factual information. You can see how long that lasted. It went down hill pretty quick. The only thing it possibly eliminated was the use of multiple screen names.
In any event this case will not be solved by sitting behind a computer screen in a group think tank.
Hurricane- No, I am not accusing you of anything. You and I are essentially saying the same thing.
I was unable to view thread 3 on this forum or AirAlex before they were shut down, but I believe you when you say those are the reasons it was shut down. I, and others, are suffering the consequences of not being able to view the valuable information that those venues offered before they disintegrated.
I want to see this case solved. No, we probably won't do it sitting behind a computer screen in a group think tank. I do not live anywhere near Springfield. I was not able to view 1992 N-L news articles while they were available on-line. Info I have has come from previous threads on WS, and the scant details currently available on-line. I have no delusions that my posts do anything except (hopefully) further the discussion.
However, I am interested in helping solve missing persons cases. I keep photos of the missing nearby, I look for their faces in crowds, I try to come up with new ideas to support old evidence, and I try to keep open minded about theories that are not the same as mine. The point of my earlier post was that no one should shut down this discussion purely because 'they are tired of rehashing about the same things'. These subjects (purses, phone calls) may be 'old' material to some, but it is 'new' material to others.
I apologize if you thought that was directed at you.
Either way, upon reviewing TOS, I see that I should have reported the 'inappropriate post' instead of responding (the inappropriate post I am referring to is not yours, Hurricane). So, that's what I will do next time. I will report it instead of responding to it.
monkeymann
08-26-2012, 03:45 AM
Richard, I can't help you out and you know why.
Richard, I don't mean to split hairs here, but the actual time line would be more like 11:15pm (Time Sherrill was last heard from) and 12:30pm Sunday, (The time that Janelle & Mike actually "Went" to the house.)
Janelle said on the original police report that she started calling the house at around 7:00am Sunday morning.
However, later, during the Disappeared Video, she changed the time that she said she started calling to 9:30am Sunday morning, instead of 7:00am, as stated in the original police report.
And, looking at this realistically, the time should be extended to 12:30pm Sunday because that is the time Janelle & Mike actually went to the house. Just because Janelle started calling in the morning, doesn't necessarily mean that the girls were gone by that time.
(Personally I think they were gone before the sun came up Sunday morning, but no one actually physically "SAW" that they were not at the house until 12:30pm when Janelle & Mike went to the house.)
Missouri Mule
08-26-2012, 03:08 PM
Richard, I don't mean to split hairs here, but the actual time line would be more like 11:15pm (Time Sherrill was last heard from) and 12:30pm Sunday, (The time that Janelle & Mike actually "Went" to the house.)
Janelle said on the original police report that she started calling the house at around 7:00am Sunday morning.
However, later, during the Disappeared Video, she changed the time that she said she started calling to 9:30am Sunday morning, instead of 7:00am, as stated in the original police report.
And, looking at this realistically, the time should be extended to 12:30pm Sunday because that is the time Janelle & Mike actually went to the house. Just because Janelle started calling in the morning, doesn't necessarily mean that the girls were gone by that time.
(Personally I think they were gone before the sun came up Sunday morning, but no one actually physically "SAW" that they were not at the house until 12:30pm when Janelle & Mike went to the house.)
You are correct. No one can prove physically that the women were not in the house during the hours of 7 AM to 12:30 PM. But because we know that sunrise was at 5:53 AM and "civil twilight" was even earlier at 5:22 AM when objects are visible to the naked eye, (even though the sun has not actually 'risen') the chances of anything going on there were slight to none. People start moving around, joggers get out, cars drive along the street, etc. That's why I used the 7 AM as a "cut-off" time when the women had to have been gone.
SmoothOperator
08-26-2012, 06:01 PM
In my previous post madam, I was not responding to your's since I specifically did not quote it as I am doing now. The anon posters I refer to are those all over these various forums which discuss this case who make the claim to have personally seen Suzie at various locations where drugs were used or distributed with Dustin Recla, etc. When LE pays little attention to their tip because the timeline does not fit they accuse LE of being dirty or not working the case and blowing them off.
By all means madam, please carry on with your opinions. I won't bother you again.
My apologies, Hurricane. As I just read my post and your reply under it and see I was rather b(i)tchy to say the least.. Again my apologies.. I can only say that I do become defensive due to the fact that it does seem,at times that there is a definite line that's been drawn in the sand where this case is concerned.. And by far it's not just here at WS.. It's across the board that the line appears to be drawn in the sand.. And I personally find it very frustrating, and at times angering because imo the three beautiful women seem to get lost in the bs and it becomes more of a battle of wills, a battle of who knows more, a battle of who has more access to the info.. And honestly that's just frustrating(and I'm not directing this at you Hurricane.. I'm saying this is across the board regarding this case)..
I've read about this case for years.. Several times digging into what I could find about the case, but always had refrained from posting about the case for the very reasons I expressed above.. Nonetheless here I am and all I can do is trudge forward, attempting to put pieces together about what happened to these three beautiful women..
My apologies for popping off at the mouth, hurricane.
Hurricane
08-26-2012, 08:47 PM
My apologies, Hurricane. As I just read my post and your reply under it and see I was rather b(i)tchy to say the least.. Again my apologies.. I can only say that I do become defensive due to the fact that it does seem,at times that there is a definite line that's been drawn in the sand where this case is concerned.. And by far it's not just here at WS.. It's across the board that the line appears to be drawn in the sand.. And I personally find it very frustrating, and at times angering because imo the three beautiful women seem to get lost in the bs and it becomes more of a battle of wills, a battle of who knows more, a battle of who has more access to the info.. And honestly that's just frustrating(and I'm not directing this at you Hurricane.. I'm saying this is across the board regarding this case)..
I've read about this case for years.. Several times digging into what I could find about the case, but always had refrained from posting about the case for the very reasons I expressed above.. Nonetheless here I am and all I can do is trudge forward, attempting to put pieces together about what happened to these three beautiful women..
My apologies for popping off at the mouth, hurricane.
You know Smooth, there are a couple of other cases here on Websleuths that I follow almost daily (at least one) and there are 5 or 6 researchers on that case that are top notch and really have the facts down and do good work (I hate the word investigators for what it is we do). I won't name it but as far as I'm concerned it is the premier case here on Websleuths. But you know what? Even though I have an extreme interest in that case I think I have only posted there once or twice to ask a question on where to find a certain quote. I don't post there because I don't thoroughly know the facts; the case is centered hundreds of miles away from where I live; and I don't have the time to devote to another case. But that doesn't stop me from following and appreciating their hard work. And I certainly don't expect those on that case to break from their research to spoon feed me either! And they get their share of wannabes and newbies posting too. And I understand that need to want to post because it's an important case and everybody has opinions. But most of the time the wannabes can't be bothered to even read the threads let alone learn any of the real facts of the case.
The 3MW case is not going to be solved or closed by the internet. Everyone is free to invest whatever amount of time, money, and energy they wish into whatever they do. There are all kinds of records available to the public if you just follow the evidence. But these records are not on the internet. I've traveled in 4 states after such records. I wish I had the time because I could go on a 5 or 6 day road trip working this case right now. I have no idea how much money I have spent; I haven't even tried to keep track and that's not important to me. And as Kathee has said, everyone is free to seek out witnesses, friends and families of the victims to see if they will grant you an interview on or off the record. See how hard first hand that is to do and what agreements are made to obtain their cooperation. They will all be willing to do the right thing on the record when the time comes but if any of us doing this kind of work would mention specific things we have learned on a public forum, all cooperation would stop. Your word to witnesses and researchers is everything and once broken can't be mended.
And please don't take this as being directed toward you or anyone specifically, but whenever I see a poster with 4,000 or 5,000 posts accumulated in just 2 or 3 years, that tells me they don't spend much time working on anything.
I hope this explains maybe a little bit about how that line in the sand got there.
SmoothOperator
08-26-2012, 09:03 PM
You know Smooth, there are a couple of other cases here on Websleuths that I follow almost daily (at least one) and there are 5 or 6 researchers on that case that are top notch and really have the facts down and do good work (I hate the word investigators for what it is we do). I won't name it but as far as I'm concerned it is the premier case here on Websleuths. But you know what? Even though I have an extreme interest in that case I think I have only posted there once or twice to ask a question on where to find a certain quote. I don't post there because I don't thoroughly know the facts; the case is centered hundreds of miles away from where I live; and I don't have the time to devote to another case. But that doesn't stop me from following and appreciating their hard work. And I certainly don't expect those on that case to break from their research to spoon feed me either! And they get their share of wannabes and newbies posting too. And I understand that need to want to post because it's an important case and everybody has opinions. But most of the time the wannabes can't be bothered to even read the threads let alone learn any of the real facts of the case.
The 3MW case is not going to be solved or closed by the internet. Everyone is free to invest whatever amount of time, money, and energy they wish into whatever they do. There are all kinds of records available to the public if you just follow the evidence. But these records are not on the internet. I've traveled in 4 states after such records. I wish I had the time because I could go on a 5 or 6 day road trip working this case right now. I have no idea how much money I have spent; I haven't even tried to keep track and that's not important to me. And as Kathee has said, everyone is free to seek out witnesses, friends and families of the victims to see if they will grant you an interview on or off the record. See how hard first hand that is to do and what agreements are made to obtain their cooperation. They will all be willing to do the right thing on the record when the time comes but if any of us doing this kind of work would mention specific things we have learned on a public forum, all cooperation would stop. Your word to witnesses and researchers is everything and once broken can't be mended.
And please don't take this as being directed toward you or anyone specifically, but whenever I see a poster with 4,000 or 5,000 posts accumulated in just 2 or 3 years, that tells me they don't spend much time working on anything.
I hope this explains maybe a little bit about how that line in the sand got there.
I understand. I thank you for your reply.
monkeymann
08-28-2012, 02:23 PM
That doesn't mean that we cant still talk about the case. It certainly doesn't hurt anything. And I can't believe that no action, or not talking about the case can be detramental to the case at this point. I think figuring out what happened to the 3MW and where they are, to provide a little comforting closure to this case, is as equal of a priority as figuring out who actually comitted the crime.
Unless of course, remains were found on the Webster Co. Farm, and/or police have already determined what happened to the 3MW and what happened to their bodies, and have informed the families already....thus providing "Some" closure to them, but also made them agree not to talk about the case, incase they eventually "Did" have some evidence that would enable them to bring charges against someone.
Sounds very likely......???
Anyone else want to comment on this..........
Missouri Mule
08-28-2012, 06:44 PM
That doesn't mean that we cant still talk about the case. It certainly doesn't hurt anything. And I can't believe that no action, or not talking about the case can be detramental to the case at this point. I think figuring out what happened to the 3MW and where they are, to provide a little comforting closure to this case, is as equal of a priority as figuring out who actually comitted the crime.
Unless of course, remains were found on the Webster Co. Farm, and/or police have already determined what happened to the 3MW and what happened to their bodies, and have informed the families already....thus providing "Some" closure to them, but also made them agree not to talk about the case, incase they eventually "Did" have some evidence that would enable them to bring charges against someone.
Sounds very likely......???
Anyone else want to comment on this..........
If they had any physical evidence of the deceased the police would have to move this to the official homicide category. We still have some who will posit the view that the women are in witsec. That is nigh impossible. I believe it would have leaked out by now.
It wouldn't make it a homicide if only DNA or blood identified as belonging to one or more of the women. They would need proof that the women were actually dead. What they need are human bones that could be identified as being the deceased.
Auramyst
08-28-2012, 08:03 PM
That doesn't mean that we cant still talk about the case. It certainly doesn't hurt anything. And I can't believe that no action, or not talking about the case can be detramental to the case at this point. I think figuring out what happened to the 3MW and where they are, to provide a little comforting closure to this case, is as equal of a priority as figuring out who actually comitted the crime.
I agree with you 100%. Thank you posting this! :)
SmoothOperator
08-29-2012, 01:50 AM
I am for continuing to discuss this case as well and believe that for the absolute most part our discussion, theories, and dialogue regarding these 3MW can be of no detriment.. I understand concerns of some wild tangent discussions regarding this case and believe those concerns to be valid, but will say that for the most part here at WS those type careless and reckless discussions are not what takes place..
All jmo tho..
HmmWhoKnows
08-29-2012, 01:47 PM
Hurricane is right. No one is going to solve this case pressing other people on the internet for information. It takes some trips to the library and some phone calls and things like that.
It took me a month to track down names of the all the potential waterbed delivery guys. And half the names were hard to find information on because the names were too common or they moved away. Things like this are what you need to do to advance on this case but sometimes they lead nowhere and you have to go back to the drawing board. The forums are a good "drawing board" but they should be more like "spring boards" to your next investigation. And then share what you've found (I suggest privately first in case the information could lead to danger).
Speculation is 100% a waste of time. Only facts are to be dealt with. And names should only be brought up if there's a very good possibility they were at or around the home that night. If you speculate at all, it should be only to be the reason you're about to embark on your own personal investigation into someone or some thing. Or divide and conquer with other people on the forums, there's another suggestion. Do what the cops do, work from the center of the crime and outward and add up all the tips you know of and find true links, not fabricated stories like "Can't Say" does. Check alibis. Cross reference. All that stuff. Criminal investigating isn't rocket science either. Just takes some strong logical thinking and a little bit of psychology skills.
monkeymann
08-29-2012, 02:52 PM
Hurricane is right. No one is going to solve this case pressing other people on the internet for information. It takes some trips to the library and some phone calls and things like that.
Now wait a minute here. You've asked people for information they had on the 3MW crime. What makes your inquires different than everyone elses?
Just asking.....
It took me a month to track down names of the all the potential waterbed delivery guys. And half the names were hard to find information on because the names were too common or they moved away. Things like this are what you need to do to advance on this case but sometimes they lead nowhere and you have to go back to the drawing board. The forums are a good "drawing board" but they should be more like "spring boards" to your next investigation. And then share what you've found (I suggest privately first in case the information could lead to danger).
But that exactly what the problem is. No one will share information that they have been able to "Track Down". They act like just because they were able to take the time out of their lives to actually go out an track down some leads, something that some of us aren't as able to do, that that makes it "Their" privileged information, and they refuse to share! But then the same people expect others to divulge the information they have, but then never reciprocate, or leave you hanging with partial information that they never answer follow-up/clarification questions on. Some have said this is just to keep people interested in the case......Others have said it is just down right frustrating that people do this. Others seem to not see the detriment in doing this.
Speculation is 100% a waste of time. Only facts are to be dealt with.
However, Speculating about how the facts fit together is definitely NOT a 100% waste of time. If people would just share the facts about the case that they have, so we can speculate on them, people wouldn't be speculating on the "Crazy Stuff".
And names should only be brought up if there's a very good possibility they were at or around the home that night.
Agreed!!
If you speculate at all, it should be only to be the reason you're about to embark on your own personal investigation into someone or some thing. Or divide and conquer with other people on the forums, there's another suggestion. Do what the cops do, work from the center of the crime and outward and add up all the tips you know of and find true links, not fabricated stories like "Can't Say" does. Check alibis. Cross reference. All that stuff. Criminal investigating isn't rocket science either. Just takes some strong logical thinking and a little bit of psychology skills.
People need to quit indulging "The Crazy".....
Auramyst
08-29-2012, 03:41 PM
Hurricane is right. No one is going to solve this case pressing other people on the internet for information. It takes some trips to the library and some phone calls and things like that.
It took me a month to track down names of the all the potential waterbed delivery guys. And half the names were hard to find information on because the names were too common or they moved away. Things like this are what you need to do to advance on this case but sometimes they lead nowhere and you have to go back to the drawing board. The forums are a good "drawing board" but they should be more like "spring boards" to your next investigation. And then share what you've found (I suggest privately first in case the information could lead to danger).
Speculation is 100% a waste of time. Only facts are to be dealt with. And names should only be brought up if there's a very good possibility they were at or around the home that night. If you speculate at all, it should be only to be the reason you're about to embark on your own personal investigation into someone or some thing. Or divide and conquer with other people on the forums, there's another suggestion. Do what the cops do, work from the center of the crime and outward and add up all the tips you know of and find true links, not fabricated stories like "Can't Say" does. Check alibis. Cross reference. All that stuff. Criminal investigating isn't rocket science either. Just takes some strong logical thinking and a little bit of psychology skills.
If you've done a lot of hard work and uncovered a lot of information, then you deserve a lot of credit. I don't expect that you owe me or anyone 'your information'. It would not be right for me to ask you for 'your information'. You worked hard for it and it's yours.
If you find that this discussion is a waste of your time, then don't waste your time with it. If you have information that you know is correct and we are discussing something that is incorrect, then it's up to you if you want to share or not. Most, if not everyone, who comes to this forum is interested in solving this case. How each of us chooses to approach it is a personal decision.
HmmWhoKnows
08-29-2012, 03:55 PM
If you've done a lot of hard work and uncovered a lot of information, then you deserve a lot of credit. I don't expect that you owe me or anyone 'your information'. It would not be right for me to ask you for 'your information'. You worked hard for it and it's yours.
If you find that this discussion is a waste of your time, then don't waste your time with it. If you have information that you know is correct and we are discussing something that is incorrect, then it's up to you if you want to share or not. Most, if not everyone, who comes to this forum is interested in solving this case. How each of us chooses to approach it is a personal decision.
Monkey I understand and agree with most of what you said, just kind of offering suggestions here on actually moving forward rather than repeating ourselves. Same goes for you Auramyst. I can tell that you guys do your due diligence. And my post wasn't a personal attack. Just something I thought should be said and mainly just echoing what Hurricane was already saying.
Feel free to share anything you find as will I if you feel/I feel.
I have good reason to believe that Garrison did this crime or was around this crime. He's my top suspect until I feel like I've exhausted every possible suspect. I have a list of about 4 or 5 that have caught my eye. They aren't the big names like the GJ3 (other than Garrison) or Cox either.
Auramyst
08-29-2012, 04:28 PM
Monkey I understand and agree with most of what you said, just kind of offering suggestions here on actually moving forward rather than repeating ourselves. Same goes for you Auramyst. I can tell that you guys do your due diligence. And my post wasn't a personal attack. Just something I thought should be said and mainly just echoing what Hurricane was already saying.
Feel free to share anything you find as will I if you feel/I feel.
I have good reason to believe that Garrison did this crime or was around this crime. He's my top suspect until I feel like I've exhausted every possible suspect. I have a list of about 4 or 5 that have caught my eye. They aren't the big names like the GJ3 (other than Garrison) or Cox either.
Thank you for your kind words :) There are several on this board who I believe do their 'due diligence' (perfect wording- thank you!). You are one of them also.
Thank you for sharing your expertise with us! :)
Hurricane
08-29-2012, 05:37 PM
Some time back a lot of hubbub was made about Garrison having lived in the Oak Crest Trailer Park and the "proof" offered was his drivers license which was never posted or shown online. He only had one license during the time he was out of prison and I guess those offering this proof didn't think anyone else had a copy. The license listed a rual route number (don't remember without looking but it may also have had a PO Box); Springfield, MO; Zip code. No physical address. Typical rural Missouri drivers license. But here's the kicker: If they bothered to look up the Zip code they would have found that it was for the post office in Republic, not Rogersville! And I think that "fact" was conveniently overlooked in an attempt to sell everyone on their theory. That's the kind of thing we are always up against in this case when you deal with egos instead of documented facts!
former central time
08-29-2012, 09:51 PM
Some time back a lot of hubbub was made about Garrison having lived in the Oak Crest Trailer Park and the "proof" offered was his drivers license which was never posted or shown online. He only had one license during the time he was out of prison and I guess those offering this proof didn't think anyone else had a copy. The license listed a rual route number (don't remember without looking but it may also have had a PO Box); Springfield, MO; Zip code. No physical address. Typical rural Missouri drivers license. But here's the kicker: If they bothered to look up the Zip code they would have found that it was for the post office in Republic, not Rogersville! And I think that "fact" was conveniently overlooked in an attempt to sell everyone on their theory. That's the kind of thing we are always up against in this case when you deal with egos instead of documented facts!
That is a bad practice and there are other states that do that too, i.e. Nevada. Listing PO boxes for drivers license without a physical address, thats dangerous. Other states wont permit it.
I looked that trailer park up, which now comes up near Mexico, Missouri. Maybe went out of business. But, in 1992, where PHYSICALLY did Mr. Garrison live ? With that rural route number or trailer park or wherever he crashed for the night, Rogersville or Republic ? I have a PO box in another town (which even though it has a post office the town doesnt legally exist), yet where I live and drivers license info is in another city. And of course, all different zip codes.
Thanks for the clarification.
Hurricane
08-30-2012, 12:32 PM
That is a bad practice and there are other states that do that too, i.e. Nevada. Listing PO boxes for driver’s license without a physical address, that’s dangerous. Other states won’t permit it.
I looked that trailer park up, which now comes up near Mexico, Missouri. Maybe went out of business. But, in 1992, where PHYSICALLY did Mr. Garrison live ? With that rural route number or trailer park or wherever he crashed for the night, Rogersville or Republic ? I have a PO box in another town (which even though it has a post office the town doesn’t legally exist), yet where I live and driver’s license info is in another city. And of course, all different zip codes.
Thanks for the clarification.
The 911 Emergency System for Greene County was already in place in 1992 and as time progressed physical addresses were assigned to all rural routes for that reason, but that took some time. Rural unincorporated parts of counties were the last to be given physical addresses. I believe Oak Crest Trailer Park is in Webster county and not extreme eastern Greene County. And Webster County would have it's own 911 system unless they entered into an agreement with Greene County to dispatch their emergency calls. And I'm not sure but would bet that in today's world here in Missouri it requires a physical address to get a drivers license.
He was living in Springfield during the time that he was free. He was not on parole (he had served his full sentence) and was therefore not required by the Dept of Corrections to report a physical address. If he had gone to the post office and gotten a PO Box to pick his mail up there it would not have had a rural route number assigned to it. The Garrison family always lived in Republic. Besides having a physical address they may have had a PO Box & RR number that he used when he got out of prison and that's how it ended up on his drivers license. If you are a long time resident such as would be the case of an established family home, you can still use your route & box number and get mail even today. I sometimes still use my old route number when I don't want someone to know where I live, such as at Radio Shack where they always ask for an address and I still get their junk mail all the time. Garrison was using his parents PO Box & route number without any fear of someone finding out where he was living or showing up at the family home looking for him.
My whole point in bringing this up is to point out that when this license was offered as proof that he lived at Oak Crest Trailer Park either the zip code wasn't even checked out and a huge leap of faith was made, or we were being intentionally lied to in an effort to fill a gap and support their theory. In either case, to use that information as being a fact to build upon is building a house of cards.
And as Drake has pointed out, Garrison's brother is not named Mike. But why sweat the little things like real true facts?
HmmWhoKnows
08-30-2012, 01:28 PM
Garrison's address at the time was "RFD 7 Box 439" Springfield MO according to his driver's license. But I agree with Hurricane above.
I think everyone needs to once and for all discredit EVERYTHING CantSay says, and do your own research. I used to follow his trail but what a lesson I learned. He's FOS pretty much on 99% of the things he talks about. Even if he puts a little truth frosting on some of his shitcake, why eat from it?
former central time
08-30-2012, 02:35 PM
The 911 Emergency System for Greene County was already in place in 1992 and as time progressed physical addresses were assigned to all rural routes for that reason, but that took some time. Rural unincorporated parts of counties were the last to be given physical addresses. I believe Oak Crest Trailer Park is in Webster county and not extreme eastern Greene County. And Webster County would have it's own 911 system unless they entered into an agreement with Greene County to dispatch their emergency calls. And I'm not sure but would bet that in today's world here in Missouri it requires a physical address to get a drivers license.
He was living in Springfield during the time that he was free. He was not on parole (he had served his full sentence) and was therefore not required by the Dept of Corrections to report a physical address. If he had gone to the post office and gotten a PO Box to pick his mail up there it would not have had a rural route number assigned to it. The Garrison family always lived in Republic. Besides having a physical address they may have had a PO Box & RR number that he used when he got out of prison and that's how it ended up on his drivers license. If you are a long time resident such as would be the case of an established family home, you can still use your route & box number and get mail even today. I sometimes still use my old route number when I don't want someone to know where I live, such as at Radio Shack where they always ask for an address and I still get their junk mail all the time. Garrison was using his parents PO Box & route number without any fear of someone finding out where he was living or showing up at the family home looking for him.
My whole point in bringing this up is to point out that when this license was offered as proof that he lived at Oak Crest Trailer Park either the zip code wasn't even checked out and a huge leap of faith was made, or we were being intentionally lied to in an effort to fill a gap and support their theory. In either case, to use that information as being a fact to build upon is building a house of cards.
And as Drake has pointed out, Garrison's brother is not named Mike. But why sweat the little things like real true facts?
Hurricane...points well taken. But, just to be fair with ALL the facts in general. Clerical errors can and do happen. Its human clerks that make drivers licenses, its clerks who prepare police reports, court papers and even military records. Lee Harvey Oswalds height varied on different certified government documents, smoking gun for conspiracy hounds, human clerical errors to 'lone nut believers like myself. Im not at all questioning the motive behind what you describe, I dont know, but I do know ALL government documents can and do contain errors, be it Federal or pedestrian local LE.
And 'Cant Say, if thats the guy on that other site, he has a credibility problem. If youve seen the text on his postings and compare the grammar and spelling with, say profiles of online dating, youd get a chuckle. Pictures of hotties, but awww, she needs you to wire 15 hundred to her sick mother in Kenya. Believability factor here, similar to some I have with the First Responders accounts.
Hurricane
08-30-2012, 02:57 PM
Hurricane...points well taken. But, just to be fair with ALL the facts in general. Clerical errors can and do happen. Its human clerks that make drivers licenses, its clerks who prepare police reports, court papers and even military records. Lee Harvey Oswalds height varied on different certified government documents, smoking gun for conspiracy hounds, human clerical errors to 'lone nut believers like myself. Im not at all questioning the motive behind what you describe, I dont know, but I do know ALL government documents can and do contain errors, be it Federal or pedestrian local LE.
And 'Cant Say, if thats the guy on that other site, he has a credibility problem. If youve seen the text on his postings and compare the grammar and spelling with, say profiles of online dating, youd get a chuckle. Pictures of hotties, but awww, she needs you to wire 15 hundred to her sick mother in Kenya. Believability factor here, similar to some I have with the First Responders accounts.
Can't Say was actually not the one using the drivers license as evidence, although he claimed that Garrison had lived there.
HmmWhoKnows
08-31-2012, 11:41 AM
Can't Say and the parking garage crap have really done a good job helping this case stay unsolved.
fullmoon
09-04-2012, 04:25 AM
I get the sense that Stacy's mom, Janis McCall, is bothered that Stacy hung out with Suzie, as if she had some concerns prior to the disappearance.
In the “Vanished” documentary trailer, Janis McCall said, regarding Stacy going to Suzie's house after the parties: And for Stacy to go over there, it was very strange. It was not an ordinary circumstance. During the graduation ceremony, Suzie was very upset. She wanted to go home and stay at her house. She had asked several people to spend the night with her. And I think it was a last minute decision made by Stacy solely because Suzie needed a friend. She didn’t call to tell us. But I think it was 2 a.m. when they made that decision."
I'm still going through the threads and I'm nearly done, but I've never read anywhere that it was "strange" for Stacy to go to Suzie's house. Also, I've not read anywhere that Suzie was upset at graduation and had asked several people to come home with her. Why was she so upset, and why had she wanted someone to go home with her that night? Was she afraid of something?
HmmWhoKnows
09-04-2012, 10:12 AM
You ask a good question. May have something to do with a disappearance. A good chance actually.
monkeymann
09-05-2012, 01:13 AM
I get the sense that Stacy's mom, Janis McCall, is bothered that Stacy hung out with Suzie, as if she had some concerns prior to the disappearance.
In the Vanished documentary trailer, Janis McCall said, regarding Stacy going to Suzie's house after the parties: And for Stacy to go over there, it was very strange. It was not an ordinary circumstance. During the graduation ceremony, Suzie was very upset. She wanted to go home and stay at her house. She had asked several people to spend the night with her. And I think it was a last minute decision made by Stacy solely because Suzie needed a friend. She didnt call to tell us. But I think it was 2 a.m. when they made that decision."
I'm still going through the threads and I'm nearly done, but I've never read anywhere that it was "strange" for Stacy to go to Suzie's house. Also, I've not read anywhere that Suzie was upset at graduation and had asked several people to come home with her. Why was she so upset, and why had she wanted someone to go home with her that night? Was she afraid of something?
I think you're embelishing a little here. I watched the entire Vanished Show today, and no where did I hear Ms. McCall make the statement you quoted above.
fullmoon
09-05-2012, 03:33 AM
I think you're embelishing a little here. I watched the entire Vanished Show today, and no where did I hear Ms. McCall make the statement you quoted above.
I think you're confusing the "Disappeared" show with the "Vanished" trailer - an incomplete documentary on the case.
Vanished- A Documentary Film on Vimeo
Mrs. McCall says those words, verbatim, from 35 seconds into the trailer to about 1:08.
fullmoon
09-05-2012, 04:07 AM
You ask a good question. May have something to do with a disappearance. A good chance actually
Obviously, hindsight is 20/20. Mrs. McCall may have had concerns before the disappearances. She probably knew that Suzie was going to testify against some unsavory characters in the upcoming grave robber court case. I doubt she would have let Stacy stay there as a precaution.
Hurricane
09-05-2012, 09:07 AM
I agree that too much emphasis is being placed here. Mrs. McCall only said that after 20 yrs of reflection. She didn't have those concerns at the time. She obviously knows facts and details told to her thru the years by LE that she didn't know on June 7th - 8th. It would be easy to reflect on those facts and details and make other observations appear to fit now. If these were major concerns of hers they should have come to the forefront in 1992.
Suzie was sick and almost stayed home that night. That is one of the reasons why she was late leaving home. I have no doubt that as the night progressed she just wanted it to be over and to just go home. If we are to believe Appleby's statements then Suzie and he spent most of the evening reminiscing about their school years together. I think it is fair to say that Suzie was not the life of the parties that night but I have found no one who says that she was scared about something. Nor have I found anyone who says that Suzie was asking for someone, anyone to go home with her.
I think you're embelishing a little here. I watched the entire Vanished Show today, and no where did I hear Ms. McCall make the statement you quoted above.
fullmoon
09-05-2012, 09:22 AM
I agree that too much emphasis is being placed here.
I think Monkeymann was challenging whether Mrs. McCall made those statements. She did, which is why I provided the link.
Mrs. McCall only said that after 20 yrs of reflection. She didn't have those concerns at the time. She obviously knows facts and details told to her thru the years by LE that she didn't know on June 7th - 8th. It would be easy to reflect on those facts and details and make other observations appear to fit now. If these were major concerns of hers they should have come to the forefront in 1992.
How do you know she didn't have those concerns at the time? Sometimes people start to reveal things over time that they kept to themselves because LE did not want them to talk about the case publicly. I have to believe Mrs. McCall's statements and that they were not "embellished."
Hurricane
09-05-2012, 10:42 AM
.
I think Monkeymann was challenging whether Mrs. McCall made those statements. She did, which is why I provided the link.
How do you know she didn't have those concerns at the time? Sometimes people start to reveal things over time that they kept to themselves because LE did not want them to talk about the case publicly. I have to believe Mrs. McCall's statements and that they were not "embellished."
There is simply no evidence to indicate that she did have those concerns in 1992. How do we know that she didn't have concerns that space aliens took them, as Worsham proposed in frustration at the time? If she had them then I would have suspected that she would have brought them to the forefront in order to get LE to look into it. And if she did bring those concerns to LE and they didn't act on them then I would think she would have continued to push those concerns in interviews given to the media to bring them out into the public. These may be concerns of hers now, but they have only recently come up.
And in talking to friends of Suzie's there certainly is no evidence that she was afraid of anything or that she was asking any of them to go home with her and spend the night because she was afraid to go alone. Janis obviously feels that it was an odd thing for Stacy to do and may be looking for ways in her mind to justify why Stacy did go home with Suzie (the 2:00 am comment). But in light of the occasion and the planned trip to Branson the next day, I don't find it odd at all. Friends say that Suzie & Stacy had recently grown close again in the waining days of school; that Janelle was in a relationship with Hensen and wasn't around them much; and that they didn't find it odd that Stacy went home with Suzie at all.
You do bring up a valid point with the idea that LE didn't want witnesses to speak about the case, an idea I have proposed before. There are minor witnesses who will not speak even off the record to this day because LE asked them not to. I believe that Janelle Kirby was asked by SPD not to speak about certain things she observed about the house upon entering and while being there throughout that day. Participation with the media helps to advance the case and LE wanted that but they wanted her to avoid speaking of her observations concerning items of evidence. As two examples: the broken porch globe; the phone messages. The problem is that she was unprepared on what to say the first time she was asked questions about those things. That is why we have conflicting statements made by an 18 yr old witness. SPD should have given her "the spin" they wanted her to use when asked. But she was caught unprepared when asked such questions by the media and ended up on TV with that "deer in the headlight look" that caused many people to cast a suspicion of guilt her way ever since.
former central time
09-05-2012, 06:42 PM
There is simply no evidence to indicate that she did have those concerns in 1992. How do we know that she didn't have concerns that space aliens took them, as Worsham proposed in frustration at the time? If she had them then I would have suspected that she would have brought them to the forefront in order to get LE to look into it. And if she did bring those concerns to LE and they didn't act on them then I would think she would have continued to push those concerns in interviews given to the media to bring them out into the public. These may be concerns of hers now, but they have only recently come up.
And in talking to friends of Suzie's there certainly is no evidence that she was afraid of anything or that she was asking any of them to go home with her and spend the night because she was afraid to go alone. Janis obviously feels that it was an odd thing for Stacy to do and may be looking for ways in her mind to justify why Stacy did go home with Suzie (the 2:00 am comment). But in light of the occasion and the planned trip to Branson the next day, I don't find it odd at all. Friends say that Suzie & Stacy had recently grown close again in the waining days of school; that Janelle was in a relationship with Hensen and wasn't around them much; and that they didn't find it odd that Stacy went home with Suzie at all.
You do bring up a valid point with the idea that LE didn't want witnesses to speak about the case, an idea I have proposed before. There are minor witnesses who will not speak even off the record to this day because LE asked them not to. I believe that Janelle Kirby was asked by SPD not to speak about certain things she observed about the house upon entering and while being there throughout that day. Participation with the media helps to advance the case and LE wanted that but they wanted her to avoid speaking of her observations concerning items of evidence. As two examples: the broken porch globe; the phone messages. The problem is that she was unprepared on what to say the first time she was asked questions about those things. That is why we have conflicting statements made by an 18 yr old witness. SPD should have given her "the spin" they wanted her to use when asked. But she was caught unprepared when asked such questions by the media and ended up on TV with that "deer in the headlight look" that caused many people to cast a suspicion of guilt her way ever since.
As has been said before, we can never prove a negative. We cant prove what someone DIDNT say. Just because it hasnt be recorded, reported or referenced, doesnt mean they didnt say it. We can prove (in a reasonable sense) what someone did say, or is reported to have said. But what these things all mean, is believability, and the only opinion at the end of the day that will matter (presuming this case reaches trial) is the jury, not LE, not investigators and not observers of the case from the beginning. Rather, selected novices who bring their own personal experiences (regardless of judge/counsel instructions; in any human system biases will always exist) and will draw their own conclusion, determine believability are entrusted with the final decision.
I commend folks such as Hurricane with his extensive study of the case and personal investigation, not to mention the duty to come here to give insight and correction to facts and statements made. But, thats most of what this case is, just those kinds of 'facts. Lacking much hard evidence, we have what people said, or reported to have said. The area this becomes most fractious are conclusions of these statements (what they mean) and 'what someone would have done. Correction of facts is always welcome, so too, should the influx of new ideas and the realization there are going to be points we will agree to disagree. Plenty of cases and trials have returned with unanticipated results because of newly uncovered information, or information which was dismissed at the time. Not all facts you like make it to court or ever will, further facts are challenged and cross examined with other facts, which you may not be aware of or have not been made public. The State doesnt hold press conferences with information they have, which discredits their case, thats the job of the defense. With all due respect to ALL the investigators, LE and the gatekeepers of this message board, NONE of you will be on the jury.
To this specific post. This is just an observation, one of the things which struck me about this case was the relatively lack of adult supervision through the night. I graduated h/s close to this era, 1985, the only party I went to that contained alcohol was the one at my house with family and friends. None of my parties lasted until 2 AM. My parents knew all the outside parties I was at, who I was with, where and when I was expected home. Yes, in the pre-cell phone era :) Everybody was different then as now, sure. But, Im confident any jury collected might have a few with a little grain of thought of such and personally note such contrast with their own lives as well, which can never be hammered out by any judge/prosecution.
To Janelle I accept the point of instructions from LE to be quiet and her being young and scared during TV interviews, all I can understand. Her actions that morning I dont buy, and its never been explained to my satisfaction. It doesnt pass the reasonable person standard. None of which do I want to hint at anything criminal she did, as I said before, the only 'crime I see her guilty of is 'bad judgment. But it has to do with that reasonable doubt bar thing which may be the focus one day.
fullmoon
09-05-2012, 11:04 PM
And in talking to friends of Suzie's there certainly is no evidence that she was afraid of anything or that she was asking any of them to go home with her and spend the night because she was afraid to go alone.
And who are the friends you are talking to regarding your investigation? Oh. Yeah. You can't share that with the board. Sorry. I just don't go for that. You like to complain about people not putting forth facts, Hurricane, but when YOU say you have facts and "correct" people, you won't share those facts with the board.
There are minor witnesses who will not speak even off the record to this day because LE asked them not to. I believe that Janelle Kirby was asked by SPD not to speak about certain things she observed about the house upon entering and while being there throughout that day.
Did Janelle or LE tell you that, Hurricane? I don't think for a minute that Janelle was asked to keep details of the phone call incident, the porch light globe incident, or anything else she had to say, quiet. For that to be the case, LE would have had to ask everyone involved to "keep quiet." LE might keep something from the public to confirm or substantiate a suspect, but I doubt LE would ask a lot of people involved in such a case to keep quiet on some details, particularly on a cold case after 20 years.
I commend folks such as Hurricane with his extensive study of the case and personal investigation, not to mention the duty to come here to give insight and correction to facts and statements made
"Correction to facts and statements made," is what Hurricane does. Easy to say you have the facts, then "correct" people who bring forth thoughts and possibilities and statements.
The problem is that she was unprepared on what to say the first time she was asked questions about those things. That is why we have conflicting statements made by an 18 yr old witness. SPD should have given her "the spin" they wanted her to use when asked. But she was caught unprepared when asked such questions by the media and ended up on TV with that "deer in the headlight look" that caused many people to cast a suspicion of guilt her way ever since.
The standard response she could have made and LE would have advised her to make is, "I've been advised by LE not to speak to the press regarding this case because it would compromise the investigation." End of story. Instead, she talks to the media and gives accounts that don't seem realistic. Not saying she is involved in any way.
Hurricane
09-06-2012, 08:32 AM
And who are the friends you are talking to regarding your investigation? Oh. Yeah. You can't share that with the board. Sorry. I just don't go for that. You like to complain about people not putting forth facts, Hurricane, but when YOU say you have facts and "correct" people, you won't share those facts with the board.
Did Janelle or LE tell you that, Hurricane? I don't think for a minute that Janelle was asked to keep details of the phone call incident, the porch light globe incident, or anything else she had to say, quiet. For that to be the case, LE would have had to ask everyone involved to "keep quiet." LE might keep something from the public to confirm or substantiate a suspect, but I doubt LE would ask a lot of people involved in such a case to keep quiet on some details, particularly on a cold case after 20 years.
"Correction to facts and statements made," is what Hurricane does. Easy to say you have the facts, then "correct" people who bring forth thoughts and possibilities and statements.
The standard response she could have made and LE would have advised her to make is, "I've been advised by LE not to speak to the press regarding this case because it would compromise the investigation." End of story. Instead, she talks to the media and gives accounts that don't seem realistic. Not saying she is involved in any way.
Fullmoon, good luck with your thoughts, doubts and possibilities in solving this case thru your investigation. Even though you feel I have not contributed a thing, feel free to use any facts and details that I have contributed since you claim to have read thru these threads. I'll look forward to watching your investigation advance this difficult case.
HmmWhoKnows
09-06-2012, 02:59 PM
My advice to everyone: Investigate the GJ3 and find out who was close to Sherrill and Suzie the months prior to the abduction. Find vehicles in these people's names. See if any were capable of transporting 3 bodies. In their names, in their parents', family, friends', etc.
My advice also is to try and look more closely at the sexual assault angle. It will eliminate a lot of people and give you less headaches. I'm 95% certain it was a sex crime gone askew.
monkeymann
09-07-2012, 12:59 AM
I think you're confusing the "Disappeared" show with the "Vanished" trailer - an incomplete documentary on the case.
Vanished- A Documentary Film on Vimeo (http://vimeo.com/20858236)
Mrs. McCall says those words, verbatim, from 35 seconds into the trailer to about 1:08.
I have to appologize to you!!! I was confusing the Disappeared video with this one. I had not heard Ms. McCall say that before.
Thank you for setting me straight on this point, as well as for sharing the Video!!
Auramyst
09-07-2012, 01:54 AM
.
To this specific post. This is just an observation, one of the things which struck me about this case was the relatively lack of adult supervision through the night. I graduated h/s close to this era, 1985, the only party I went to that contained alcohol was the one at my house with family and friends. None of my parties lasted until 2 AM. My parents knew all the outside parties I was at, who I was with, where and when I was expected home. Yes, in the pre-cell phone era :) Everybody was different then as now, sure. But, Im confident any jury collected might have a few with a little grain of thought of such and personally note such contrast with their own lives as well, which can never be hammered out by any judge/prosecution.
Not to go too off topic, but I graduated in 1983. My graduation night was full of parties with no adult supervision. And, after many changes of plans, I ended up at home only because the last party we were at was busted by the police (otherwise we would have all crashed there for the night).
So, yes, I'm in complete agreement that a potential juror would inject their own personal spin on graduation night festivities. One juror might wonder about the lack of adult supervision, while another would wonder why anyone would be around adults on graduation night.
Oh, and I believe it was brought up by someone in an ealier post about cops busting the grad party and then letting the teens leave 'while under the infuence'. Yep, that happened all the time where I grew up (in the Midwest). This was before the crackdown in DUIs. In fact, I was with a friend in 1992 when she got pulled over. She was drinking, driving, and told 'to go right home'. It doesn't happen now, but it happened a lot back then.
(I was really stupid when I was younger :o I don't drink and drive now nor do I condone it)
fullmoon
09-07-2012, 03:28 AM
I have to appologize to you!!! I was confusing the Disappeared video with this one. I had not heard Ms. McCall say that before.
No problem Monkeymann! I'm still reading as much as I can on this case, and when I saw the link on this board to the "Vanished" trailer, I was struck by what Mrs. McCall had to say about Suzie wanting someone to go home with her. I had not read that anywhere. I was hoping to hear from others if they had heard of this before. I am wondering if Mrs. McCall is starting to release a little more info on the case, considering it has grown so cold over the years.
Hurricane
09-07-2012, 11:13 AM
i have to appologize to you!!! I was confusing the disappeared video with this one. i had not heard ms. Mccall say that before.
thank you for setting me straight on this point, as well as for sharing the video!!
BINGO! That's because it's all new. She has never expressed those concerns before publicly, and that is the only way we would know if she had them in 1992 or not.
daisy7
09-07-2012, 12:34 PM
Peeps - please get back on topic and discuss the case, not posters! :tyou:
monkeymann
09-07-2012, 02:39 PM
I agree that too much emphasis is being placed here. Mrs. McCall only said that after 20 yrs of reflection. She didn't have those concerns at the time. She obviously knows facts and details told to her thru the years by LE that she didn't know on June 7th - 8th. It would be easy to reflect on those facts and details and make other observations appear to fit now. If these were major concerns of hers they should have come to the forefront in 1992.
Suzie was sick and almost stayed home that night. That is one of the reasons why she was late leaving home. I have no doubt that as the night progressed she just wanted it to be over and to just go home. If we are to believe Appleby's statements then Suzie and he spent most of the evening reminiscing about their school years together. I think it is fair to say that Suzie was not the life of the parties that night but I have found no one who says that she was scared about something. Nor have I found anyone who says that Suzie was asking for someone, anyone to go home with her.
I find the wording of your statement very interesting. "If we are to believe Appleby's statements".
You have always been very direct in your statements when it comes to people you feel had nothing to do with the 3MW crime. If I've figured anything out about you, it is that you say what you mean, and you seem to mean what you say. You have never been one to miss-speak when it comes to the verbiage that you use. And I've always respected that about you. At least we've never had to question the meaning of most of the things that you've posted in the past.
So with that said, based on the way you worded the statement above, this very clearly implies to me that you, and or, others, may believe there were some veracity issues with Mr. Appleby and statements that he made regarding the events of that night.
And, considering that the last three people to see Susie & Stacy alive that night were Janelle Kirby, Mike Henson and Shane Appleby, all of which were at Janelle's house when Susie and Stacy left to go to Susies house.
Everyone knows about Janelles story in which she agrees to meet them the next day, and then goes into her house to go to bed.
But no one seems to want to talk about, or include the fact that Mike and Shane were there too. I've posed this issue several different times, but no one, including some of the key people who have been involved in their own investigations of the 3MW crime (And I'm not talking about LE), will respond to this issue.
I'll also add, Janelle and Mike, per their own statements, went to Susies house around 12-12:30pm that Sunday. After they left there, they went to Shanes house to see if Susie & Stacy were over there. But when they got there, according to their statements, Shane was still in bed asleep.
Even though it was after 1pm when they arrived at Shanes house, he was still in bed asleep. Presumably he went to bed around the same time that Janelle and Mike did....right. He hadn't been drinking heavily the night before, at least one would think this, based on the fact that he had been the one who had been driving everyone around to the parties they attended that night.....right. People have historically stated, once again, that these were just the actions of an 18yr old.....sleeping in. May be they are.
Again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out some observations.
fullmoon
09-07-2012, 07:05 PM
BINGO! That's because it's all new. She has never expressed those concerns before publicly, and that is the only way we would know if she had them in 1992 or not.
Hurricane, you like to say that LE may have asked some people not to talk about the case over the years. Just because Mrs. McCall has not mentioned this before doesn't mean she didn't have that information in 1992. After 20 years of this case going cold, she may be revealing more of what she knows to the public. I would totally understand that.
Hurricane
09-09-2012, 08:20 AM
I find the wording of your statement very interesting. "If we are to believe Appleby's statements".
You have always been very direct in your statements when it comes to people you feel had nothing to do with the 3MW crime. If I've figured anything out about you, it is that you say what you mean, and you seem to mean what you say. You have never been one to miss-speak when it comes to the verbiage that you use. And I've always respected that about you. At least we've never had to question the meaning of most of the things that you've posted in the past.
So with that said, based on the way you worded the statement above, this very clearly implies to me that you, and or, others, may believe there were some veracity issues with Mr. Appleby and statements that he made regarding the events of that night.
And, considering that the last three people to see Susie & Stacy alive that night were Janelle Kirby, Mike Henson and Shane Appleby, all of which were at Janelle's house when Susie and Stacy left to go to Susies house.
Everyone knows about Janelles story in which she agrees to meet them the next day, and then goes into her house to go to bed.
But no one seems to want to talk about, or include the fact that Mike and Shane were there too. I've posed this issue several different times, but no one, including some of the key people who have been involved in their own investigations of the 3MW crime (And I'm not talking about LE), will respond to this issue.
I'll also add, Janelle and Mike, per their own statements, went to Susies house around 12-12:30pm that Sunday. After they left there, they went to Shanes house to see if Susie & Stacy were over there. But when they got there, according to their statements, Shane was still in bed asleep.
Even though it was after 1pm when they arrived at Shanes house, he was still in bed asleep. Presumably he went to bed around the same time that Janelle and Mike did....right. He hadn't been drinking heavily the night before, at least one would think this, based on the fact that he had been the one who had been driving everyone around to the parties they attended that night.....right. People have historically stated, once again, that these were just the actions of an 18yr old.....sleeping in. May be they are.
Again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out some observations.
Monkeymann, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I did not intend to imply that I had doubts about Appleby's statement concerning his time spent with Suzie at the parties. Other attendees confirm that he and Suzie spent most of their time together talking, with others frequently being in and out indicating the subjects of conversation were not of a serious nature or anything that turned dark. And I don't find the fact that he was still in bed asleep at 1:00 pm the next day after a night of partying unusual at all. I'm sure Hensen would have been at his home in bed too, if Janelle hadn't woke him up. I don't know if you went to college and lived in dorm housing but at 18, 19, 20 yrs old that is quite common for males; not so much for females. If he had been involved or had first hand information concerning the abduction of the 3MW I would think his behavior would be quite the opposite and that he would have been suffering from insomnia. And I would agree with you that at least up until the Joy party broke up he probably had not been drinking heavily.
Missouri Mule
09-09-2012, 03:26 PM
There are two things that we DO know. (Based on published accounts)
1) Jannelle began her telephone calls checking on the girls very early in the morning when in fact, it was only 35 miles to Branson. Why the rush? Even if we believe that girls don't sleep late in the morning as do boys of that age, why was she calling so early? Her actions later that day when she was crying in the BACK seat of Michael's car seem odd to me. What is that all about? Why didn't they drive to the McCall's home immediately? It wasn't that far. That's what I would have done if I were in their shoes. If my wife tells me she is going to be home by such and such a time and is not, I start calling her and anyone else who might know. And if I can't get anyone on the phone, I start driving. I don't "assume" anything. Never have.
While it is true that cell phones were not widely used at that time there were virtually land lines to all homes in the Springfield area and the roads were clear and lightly driven in the early morning. Apparently in spite of all the hand wringing and seat back crying, no one had the presence of mind to get to the bottom of this mystery. Stated differently, I don't think these explanations make a lick of sense.
2) This has always puzzled me and I have never seen a good explanation. Going on memory here, I believe that Mrs. McCall phoned the Kirby home at 10:30 AM asking to speak to Stacy. She was told by Jannelle's sister that Stacy wasn't there whereupon Mrs. McCall essentially said in so many words that she was being lied to. In any event why didn't she and Mr. McCall drive to the Levitt home if she was unable to reach Stacy and get to the bottom of this immediately? Mr. McCall is on record as stating that Stacy has permission to go to the Kirby residence but NOT to the Levitt home. What was that all about? Yet, even though Mrs. McCall evidently did not believe or want to believe that Stacy had disobeyed her she and her family went to the lake to watch miniature boat races as a "pleasant day in the sun."
To my way of thinking, none of this makes any real sense and then we have the rather mysterious erasing of the phone call messages and it is not clear to me who did the erasing.
I don't know about the rest of you but the last thing I would doing would be to have a "pleasant day in the sun" when I didn't have a clue where my daughter was, ESPECIALLY since she didn't have permission to go the the Levitt home. And as for as Jannelle she must have gotten over her crying spell as she spent time at the local Hydro-slide and she too didn't have a clue at that time that her very best friends were unaccounted for. Again is this reasonable conduct given the information published?
There WAS a reason why those messages were erased and I am not persuaded that the alleged reasons are benign. Stated differently and more succinctly, I believe those erased phone calls would have established a rather clear timeline. Certainly more than any alleged obscene phone calls is what actually took place during the hours of approximately 2:50 AM and 7 AM the next morning. Even more so it is probable the timeline could be further confined to about 3:15 AM (when the girls were ready for bed) and 6 AM when it is provable that any activity would have been seen by passers-by in that neighborhood after that time. So we really have about a 2 hour and 45 minute period of probable time that SOMETHING took place in or about that home. That erased tape was critical in my view.
Now if my memory is faulty here in any substantive way, please feel free to correct me. This was what I understand went down that morning.
daisy7
09-09-2012, 09:09 PM
Peeps - please get back on topic and discuss the case, not posters! :tyou:
Apparently, not everyone read my warning, so let me say it more clearly and loudly:
discuss the case, NOT posters
This is the last warning before TOs will be handed out.
monkeymann
09-09-2012, 10:52 PM
Apparently, not everyone read my warning, so let me say it more clearly and loudly:
discuss the case, NOT posters
This is the last warning before TOs will be handed out.
Please explain to everyone then, how we are suppose to discuss the case, when you won't allow us to discuss or debate inconsistancies, or, questionable things people have posted about the case, without including the person who posted the information in the conversation, or allowing us to debate things someone has posted, with that person?
Nothing we were discussing was getting out of control or vulgar, nor would it have.
Salem
09-10-2012, 11:45 AM
Please explain to everyone then, how we are suppose to discuss the case, when you won't allow us to discuss or debate inconsistancies, or, questionable things people have posted about the case, without including the person who posted the information in the conversation, or allowing us to debate things someone has posted, with that person?
Nothing we were discussing was getting out of control or vulgar, nor would it have.
Hi monkeyman,
First, whenever you have a question about moderation or case discussion, please send a pm to the mod. You may send the pm to any mod of your choice, we are all here to help and will be happy to answer any questions. Posting such questions in the thread just disrupts discussion and takes the thread off topic.
Discussing the case means just that - discussing the information gleaned from MSM, LE and case players. It does not mean questioning or attacking other posters. This case was getting seriously off topic by some back and forth bickering. EVERY poster is entitled to their opinion. When a poster wants to try to change an opinion, the proper way to do that is through factual postings backed up with links. Not by accusing or calling into question the poster's comments. A good rule of thumb, when arguing a position on a case, is to look at the message. If the word "you" is being used, the post is likely going to be read as confrontational and aggressive. It is better to say something like: "This article shows that the girls were......" and add the link rather that "you always say such and such."
Whenever there is bickering or attacking, the mods ask that you please alert the post and MOVE PAST IT. Do not respond. By responding, you subject yourself to any consequences for further derailing the thread.
Hope this helps and if you have any further questions, please PM a mod and they will give you a hand.
Thanks,
Salem
bearx
09-13-2012, 06:52 PM
This case has fascinated me for a long time and I've spent the last 3 weeks or so reading the info on this site about it. I have a question that I haven't seen discussed (though I haven't seen 100% of threads and I think at least one was pulled?).
There is some connection to a grave robbing scheme, right? What are the chances the bodies are re-buried in a looted grave?
Again if this was discussed I missed it but it's one thing that stuck out at me and I wonder, that's all.
Missouri Mule
09-14-2012, 12:41 AM
This case has fascinated me for a long time and I've spent the last 3 weeks or so reading the info on this site about it. I have a question that I haven't seen discussed (though I haven't seen 100% of threads and I think at least one was pulled?).
There is some connection to a grave robbing scheme, right? What are the chances the bodies are re-buried in a looted grave?
Again if this was discussed I missed it but it's one thing that stuck out at me and I wonder, that's all.
That is a theory I used to entertain myself. It would be the perfect way to dispose of a body. Just go to a newly buried grave, dig it up and deposit the body or bodies on top of the coffin and recover it in the night. Being a newly covered grave, it wouldn't necessarily or likely be noticed.
Having said that, I don't know if this was ever actually investigated. The latest theories I have heard is that the bodies were simply dumped deep in the Ozarks. Unfortunately, it is so dense with vegetation that they have to pump sunlight into the woods. By this time at best there may be only a few bones that haven't been scavenged by wild animals.
What needs to happen is for someone to come forth with information and can take the authorities to where the bodies were deposited. For this information I would first look to the GJ3. One of the best known is in prison and not talking. Another is, I believe, also in prison in another state and the third's location is not currently known. (by me) But they were investigated by a federal grand jury in 1994 and no indictments were forthcoming. That is also when Cox's name first appeared to any degree and his alibi collapsed. He remains in prison in Lovelady, Texas on a life sentence and is theoretically eligible for parole in 2025. He has largely clammed up now as well.
It is not known if there is any connection to the grave robbing business. The then chief of police ruled them out early in the investigation to the consternation of veteran police detectives for reasons known only to him. I believe it is correct to say that at least one, perhaps two, officers who were assigned this case wanted to look in that direction but were discouraged from doing so. One of these officers has spoken to his frustration regarding this.
Have been told that the "dig" in Cassville was the one most considered to have real merit. There were items that were found but as I understand it, the items recovered were sealed by court order. I believe that had something to do with a deathbed confession of sorts. We don't know the full story (or anything revealing) of what came from that endeavor.
It's a very strange case and the last I heard the police are not willing to hold a wide ranging press conference and address some of the obvious questions that have surfaced over the years. As i understand it they have some 23-24 boxes of carefully documented files on this case. But at this point seems to be largely dormant.
Hurricane
09-14-2012, 08:07 AM
This case has fascinated me for a long time and I've spent the last 3 weeks or so reading the info on this site about it. I have a question that I haven't seen discussed (though I haven't seen 100% of threads and I think at least one was pulled?).
There is some connection to a grave robbing scheme, right? What are the chances the bodies are re-buried in a looted grave?
Again if this was discussed I missed it but it's one thing that stuck out at me and I wonder, that's all.
This has come up before. I called a burial vault company and they gave me the dimensions that I asked for. I still have this info in a file but this is what I recall by memory: It turns out the only way this would even be possible is that the hole would have had to be dug deeper by as much as 3 ft (even deeper for 3 bodies) and the bodies buried before the concrete vault was put in place. For safety reasons among others the concrete burial vault is set in place within hours of the hole being dug. There physically is not enough clearance inside the vault for 3 bodies with the casket in place (literally just inches) and there is not room for the bodies to be buried on top of the vault with only 24 to 26 inches of dirt on top of the vault lid. And Missouri has had a state law requiring the use of burial vaults since the late 1940's.
The idea of the bodies now being inside the mausoleum that was vandalized has been thrown out there in the rumor mill as well. The mausoleum was vandalized for a second time a few years later and the contents were returned, and the stain glass window used to gain entry was covered with sheet metal. So the contents of the mausoleum are known and the 3MW are not there either.
Hurricane
09-14-2012, 08:53 AM
If the remains were to be found today in a safe, dark, dry place such as a cave or dry sink hole I have been told the clothing could still be reasonably in tact and could possibly provide dna and fiber evidence. If the remains have been out in the open or in a damp cave or sink hole, other than the obvious evidence such as possibly how they died, their evidentary value diminishes.
bearx
09-14-2012, 09:02 AM
Interesting, thanks for the info. This theory has always just struck me once the allusion to a grave robbing scheme came up. It's like two birds with one stone for those involved. I didn't know Missouri required vaults for burials.
Missouri Mule
09-14-2012, 09:49 AM
I grew up next to a cemetary and I and my friends used to play there once in a while. The graves were usually dug 24 hours in advance. I used to think what a "perfect crime" it would be to dig the hole further down to deposit a body before the grave was filled. Nobody would ever find the body. I wonder how many times that has happened? If I had thought of that as a kid, I'm sure an adult with murder on their mind must have thought of that, too..
Wouldn't that be great, MM? Has anyone invited any of the detectives in this case to the board to answer questions we might have that they could answer? I know it's an active investigation, so they couldn't answer everything. But they could at least help us clarify some of the rumor from fact.
I can state, with personal knowledge, that these discussion sites have been monitored (at least from time to time) by some LE personnel. (not necessarily the SPD) I have no direct knowledge if any have ever been asked to participate. I suppose the working procedures are such that anything shared with the public would jeopardize the case and its prosecution. I would doubt they would come onto a board to discuss the case unless cleared by the highest authorities. I would guess they would not simply because they don't want any knowledge or hints to be leaked to the perpetrators.
Having said that, in view of the fact the case is now unsolved two whole decades later, I don't really see why such a tight lid is being kept on the case unless indictments are in the offing. That I doubt, but perhaps the police are gun shy having been reamed out by a former prosecutor, now judge, and the last prosecutor who were so concerned by what was shown on the "48 Hours" program.
But in thinking about the grave business, one would have to think that the women were not abducted merely to kill them for no reason. That is the part I don't get, and is, I believe, why so many theories; and many nonsense rumors, are spread about this case. I don't know much more about this case than when I first became interested in it. I do, however, believe Hurricane probably has a pretty good idea of what happened as he has put a lot of personal time in looking into the case. Perhaps he could speak to the reticence of the police department's silence.
former central time
09-14-2012, 04:42 PM
If the remains were to be found today in a safe, dark, dry place such as a cave or dry sink hole I have been told the clothing could still be reasonably in tact and could possibly provide dna and fiber evidence. If the remains have been out in the open or in a damp cave or sink hole, other than the obvious evidence such as possibly how they died, their evidentary value diminishes.
If the bodies have decomposed to bones, DNA can still be extracted, theyre doing that with ancient bodies today. They also did that with the Romanov family in Russia (murdered in 1918), testing remains with their distant British cousins. Here we have the advantage of living direct family members, and I bet their samples are on file. IDing should be a synch.
Hurricane
09-14-2012, 06:43 PM
If the bodies have decomposed to bones, DNA can still be extracted, theyre doing that with ancient bodies today. They also did that with the Romanov family in Russia (murdered in 1918), testing remains with their distant British cousins. Here we have the advantage of living direct family members, and I bet their samples are on file. IDing should be a synch.
I know family DNA is on file and so their remains could be positively identified. But if their clothing has been reasonably preserved in the right conditions there could be hair or other DNA evidence from the perps, or possibly even fiber evidence. I know all the usual suspects have DNA on file except possibly the 3 grave robbers. The problem with fiber evidence then becomes finding & matching it to the source after all these years.
former central time
09-14-2012, 10:07 PM
I know family DNA is on file and so their remains could be positively identified. But if their clothing has been reasonably preserved in the right conditions there could be hair or other DNA evidence from the perps, or possibly even fiber evidence. I know all the usual suspects have DNA on file except possibly the 3 grave robbers. The problem with fiber evidence then becomes finding & matching it to the source after all these years.
Ahhh...gotcha.
Hurricane
09-15-2012, 08:48 AM
I have pondered on what forensic evidence LE might have from 1717 or might be recovered from the remains if they were found and what it might mean to the case, and specifically trace hair evidence since it is so easily shed. It all comes down to this: trace hair can be matched to an individual but not to the exclusion of all others like DNA can. In examining trace hair it is possible for a hair sample to have a medulla (inner core), a cortex (intermediate layer), and a cuticle (outer covering) that match more than one individual. And DNA from trace hair can not be generated unless the hair root or bulb is still attached. So a hair that has been clipped (as in a hair cut) or broken off can not produce a DNA sample. As the old saying goes, it has to be "pulled out by the root" to produce DNA.
If LE has trace hair evidence from 1717 it might point toward a suspect who had no reason to have ever been there, but that in and of itself is not enough forensic evidence to go to court on. Without the bulb to generate DNA it's not enough to identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others. If it is just a shed hair the argument could be made that the source is simply one of Sherrill's many clients and she brought it home on her clothing, and the source was not the suspect. Pubic hair gets a little harder to explain away, but again it does not identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others.
And if LE has DNA evidence regardless of the source their actions should tell us that either it is not from any of the usual suspects who have felony convictions and would have DNA on file; or it does match one of the usual suspects who could make a strong argument for having been to 1717 at some point (and which argument could be made by any of Suzie's friends, by the way); that in and of itself it is simply not enough evidence for a conviction (and there is no point in pushing the case into court on thin evidence if the suspect is already in prison for a very long time); or it is from a previously unknown individual such as a "mystery man".
Missouri Mule
09-15-2012, 10:11 AM
As I understand the case, any DNA or other forensic evidence found at the scene, should it belong to any of the known people to have been in the house would not form any real evidence to bring them to trial should they be the perpetrators. However, for example, should any DNA evidence emerge from, for example, any of the GJ3 or Cox, that should, in my opinion, be ample evidence to bring any of those individuals to trial. They never had any reason to have been in the house.
Since it is probable that there is DNA evidence of people known to have been in the house, perhaps we should consider that one or more of them may have been involved.
Which begs the question; were they properly cleared; such as the grave robbers, for example, who were known (or had probable reason) to have been in the house.
Which takes me back to the original mystery; why did the chief of police personally intervene to clear those individuals to the dismay of the professional investigators, as told to me by a reporter who covered this investigation.
But assuming that the chief was correct and there was no connection, do we instead have an unknown (not discussed) "mystery man" involved? Some believe so.
If this case were to land in my lap the first thing I would want to do is to investigate the basis for eliminating the grave robbers; especially if there were any connections to any of the GJ3. I'm not understanding why that part of the investigation seemingly has been swept aside. There is no question but that there was motive there.
bearx
09-15-2012, 11:22 AM
I keep thinking about this- the graves must be someone accessible if contents were possibly being looted- I'm not saying they are under the coffin (though that is a good theory, I forget the PP who brought it up) or even in, but all you have to do is dig & bury, really. The logistics could be a few different ways. It seems like there's a possibility that someone was digging into the cemetery, at any rate, but I don't know enough about this angle- were messed-up graves spotted? If so it'd be hard to keep things hidden, right?
Missouri Mule
09-15-2012, 01:03 PM
I keep thinking about this- the graves must be someone accessible if contents were possibly being looted- I'm not saying they are under the coffin (though that is a good theory, I forget the PP who brought it up) or even in, but all you have to do is dig & bury, really. The logistics could be a few different ways. It seems like there's a possibility that someone was digging into the cemetery, at any rate, but I don't know enough about this angle- were messed-up graves spotted? If so it'd be hard to keep things hidden, right?
I had thought they were above ground crypts. I'm unaware they actually dug up any graves.
former central time
09-15-2012, 05:14 PM
I have pondered on what forensic evidence LE might have from 1717 or might be recovered from the remains if they were found and what it might mean to the case, and specifically trace hair evidence since it is so easily shed. It all comes down to this: trace hair can be matched to an individual but not to the exclusion of all others like DNA can. In examining trace hair it is possible for a hair sample to have a medulla (inner core), a cortex (intermediate layer), and a cuticle (outer covering) that match more than one individual. And DNA from trace hair can not be generated unless the hair root or bulb is still attached. So a hair that has been clipped (as in a hair cut) or broken off can not produce a DNA sample. As the old saying goes, it has to be "pulled out by the root" to produce DNA.
If LE has trace hair evidence from 1717 it might point toward a suspect who had no reason to have ever been there, but that in and of itself is not enough forensic evidence to go to court on. Without the bulb to generate DNA it's not enough to identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others. If it is just a shed hair the argument could be made that the source is simply one of Sherrill's many clients and she brought it home on her clothing, and the source was not the suspect. Pubic hair gets a little harder to explain away, but again it does not identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others.
And if LE has DNA evidence regardless of the source their actions should tell us that either it is not from any of the usual suspects who have felony convictions and would have DNA on file; or it does match one of the usual suspects who could make a strong argument for having been to 1717 at some point (and which argument could be made by any of Suzie's friends, by the way); that in and of itself it is simply not enough evidence for a conviction (and there is no point in pushing the case into court on thin evidence if the suspect is already in prison for a very long time); or it is from a previously unknown individual such as a "mystery man".
Thats pretty much my line of thinking as well. There may be a hair or other human evidence that gives a direct DNA connection and ID, but they dont have a name/face with it. They dont know if it is friend or foe. Was it one of the perps, or the many guests in the house that Sunday ? I suspect, to a lesser degree it may exist with any finger/foot prints (my guess is the perps wore gloves). And too, bodily fluids such as saliva contain DNA evidence. But, if this John Doe has never been convicted or his samples entered into the national databank, you have a mystery man ID. I dont know if there are scans for possible criminal relatives who might offer a trace to roots back in SW Missouri in 1992.
Having that kind of strong evidence is the heavy lifting though. Once a name/face is confirmed, the background story/circumstantial evidence can add context. I too have pondered what evidence from 1717 the State has sequestered and collected. And recently, whats being retested to the modern standards. Have all the known guests that Sunday given DNA samples to authorities ?
former central time
09-15-2012, 05:44 PM
--------------------snip---------------------------
It is not known if there is any connection to the grave robbing business. The then chief of police ruled them out early in the investigation to the consternation of veteran police detectives for reasons known only to him. I believe it is correct to say that at least one, perhaps two, officers who were assigned this case wanted to look in that direction but were discouraged from doing so. One of these officers has spoken to his frustration regarding this.
--------------------snip---------------------------
Id like to backtrack into the 'grave robbers component of this and maybe for the benefit of some of the newer lurkers. I have not followed this part of the case as carefully, nor am I up on the roster of suspects (Cox and Garrison are the big stars whose names come up a lot). But, what was the real motivation of these grave robbers at that time ? Was it monetary gain ? Seems pretty petty and cumbersome for that. Was it twisted perversion/Satanic ritual and whatever ? I can see that. Its been mentioned before and I remember it when I lived there, the other rash of grave robbing which appeared focused on Jewish graves in 1996. Was this similar/similar players to the 1992 period ? I believe its been raised of some Arian fringe group connection as well, that the presumed anti-Semitic component to this. I think its been established Suzie had connections with some of these people, as she was to testify against one of the grave robbers, where does that put her, if we know. Did she share these views ? Let me say very clearly, if I were arguing this case either way, I would chalk it up to a youthful indiscretion.
More directly, as a casual observer to this case, outside of Suzies testimony to LE against the grave robbers, I dont see these guys in the same league as the perps in 3MW. It appears to me that 3MW requires different skills, sophistication and tact to blunder detection more than robbing unguarded graves in a cemetery. If theres an indirect connection, that gets more into conspiracy stuff with more mouths keeping shut. Again, Im not saying this couldnt happen, and youve certainly pointed out a direct motive. The connect still 'feels awkward.
bearx
09-15-2012, 10:02 PM
I had thought they were above ground crypts. I'm unaware they actually dug up any graves.
Ok- so I misunderstood when I read "grave robbing" on here so much. Got it now! :)
Missouri Mule
09-16-2012, 12:02 AM
--------------------snip---------------------------
More directly, as a casual observer to this case, outside of Suzies testimony to LE against the grave robbers, I dont see these guys in the same league as the perps in 3MW. It appears to me that 3MW requires different skills, sophistication and tact to blunder detection more than robbing unguarded graves in a cemetery. If theres an indirect connection, that gets more into conspiracy stuff with more mouths keeping shut. Again, Im not saying this couldnt happen, and youve certainly pointed out a direct motive. The connect still 'feels awkward.
There have been assertions by some that one of the GJ3 may have had some connection to the grave robbers. My personal opinion is that the grave robbers did not participate in the actual abductions but could, I would speculate, provide an entry into or at the home, possibly outside where the perp or perps were able to subdue the women. Perhaps even a phone call such as "I'm coming over to your house" would have been sufficient to get the door opened.
Of the four agencies who have looked at this case the consensus appeared to be one of "sexual assault." I do not know if there was actual evidence or just a preponderance of elimination of all the other motives that led them to this conclusion.
This is why I discussed the matter of the erased tape a few posts back. From what I have read there were some inconsistencies in the accounts of how and who erased the tapes and for what reasons. Personally, I find the accounts very troubling. I do not know what the police thought about that.
In a TV interview made a few years back, which is no longer available, Jannelle appeared to be quite irked at the police who kept coming back to ask her questions. As I recall she complained that the police evidently from her point of view didn't talk to one another as each one kept asking her the same questions that she had been asked before. I take away from that they also did not feel comfortable that everything was explained satisfactorily.
My personal opinion is that of the many people in the house that day that not all of them should be given a clean bill of health.
Hurricane
09-16-2012, 09:23 AM
Thats pretty much my line of thinking as well. There may be a hair or other human evidence that gives a direct DNA connection and ID, but they dont have a name/face with it. They dont know if it is friend or foe. Was it one of the perps, or the many guests in the house that Sunday ? I suspect, to a lesser degree it may exist with any finger/foot prints (my guess is the perps wore gloves). And too, bodily fluids such as saliva contain DNA evidence. But, if this John Doe has never been convicted or his samples entered into the national databank, you have a mystery man ID. I dont know if there are scans for possible criminal relatives who might offer a trace to roots back in SW Missouri in 1992.
Having that kind of strong evidence is the heavy lifting though. Once a name/face is confirmed, the background story/circumstantial evidence can add context. I too have pondered what evidence from 1717 the State has sequestered and collected. And recently, whats being retested to the modern standards. Have all the known guests that Sunday given DNA samples to authorities ?
If there was trace hair, fiber, or DNA evidence recovered, it in and of itself is simply not sufficient enough to make the case in a court of law. How can that be if it's DNA? It could be that it matches to a close friend of the girls who could make the argument that they had been in the house at sometime during the previous 2-1/2 months, and therefore induce reasonable doubt to a jury if that is the essence of the evidence in their case. If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement? If no further evidence is ever developed then some future PA may have to take a "Hail Mary" shot at it if the day ever comes where the perp is going to be released from prison. But not until then. And I think perhaps that is some of what has been recently explained to Janis McCall.
In the news videos of the day forensic investigators can be seen carrying out bagged evidence. I, too have wondered what that evidence is and what is likely to be retested. In videos LE can be seen finger printing some cabinet doors which are likely in either the kitchen or bathroom, and I believe some larger items were removed from the house to be tested later. But I believe most of the bagged evidence was removed from Suzie's bedroom, Sherrill's bedroom, and the bathroom. That may not be all inclusive but by narrowing down to the rooms where the forensic evidence most likely came from you can come up with your own short list of what that bagged evidence was most likely to be.
I have been told that except for Suzie's bedroom the rooms in the house had all been freshly painted. If he reads this perhaps Dale417 can verify that. And remember, one of Sherrill's activities that night that tends to get overlooked, was putting up a wall paper boarder in one of the rooms. From the pictures it appears Suzie's room had never been painted. Perhaps it had been wall papered before and recently stripped but the walls appear to be old unpainted dry wall from when it was a garage.. The previous resident told me she used the room as a family room during the warm months. So I'm not sure on that.
We know that LE recovered 64 individual finger prints (going on memory); not from 64 individuals. Since the house had been freshly painted that seems reasonable to me. We know that all of the prints were identified. There was a story of an unidentified partial palm print but I don't recall the source for that now. So I too believe that the perps wore gloves. If they had been working in some capacity as day laborers in the weeks leading up to the abductions, in the estate homes just to the west and working out of their van then it is entirely possible & probable that they had work gloves with them in the van. And remember that anyone on parole would be required to have a job as a condition to their parole, and their parole officer would know exactly where they worked.
I don't know if the friends who entered the house that Sunday were swabbed for DNA or not. If any were considered suspects I'm sure they were asked to be swabbed & polyed but whether they would consent or not I don't know.
dale417
09-16-2012, 02:27 PM
Hurricane, I wish I could help you on the painting in the home. I lean toward it having been done but I cannot deny or confirm either way. I do recall Sherrill as being extremely clean in her housekeeping and always busy "sprucing" things up around her home (i.e.,as evident by the refinishing project). Sorry I can't help more with your question.
Missouri Mule
09-16-2012, 02:41 PM
If there was trace hair, fiber, or DNA evidence recovered, it in and of itself is simply not sufficient enough to make the case in a court of law. How can that be if it's DNA? It could be that it matches to a close friend of the girls who could make the argument that they had been in the house at sometime during the previous 2-1/2 months, and therefore induce reasonable doubt to a jury if that is the essence of the evidence in their case. If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement? If no further evidence is ever developed then some future PA may have to take a "Hail Mary" shot at it if the day ever comes where the perp is going to be released from prison. But not until then. And I think perhaps that is some of what has been recently explained to Janis McCall.
In the news videos of the day forensic investigators can be seen carrying out bagged evidence. I, too have wondered what that evidence is and what is likely to be retested. In videos LE can be seen finger printing some cabinet doors which are likely in either the kitchen or bathroom, and I believe some larger items were removed from the house to be tested later. But I believe most of the bagged evidence was removed from Suzie's bedroom, Sherrill's bedroom, and the bathroom. That may not be all inclusive but by narrowing down to the rooms where the forensic evidence most likely came from you can come up with your own short list of what that bagged evidence was most likely to be.
I have been told that except for Suzie's bedroom the rooms in the house had all been freshly painted. If he reads this perhaps Dale417 can verify that. And remember, one of Sherrill's activities that night that tends to get overlooked, was putting up a wall paper boarder in one of the rooms. From the pictures it appears Suzie's room had never been painted. Perhaps it had been wall papered before and recently stripped but the walls appear to be old unpainted dry wall from when it was a garage.. The previous resident told me she used the room as a family room during the warm months. So I'm not sure on that.
We know that LE recovered 64 individual finger prints (going on memory); not from 64 individuals. Since the house had been freshly painted that seems reasonable to me. We know that all of the prints were identified. There was a story of an unidentified partial palm print but I don't recall the source for that now. So I too believe that the perps wore gloves. If they had been working in some capacity as day laborers in the weeks leading up to the abductions, in the estate homes just to the west and working out of their van then it is entirely possible & probable that they had work gloves with them in the van. And remember that anyone on parole would be required to have a job as a condition to their parole, and their parole officer would know exactly where they worked.
I don't know if the friends who entered the house that Sunday were swabbed for DNA or not. If any were considered suspects I'm sure they were asked to be swabbed & polyed but whether they would consent or not I don't know.
Hmmm. That's interesting. And I had been operating under the impression that the perp was not in prison although his accomplice or accomplices might be. Without naming names, we know who two of those individuals might be and where they are. If the one most prominently named, he is going to be in prison for a very long time. The other not quite so long. (not speaking of Cox)
I had heard about the probability that gloves were used and have even heard that a gun might have been used to gain the cooperation of the women.
Hurricane
09-16-2012, 05:21 PM
Hmmm. That's interesting. And I had been operating under the impression that the perp was not in prison although his accomplice or accomplices might be. Without naming names, we know who two of those individuals might be and where they are. If the one most prominently named, he is going to be in prison for a very long time. The other not quite so long. (not speaking of Cox)
I had heard about the probability that gloves were used and have even heard that a gun might have been used to gain the cooperation of the women.
I am giving two examples as to why this case may not have gone to trial IF LE has DNA evidence and an otherwise weak case:
"If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement?"
No where did I say THE PERP was in prison.
Missouri Mule
09-16-2012, 06:47 PM
I am giving two examples as to why this case may not have gone to trial IF LE has DNA evidence and an otherwise weak case:
"If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement?"
No where did I say THE PERP was in prison.
"where the perp is going to be released from prison."
You prefaced this with " If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction" That was the interpretation of what I understood you to say.
Of course it is possible that you meant that the perp might be caught in the future. I interpreted to mean in the present tense.
I take it then that you were talking in the theoretical sense. Stated differently, you expect the perpetrator will be at some point arrested and then put in prison as a possible situation in the future. At that point the person could be tried by some future prosecutor with the "hail Mary" prosecution.
I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; just that it caught my eye and thought you meant this person was already in jail. I apologize if that was not your intention.
HmmWhoKnows
09-17-2012, 11:59 AM
I'd like to see someone try and ELIMINATE Steve Garrison completely as a suspect or having zero connection to the case. I'm hoping this isn't a "can't prove a negative" type of thing either. I believe there's substantial evidence on Garrison.
Can anyone?
monkeymann
09-17-2012, 01:40 PM
I'd like to see someone try and ELIMINATE Steve Garrison completely as a suspect or having zero connection to the case. I'm hoping this isn't a "can't prove a negative" type of thing either. I believe there's substantial evidence on Garrison.
Can anyone?
I've always looked at the Steve Garrison issue like this.
Ask yourself this question: "Would police have conducted the large scale search (they brought in heavy equipment and sealed the search warrant and subsequant findings of the search) if they didn't feel that Steve Garrison was giving them information that was valid in some way."
Question #2) I'd like to know if someone will come clean about if the story is true regarding Steve Garrison and one or more of the Grave Robbers being seen together at an apartment, in which police had been there to talk to an occupant of the apartment about an unrelated matter, and seen Garrison & one or more of the Grave Robbers in the apartment.
It would certainly help answer the question HmmmWhoKnows is asking.
former central time
09-18-2012, 04:00 AM
If there was trace hair, fiber, or DNA evidence recovered, it in and of itself is simply not sufficient enough to make the case in a court of law. How can that be if it's DNA? It could be that it matches to a close friend of the girls who could make the argument that they had been in the house at sometime during the previous 2-1/2 months, and therefore induce reasonable doubt to a jury if that is the essence of the evidence in their case. If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement? If no further evidence is ever developed then some future PA may have to take a "Hail Mary" shot at it if the day ever comes where the perp is going to be released from prison. But not until then. And I think perhaps that is some of what has been recently explained to Janis McCall.
In the news videos of the day forensic investigators can be seen carrying out bagged evidence. I, too have wondered what that evidence is and what is likely to be retested. In videos LE can be seen finger printing some cabinet doors which are likely in either the kitchen or bathroom, and I believe some larger items were removed from the house to be tested later. But I believe most of the bagged evidence was removed from Suzie's bedroom, Sherrill's bedroom, and the bathroom. That may not be all inclusive but by narrowing down to the rooms where the forensic evidence most likely came from you can come up with your own short list of what that bagged evidence was most likely to be.
I have been told that except for Suzie's bedroom the rooms in the house had all been freshly painted. If he reads this perhaps Dale417 can verify that. And remember, one of Sherrill's activities that night that tends to get overlooked, was putting up a wall paper boarder in one of the rooms. From the pictures it appears Suzie's room had never been painted. Perhaps it had been wall papered before and recently stripped but the walls appear to be old unpainted dry wall from when it was a garage.. The previous resident told me she used the room as a family room during the warm months. So I'm not sure on that.
We know that LE recovered 64 individual finger prints (going on memory); not from 64 individuals. Since the house had been freshly painted that seems reasonable to me. We know that all of the prints were identified. There was a story of an unidentified partial palm print but I don't recall the source for that now. So I too believe that the perps wore gloves. If they had been working in some capacity as day laborers in the weeks leading up to the abductions, in the estate homes just to the west and working out of their van then it is entirely possible & probable that they had work gloves with them in the van. And remember that anyone on parole would be required to have a job as a condition to their parole, and their parole officer would know exactly where they worked.
I don't know if the friends who entered the house that Sunday were swabbed for DNA or not. If any were considered suspects I'm sure they were asked to be swabbed & polyed but whether they would consent or not I don't know.
I dont necessarily disagree thats what may be happening, but I dont know if thats the wisest move by the State. Time is not in their favor. All this circumstantial stuff and eyewitnesses fade with time. Witnesses move away, memories fade, people die all which can add more doubt to the recipe. DNA is a pretty good club to carry. A positive ID with a felon in prison somewhere else shouldnt act as a barrier to be tried in SW Missouri. Although I wouldnt say bureaucratic resistance and turf battles dont happen. But, didnt they drag Cox from a California prison to stand trial in Florida in the 80s ?
Apparently DNA is collected fairly regularly of convicted felons, but even in states where its mandatory, it isnt total and enforcement lacks. The perp(s) may have slipped between the cracks in some facility. If they cant match the samples to anyone in the national bank it may also mean the perp is dead. But, if they are sitting on a positive DNA match it goes to show you how weak their circumstantial/eyewitness case is.
Thewop356
09-18-2012, 09:15 PM
I have not been reading this thread for very long, but I did skim over the last few months and noticed that not once (that I saw) was Larry Dwayne Hall's name mentioned. I am sure that he may have been mentioned in earlier threads, but I cannot ignore the fact that a witness came forward saying he saw a blonde girl driving an older Dodge Van later on Sunday. The witness also said that an unseen male voice told the blonde girl driving "not to do anything stupid". Larry Hall had a Dodge Van similar to what the witness described and he has been accused of abducting dozens of girls using said van. He has even been accused mutlipe times of abducting more than one girl at a time. The book written about Larry Dwayne Hall by Chris Martin even mentions that he is suspected in the Springfield Three abduction. I just thought I would bring this info back into the thread and please exuse me if I overlooked some evidence the was provided that may have cleared him as a suspect in this disappearance.
monkeymann
09-18-2012, 10:40 PM
I've always looked at the Steve Garrison issue like this.
Ask yourself this question: "Would police have conducted the large scale search (they brought in heavy equipment and sealed the search warrant and subsequant findings of the search) if they didn't feel that Steve Garrison was giving them information that was valid in some way."
Question #2) I'd like to know if someone will come clean about if the story is true regarding Steve Garrison and one or more of the Grave Robbers being seen together at an apartment, in which police had been there to talk to an occupant of the apartment about an unrelated matter, and seen Garrison & one or more of the Grave Robbers in the apartment.
It would certainly help answer the question HmmmWhoKnows is asking.
I just wanted to say that I am really tired of asking questions and no one responds. I'm sorry if I've stepped on some toes by asking the hard questions, and trying to keep people accountable. So with that said, you can kick this can down the road for as long as you like.
I'm going somewhere else to discuss this case, with people that take this case seriously and want to have valid discussions with one another, in an effort to solve this case.
Good Bye!
HmmWhoKnows
09-19-2012, 09:42 AM
I agree somewhat Monkeymann and share your frustration. It could just be that no one has the answers.
Boy I'm growing tired of the "maybe a serial killer did it!" This "Larry Hall" stuff is tiring. I'm near 100% sure he didn't do it. He didn't know the victims and many people say he was in West Virginia the day of the abduction. NEXT!
Hurricane
09-19-2012, 12:24 PM
I just wanted to say that I am really tired of asking questions and no one responds. I'm sorry if I've stepped on some toes by asking the hard questions, and trying to keep people accountable. So with that said, you can kick this can down the road for as long as you like.
I'm going somewhere else to discuss this case, with people that take this case seriously and want to have valid discussions with one another, in an effort to solve this case.
Good Bye!
Monkeymann, if your question is directed at me, I have never made such a claim. I would start your questioning with the source giving you such information. Or pay closer attention to Charles Tuna who is making the claim of a Garrison, Robb, & Recla connection being at his apartment, unless you already are by posting as "Fact Is", "Freedom of Information", "Lurker" or any of the other drive by posters he feeds off of. Tuna is obviously the original source of that information.
monkeymann
09-20-2012, 08:53 AM
Monkeymann, if your question is directed at me, I have never made such a claim. I would start your questioning with the source giving you such information. Or pay closer attention to Charles Tuna who is making the claim of a Garrison, Robb, & Recla connection being at his apartment, unless you already are by posting as "Fact Is", "Freedom of Information", "Lurker" or any of the other drive by posters he feeds off of. Tuna is obviously the original source of that information.
The "Original Source" for me anyway, was by no means "Tuna", unless "Tuna" is the same person that everyone goes to for all the information that comes in about the case. You know who I'm talking about, and its not a "He".
So when anyone wants to talk about this case, and stop playing games, I'll be around.
HmmWhoKnows
09-20-2012, 01:21 PM
Hurricane,
What's your opinion of the Charles Tuna stuff? See any validity to it?
Hurricane
09-20-2012, 06:10 PM
Hurricane,
What's your opinion of the Charles Tuna stuff? See any validity to it?
I don't know enough of the details to really have an opinion. I've been told LE's opinion is there are problems with the timeline. His info is not new.
HmmWhoKnows
09-20-2012, 07:44 PM
Well it sounds like Garrison knew Recla one way or another, and there you have it. A GJ3 member connected to Suzie. The rapist, gun carryin' criminal that ran with a bike gang. One that matches the one sketch released of a potential suspect.
I still would like anyone to give a good reason why Garrison isn't a likely suspect. Since he's in prison already, would that satisfy LE and prosecutors enough not to spring the case forward? Recla was hammered hard by LE early on so I tend to think his involvement is minimal if any.
I also have some information told to me that can link Garrison (and the other GJ3 members) to Sherrill too.
It's time for the "Hail Mary" to be thrown. Been 20 damn years. Do they think the new reward of a 100k is going to bring anyone else forward? If it hasn't in 3-4 months, then BOMB IT OUT!
Missouri Mule
09-21-2012, 12:29 AM
Well it sounds like Garrison knew Recla one way or another, and there you have it. A GJ3 member connected to Suzie. The rapist, gun carryin' criminal that ran with a bike gang. One that matches the one sketch released of a potential suspect.
I still would like anyone to give a good reason why Garrison isn't a likely suspect. Since he's in prison already, would that satisfy LE and prosecutors enough not to spring the case forward? Recla was hammered hard by LE early on so I tend to think his involvement is minimal if any.
I also have some information told to me that can link Garrison (and the other GJ3 members) to Sherrill too.
It's time for the "Hail Mary" to be thrown. Been 20 damn years. Do they think the new reward of a 100k is going to bring anyone else forward? If it hasn't in 3-4 months, then BOMB IT OUT!
How reliable do you regard your informant? If this were true what was her involvement with them?
HmmWhoKnows
09-21-2012, 09:55 AM
How reliable do you regard your informant? If this were true what was her involvement with them?
Not super reliable. Nothing I'm using as definite fact but I like the sound of it. Garrison was in his early 30s and Sherrill was in her late 40s. They weren't acquaintances in any way. They lived on opposite sides of town and they never had people in common. The link is pretty small. But one that, when combined with Recla connection, makes sense.
Missouri Mule
09-21-2012, 02:00 PM
Not super reliable. Nothing I'm using as definite fact but I like the sound of it. Garrison was in his early 30s and Sherrill was in her late 40s. They weren't acquaintances in any way. They lived on opposite sides of town and they never had people in common. The link is pretty small. But one that, when combined with Recla connection, makes sense.
You may be onto something. If there was an intermediary who had her confidence and Garrison somehow connected with her this would present a possible scenario.
HmmWhoKnows
09-21-2012, 02:24 PM
I'm thinking someone like Garrison (someone who'd commit a sexual crime) probably became familiar with the house/Sherrill with Suzie as the victim in mind. If the primary perp is Garrison, this is what he'd likely do based on what I know about him. Suzie was the target if so.
Garrison could have easily seen Suzie if Recla was getting drugs from him or something. Probably asked a couple of Recla's pals where the girl lived. Let's remember in 1992, Springfield was a smaller city than it is today. And the "drug moving" crowd was even smaller. These people most likely knew or heard of each other. That's just how Springfield is outside the college campus bubble.
Missouri Mule
09-21-2012, 02:39 PM
I'm thinking someone like Garrison (someone who'd commit a sexual crime) probably became familiar with the house/Sherrill with Suzie as the victim in mind. If the primary perp is Garrison, this is what he'd likely do based on what I know about him. Suzie was the target if so.
Garrison could have easily seen Suzie if Recla was getting drugs from him or something. Probably asked a couple of Recla's pals where the girl lived. Let's remember in 1992, Springfield was a smaller city than it is today. And the "drug moving" crowd was even smaller. These people most likely knew or heard of each other. That's just how Springfield is outside the college campus bubble.
If Suzie was the actual target it would explain why the women were taken so late as Sherrill was there until about 3 AM all by herself.
Your theory makes logical sense to me. I will tell you that at least one, perhaps two officers (as related to me) wanted to look at the grave robbers more closely. Evidently at least one of them was discouraged from doing so. There is no logic that I can see that would explain that.
Morton
09-22-2012, 05:51 PM
I've seen some discussion on here about the 48 Hours episode. If you go to the 48 Hours section on the CBS news website and enter "have you seen them" (name of episode) in the search box you can watch the 1997 re-broadcast of the show. I vaguely remember an interview with Dusty that may have been cut out, but I think it's pretty much the same as the original 1992 show with some added commentary at the end.
Missouri Mule
09-23-2012, 04:15 PM
I've seen some discussion on here about the 48 Hours episode. If you go to the 48 Hours section on the CBS news website and enter "have you seen them" (name of episode) in the search box you can watch the 1997 re-broadcast of the show. I vaguely remember an interview with Dusty that may have been cut out, but I think it's pretty much the same as the original 1992 show with some added commentary at the end.I thank you for finding this. It is pretty much the same as I remember. Offhand I can't think of anything that was left out. This is the actual link.
Have You Seen Them? - 48 Hours - CBS News
HmmWhoKnows
09-24-2012, 10:16 AM
One question on the video: Are the men looked at, on 7:14 of the video, as suspects in THIS case? Or do you think it was men who committed local crimes?
I wrote their names down to look into them just in case.
Missouri Mule
09-24-2012, 10:20 AM
One question on the video: Are the men looked at, on 7:14 of the video, as suspects in THIS case? Or do you guys think it was guys who committed local crimes?
I wrote their names down to look into them just in case.
Without me looking at the video again, are you talking about the photos being shown to a potential witness? If so, no idea. I would guess these individuals were among the "usual suspects" they would trot out.
HmmWhoKnows
09-24-2012, 10:38 AM
Yes those.
Also, Asher makes a good point about the pictures of Suzie. Something I never thought of before. Wonder where they are if they weren't in the house. I'm sure the studio people were all looked into. But that's the kind of thing a creepy guy that would commit this crime would have. If they were obsessed with Suzie of course.
former central time
09-24-2012, 01:29 PM
Yes those.
Also, Asher makes a good point about the pictures of Suzie. Something I never thought of before. Wonder where they are if they weren't in the house. I'm sure the studio people were all looked into. But that's the kind of thing a creepy guy that would commit this crime would have. If they were obsessed with Suzie of course.
Exactly a point that jumped out at me as well. I had heard this program focused a lot on the drug element, I didnt personally find that to be the case. It mentioned it, but it also brought up the sexual element as well.
That plus Ashers remark about Suzie wanting attention/approval, which sounds like more of a scream to me. From the moment I first read about this case, that is the first impression I got about her, never actually knowing her in real life. But, you put that in the mix with her association with, as detectives phrased it questionable people in her past... you get an ugly picture very quickly.
HmmWhoKnows
09-25-2012, 01:45 PM
Hurricane,
Would you think this crime leans more to sexually based or drug/debt/money based? IMO, Recla and Co. are innocent.
Thanks in advance.
Hurricane
09-25-2012, 05:21 PM
Hurricane,
Would you think this crime leans more to sexually based or drug/debt/money based? IMO, Recla and Co. are innocent.
Thanks in advance.
Drake, I believe this to be a simple case of a random sexual assault gone bad. I have posted many times before that if the two girls had not arrived back home at the time they did Sherrill would have likely been raped in her own home, probably threatened and beaten within an inch of her life, but left alive. Follow the KISS principle. Just because LE does not currently have the necessary evidence to satisfy their burden of proof in a court of law does not mean that this case is not solved. Or that it is some big conspiracy of drugs, money, bad cops & serial killers.
Since I am posting this I want to say that I am going silent with my research and will no longer be posting on any board, so don't waste your time directing questions to me because I won't be answering.
And if Bartt happens to read this I want to apologize to him for having to read scenarios thru the years such as proposed above in my first paragraph. I know that can't be easy to take, not only for him but for all the friends of these 3 women who really know what they were really like as people.
monkeymann
09-25-2012, 10:13 PM
Drake, I believe this to be a simple case of a random sexual assault gone bad. I have posted many times before that if the two girls had not arrived back home at the time they did Sherrill would have likely been raped in her own home, probably threatened and beaten within an inch of her life, but left alive. Follow the KISS principle. Just because LE does not currently have the necessary evidence to satisfy their burden of proof in a court of law does not mean that this case is not solved. Or that it is some big conspiracy of drugs, money, bad cops & serial killers.
Since I am posting this I want to say that I am going silent with my research and will no longer be posting on any board, so don't waste your time directing questions to me because I won't be answering.
And if Bartt happens to read this I want to apologize to him for having to read scenarios thru the years such as proposed above in my first paragraph. I know that can't be easy to take, not only for him but for all the friends of these 3 women who really know what they were really like as people.
Good! Now may be we can all discuss this case in an objective manor with out you trying to shut down every angle we pursue, but yet never providing anything positive in return! There is a lot more to this case than just a Simple Random Sexual Assault.....and you know it as well as I do. Your KISS principle should start with who were the last people to see the women, and/or who had a potential motive. As well as weather the story about Garrison and one or more of the Grave Robbers knowing each other is true or not. But because you have refused to confirm or deny this issue, or discuss any other issues, we are all left to guess if this was actually true, or just a rumor.
I've read back through at least 4-Years worth of your posts, and your ideas about what happened in this case have swayed back and forth just like everyone elses.
You don't have this figured out anymore than anyone else does.
Missouri Mule
09-26-2012, 12:33 AM
While the theory that this was a random sexual assault gone bad is entirely plausible it seems to me there are several holes in this scenario. I can see no reason why the perp or perpetrators waited so long to do their evil deed. Sherrill was available for whatever purpose they had in mind long before the girls arrived.
Recently I learned that human trafficking is something on the order of the second most prevalent crime after drugs which greatly surprised me. For all we know the women (most likely the girls) could have been taken out of the country and taken overseas where they still remain if not dead.
http://www.humantrafficking.org/updates/893
I would also call attention to the unusual fact that Suzie's car was parked off the driveway (as seen in the "48 Hours" program) although there was more than adequate room on the north side of the driveway to have parked fully on the pavement. And then we have to wonder why her car was pointed to the east when according to Sherrill's car the driveway was clear to have driven in from the east side of the driveway since we can be reasonably certain they came in from Glenstone. It has come up from time to time the belief that the crime scene was staged. I'm not necessarily going there but I wonder about the vehicle placement. Suzie must have driven in there hundreds of time and surely knew where the driveway was. But someone who had not might have been in a hurry and missed the driveway and drove onto the grass. We do not know for a certain fact the girls actually arrived at the home. It would seem to be the case but cannot be definitively proven beyond an absolute certainty.
Just some random thoughts that come to mind.
former central time
09-26-2012, 02:04 AM
------------------snip--------------------------
I would also call attention to the unusual fact that Suzie's car was parked off the driveway (as seen in the "48 Hours" program) although there was more than adequate room on the north side of the driveway to have parked fully on the pavement. And then we have to wonder why her car was pointed to the east when according to Sherrill's car the driveway was clear to have driven in from the east side of the driveway since we can be reasonably certain they came in from Glenstone. It has come up from time to time the belief that the crime scene was staged. I'm not necessarily going there but I wonder about the vehicle placement. Suzie must have driven in there hundreds of time and surely knew where the driveway was. But someone who had not might have been in a hurry and missed the driveway and drove onto the grass. We do not know for a certain fact the girls actually arrived at the home. It would seem to be the case but cannot be definitively proven beyond an absolute certainty.
Just some random thoughts that come to mind.
----------------------------snip-------------------------
A lot here, in the last couple of posts.
To address the cars, I think this was raised before, but your question Mule has also been asked before too. Wasnt it explained as possible force of habit. During the cold months, having the car parked where Suzie did would most likely give you a clear windshield (melt off the frost) during the critical morning hours. I personally can say I did that when I lived in the area in the Winter months, parked the car where it would get sun ASAP in the morning to save me frost scraping time. True, in June it wouldnt serve that purpose, but with Suzie bringing in a guest, maybe out of habit she just overshot the yard, and came in around from the left, with Stacy following her. And, parking on the grass, remember, the girls were drinking.
Question, since you referenced the 48-Hours video, I saw the stand-up with the reporter and the cars still parked there. Any idea when that might have been ? How long did they keep the cars there ?
monkeymann
09-26-2012, 08:28 AM
----------------------------snip-------------------------
A lot here, in the last couple of posts.
To address the cars, I think this was raised before, but your question Mule has also been asked before too. Wasnt it explained as possible force of habit. During the cold months, having the car parked where Suzie did would most likely give you a clear windshield (melt off the frost) during the critical morning hours. I personally can say I did that when I lived in the area in the Winter months, parked the car where it would get sun ASAP in the morning to save me frost scraping time. True, in June it wouldnt serve that purpose, but with Suzie bringing in a guest, maybe out of habit she just overshot the yard, and came in around from the left, with Stacy following her. And, parking on the grass, remember, the girls were drinking.
Question, since you referenced the 48-Hours video, I saw the stand-up with the reporter and the cars still parked there. Any idea when that might have been ? How long did they keep the cars there ?
Thats an excellant observation!! I was thinking the same thing too. How long did the house sit there, with the cars not moved and nothing else moved. It seems like 48hrs was given access to the crime scene big time. Did you notice the guy leans up against Susies car during his narative.
The other thing I wondered about the video is that, you see them dusting the house, and using tape to lift and preserve the prints the want. Was the crime scene still being processed when 48hrs, or who ever shot the footage of them lifting the prints off the wall. If so, that seems almost unprecidented that LE would allow a news crew inside the house WHILE its being processed.
Also, as you both said or implied, it would seem that who ever was driving Susies car, did a really poor job of navigating the driveway. You'd think that who ever was driving the car had to have been unfamiliar with the drive, and/or drunk. I can see being close to the grass, but Susies car is all up in the grass, like the person driving it was very intoxicated, or just a real bad driver. I'm voting for intoxicated.
Missouri Mule
09-26-2012, 09:57 AM
----------------------------snip-------------------------
A lot here, in the last couple of posts.
To address the cars, I think this was raised before, but your question Mule has also been asked before too. Wasnt it explained as possible force of habit. During the cold months, having the car parked where Suzie did would most likely give you a clear windshield (melt off the frost) during the critical morning hours. I personally can say I did that when I lived in the area in the Winter months, parked the car where it would get sun ASAP in the morning to save me frost scraping time. True, in June it wouldnt serve that purpose, but with Suzie bringing in a guest, maybe out of habit she just overshot the yard, and came in around from the left, with Stacy following her. And, parking on the grass, remember, the girls were drinking.
Question, since you referenced the 48-Hours video, I saw the stand-up with the reporter and the cars still parked there. Any idea when that might have been ? How long did they keep the cars there ?
The last question first. I don't know the precise time the cars were there but they were seen in some still photos at about the time the house was being dusted, etc. I would guess at some time that the cars were returned to the families. If I am not mistaken, I saw Stacy's car parked on the street where the McCalls lived in the "48 Hours" program.
I can understand the force of habit but I'm still not comfortable about the car being parked off the pavement area. The drinking theory makes sense and as you say there was no possibility of frost in June. But I still wonder if perhaps the cars were reparked by someone not normally familiar with the driveway, rushed, and while in the dark. May be nothing but it has always intrigued me. I also have this vague recollection that I read somewhere that the cars may have been parked in the opposite direction by some witnesses who happened by the residence that early morning. But don't hold me to that.
Morton
09-26-2012, 09:07 PM
Drake, I believe this to be a simple case of a random sexual assault gone bad. I have posted many times before that if the two girls had not arrived back home at the time they did Sherrill would have likely been raped in her own home, probably threatened and beaten within an inch of her life, but left alive. Follow the KISS principle. Just because LE does not currently have the necessary evidence to satisfy their burden of proof in a court of law does not mean that this case is not solved. Or that it is some big conspiracy of drugs, money, bad cops & serial killers.
Since I am posting this I want to say that I am going silent with my research and will no longer be posting on any board, so don't waste your time directing questions to me because I won't be answering.
And if Bartt happens to read this I want to apologize to him for having to read scenarios thru the years such as proposed above in my first paragraph. I know that can't be easy to take, not only for him but for all the friends of these 3 women who really know what they were really like as people.
I remember hearing the whole "they know who did it, but don't have evidence" rumor literally days after the disappearence. It's pretty clear re-watching the 48 hours episode that law enforcement had no idea what happened to the women at that time. If there was no validity to the rumor back then, it really makes me question if there is any validity to it now.
HmmWhoKnows
09-27-2012, 03:41 PM
I was under the impression that, as of 1994-1995 the case files pointed to one person and there was elusive proof. And this is a summation of evidence and tips.
monkeymann
09-29-2012, 02:45 AM
I was under the impression that, as of 1994-1995 the case files pointed to one person and there was elusive proof. And this is a summation of evidence and tips.
Is this one person the one who is currently in prison. Is it the same person who lead LE to the farm in Webster Co. hoping to cut a deal on the charges he was facing?????
HmmWhoKnows
10-01-2012, 02:12 PM
Garrison? I think it's him. But no one knows for sure.
From what I know of the perp and what the FBI describes, Garrison is a match.
Was Garrison just a guy they tried to convict to make the families happy? That I don't know. But he was at a hotel with the police for questioning. And the fact is, he escaped. Did he know the light at the end of the tunnel was there? I've also been told that if DNA linked Garrison, he'd be convicted by now. So I assume that the mysterious DNA found in the house was never linked to anyone. Because if they used 1/8 of a gram or whatever to convict Carnahan 25 years after the fact, they can surely do the same with the 3MW. Or at least hold that person for questioning.
Iluminada
10-01-2012, 03:08 PM
True. I think this is possibly one of the creepiest cases I have heard of, the idea that three fit people just living their lives can be just disappeared in these circumstances. It really is chilling.
The second creepiest would be the McStay family. Missing for 2 1/2 years. Poof they're gone. No evidence of a crime scene and no contact with family and friends.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
0