Suspect: Robert Craig Cox

[gaia227]

Robert was convicted and sentenced to death row for the 1978 beating death of Sharon Zellers. He was acquitted and charges dropped in 1988 due to a FL Supreme Court decision to reverse the ruling because of lack of evidence. He is currently serving a life sentence with possibility of parole in 2026 for armed robbery and holding a 12 yr old girl hostage.

Robert's family lives in Springfield and Robert was in Springfield at the time of the abduction. He worked for CU at the time and commented to police that he would pose as a city employee to gain access to the house. He has made numberous statements indicating he knows what happened to the women but refuses to go any furthere than that for fear of more charges. It is unknown if Cox is just doing it for the attention, the fun of it or if he actually does know something. He wrote two letters to the Springfield NewsLeader which are posted below. He also did an in-depth interview with Dennis Graves of KY3 but I do not have a copy or link for that. Cox lied about his alibi to LE claiming he was with his girlfriend. During GJ proceedings his gf admitted to lying and that Cox was not with her that night after all......

Personally, I believe if Cox does know something he is holding his cards right now in hopes that when he comes up for parole in 2026 he will use that information to try and work out a deal.


Mugshot:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=2924&d=1237159382

Letters to the NewsLeader:
http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/documents.html

His Florida Appeal disputing the evidence in Sharon's Zeller's murders:
http://www.law.fsu.edu/library/flsupct/73150/op-73150.pdf

NYT Article about his acquittal:
http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/22/us/man-awaiting-florida-execution-is-ordered-acquitted-in-79-killing.html

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=CL0MAAAAIBAJ&sjid=dF8DAAAAIBAJ&pg=2394,171801&dq=rrobert+craig+cox

Includes the story behind Sharon's murder:
http://www.news-leader.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20020603/NEWS01/60608049

http://www.truecrimediary.com/index.cfm?page=cases&id=33

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/day1_cox.html

[pittsburghgirl]

OK. We need to make better use of our new multiple threads. A couple of weeks ago, I was reading on the cold case Lizzie Borden thread, and carrie had posted a most interesting link to a "Statement Analysis" site. To give credit where it is due, carrie was passing along a link that kant had posted on another thread (maybe Caylee Anthony??) Anyhow, I clicked over to the site and was engrossed by the whole thing. In linguistics, I teach students to analyze apologies, especially celebrity apologies, which are often constructed to avoid all responsibility for the bad act they are supposedly apologizing for. So I know it is possible to examine the words, phrase structure, etc., to get at the real meaning, what the person is really saying. That is true even with skilled writers.

Here's an example. Justin Timberlake (or his PR flack) says, "I am sorry that anyone was offended by the wardrobe malfunction during the halftime performance of the Super Bowl...It was not intentional and is regrettable." He is not sorry that he ripped Janet Jackson's top off and exposed her breast on national TV; he is sorry "that anyone was offended." Indeed. Because if we weren't so silly as to be offended, he wouldn't have to apologize. And we aren't offended by his actions--but by a "wardrobe malfunction." As my students point out, a wardrobe can't "malfunction." We don't know what the "it" is--Offending us? the wardrobe malfunction? Certainly not his actions. And no matter what "it" is--"it" was not intentional. But he regrets "it" anyway. <sigh> Not an apology on any level.

What I did was go through Cox's letters, looking at germane statements. Cox is actually a pretty good writer, in that he can manage a narrative sequence, stay focused on answering the reporters' questions, and write in grammatical sentences (meaning that the syntax or phrase structures are recognizably English) I DON"T mean that he writes in Standard English or doesn't make what school teachers would call errors (missing punctuation, writing "there" for "their"). Those things might be revealing, but in this case, not so much. I put my comments in italics and my conclusions at the end. Because this is long, I will break it into 4 chunks so that it will be easier for people to respond.

I know that one popular view is that Cox is playing with the police. I am sure that he is, and I am sure he enjoys the attention. But I also think he was involved in the case, based on what he says and doesn't say in these letters.

Once I post my first take on the letters, I am going to email the "statement analyis" expert to ask him to take a shot at these letters. If he responds, he may shoot me down, but that would be a step forward.

Here is the link to the site: http://www.statementanalysis.com/lying/

[pittsburghgirl]

5/19/97—Excerpt from letter to Springfield News-Leader

Cox is answering questions that a reporter has sent to him. In the section of the text pertaining to the 3MW case, he is actually recounting his VERSION of the interview with the three officers from Springfield.

The visit [from “Sgt. Routh, Cpl. Thomas and polygraphist Truly Applegate”] had surprised me and I almost refused the interview. But I decided to see what they wanted. I was soon to find out.

They asked the same old questions from before. I assume to see if I had the same answers. Then I asked some of my own question. I asked why they had subpoenaed the KY-3 tapes? They said for the Grand Jury. Then I asked, were they examined by a behavioral scientist? There answer was, “They were looked at by a lot of people.” Then I asked who had been subpoenaed by the Grand Jury. Cpl. Thomas told me the truth again when he said he had been, some people who I had worked with. My girlfriend and her two daughters and some other people. The questions about the three missing women are “the same old questions from before.” He does not mention the women at all, and certainly not by name. What interests him are his own questions about the GJ. Why would the first point that Cox recounts from this interview be his question about if the KY3 tapes were examined by a behaviorial scientist? And who all had been subpoenaed? One answer might be that in his mind, everything is about him. But it’s an odd question to ask police interviewers. And we should wonder what in the KY3 interview might interest behavioral scientist.

What Cpl. Thomas wanted to know is what I did on the following Sunday. I told him I didn’t remember.
In the 2002 letter to the N-L, Cox talks about knowing the police would want to talk to him about the disappearance of the women. (“ I had just gotten home from work when a police cruiser pulled up and two uniformed officers approached me and asked me where I was on the day of the disappearance. I told them and that was the last I heard from the Springfield police until I got convicted in Texas.”) In this letter he tells them he “can’t remember.”

Then he told me that I had told the two police officers who first approached me a week after the disappearance that I had gone to church with my girlfriend. At that time they contacted her. She confirmed my story. But at the Grand Jury hearing she said that she didn’t go to church with me, but was covering for me because I had called her and asked her to do that for me. Obviously they were concerned with this minor detail.
Note what he says: “She confirmed my story.” If he had told the truth, he might have said, “She confirmed that we were together” or “confirmed where I was” or “confirmed that I went to church with her.” He recounts his girlfriend’s GJ statement: “she said that she didn’t go to church with me, but was covering for me because I had called her and asked her to do that for me.” But he doesn’t deny anything in the statement: that she didn’t go to church with him, that she was “covering for him” and that he had “asked her to do that for him.” The girlfriend’s statement begs the question of what she was covering for. And why he had to call her to ask her to cover for him.

Then they asked me about the golf tournament. They had checked into this story and confirmed it. “This story,” as opposed to the other story, as opposed to “where I was.”

But the golf tournament was over by seven o’clock. What did I do after the tournament. I really couldn’t remember since it was so long ago. (What did you have or dinner two weeks ago?” Most people can’t even remember that.) Attempt to convince reader he is telling the truth.

Then I was asked why I called my girlfriend, who I usually staying with and told her I would be staying at my folks house tonight. This is what is called an “unusual statement.” “Who I usually staying with” is ungrammatical and the verb shifts from past (“called” to an incompleted progressive verb—“staying”. The statement analysis site says that people talking about the past should stay in the past tense. When he shifts, he is stumbling over the issue of where he was “staying”—the verb that he uses in “would be staying at my folks house tonight.” Again, the “tonight” shifts the sentence into the present, instead of “that night”.

I don’t remember the reason, but I do remember calling her from a payphone. He has just said he “usually” stayed with the girlfriend and “staying at my folks house tonight” suggests that he was not recounting what his girlfriend said to the GJ but rather telling the reporter/reader of the letter what he originally told police. So he is lying when he says he doesn’t remember the reason.

Then there were questions about my work in the area. The investigators knew that I had helped in the area, but there was no record of me being in the area. Cox being straightforward.

[pittsburghgirl]

Part 2, 1997 letter, continued.

Then Sgt. Routh told me how he had taken over this case. He told me he didn’t think I was involved in this case, then in his next words he wanted to bring closure to this case by me telling him where the bodies were.

I told him that I wanted closure too. I’m tired of the harassment I have received because of my association with this case. (being placed in Ad-Seg). Note Cox doesn’t question that there are “bodies” or deny that he knows where they are.


Then I told Sgt. Routh if I told could tell him where the bodies were then he would come after me with an indictment and seek the death penality. Some people have argued that the crossed out “told” was deliberately placed, but that would require Cox to be extraordinarily self-aware about his writing. Now, “told” there would be very close to a confession. “Could tell” is a conditional that could mean either that he “was able to tell because he knew” or “was able to tell without penalty.” The mention of the death penalty in the same sentence suggests to me the latter. Writers often connect points grammatically or spacially when they are connected in their minds.

His response was “just get word to me without letting me know it is you.” I asked him how could I do that from inside here. He said “you smart, you can figure a way.” I told him that he wasn’t very informed about information coming in or going out. There was no way for me to contact him without incriminating myself. Again, a truthful statement. He seemed to except that. I could tell you, but I don’t think you would be able to keep me as a source without revealing who I am and where you got the information. Am I right? “I could tell you"?—what? Where’s the object? Where the bodies are? "Am I right?""- that if I tell you what I know you would have to reveal where you got the information?

So it finally lead to them wanting me to take a polygraph test. Supposedly to clear me from the case. (I now wonder if they offered Steve the same thing). Note “Steve,” one of the GJ suspects, is referred to by first name. Why just him, and not the other two?

So I asked to see the questions first. They looked at Applegate and he said he would go over the questions with me alone before I took the test. So I agreed to listen to the questions. There were three sets of ten questions and he wanted to give me three separate tests. Then he showed me the questions. Some of them were not appropriate and I objected to them. So I refused to take the test. …Unique word, “appropriate” in his view.

…There were a lot of other things discussed, but I won’t put them in writing. Why not? Why “won’t”? And what other things?

I would have to agree with Steve’s comment “that the investigators blew their opportunity to solve this case a long time ago.” Think about this; we often argue about the investigators’ competence, but we don’t assume there was a specific “opportunity” to solve the case. He says they had an opportunity and blew it. Now how would he know that?

[pittsburghgirl]

Excerpt from letter to News-Leader, 5/1/2002

I was a locator. My area of operation was the Springfield area. I have done locates all over Springfield. But to answer your specific question, I have done work in the area of the house where the abduction occurred. Note the words “the abduction.” In other places, he refers to the “disappearance,” but here the first person “I” and “abduction” and “house” are in the same sentence.

I believe the first time that the police questioned me was approximately two weeks after the disappearance. I was expecting them to eventually come talk to me. That is why I remembered what I had done on that day. See point in previous letter. Why would he expect the police would come talk to him. He may well be telling us something important when he says, “That is why I remember what I had done that day.” In the 1997 letter he claims to not remember, but here, 5 years later, “I remember what I had done that day.” If he remembers, why doesn’t he say, “…why I remember I had been out drinking with X or playing golf or …” He knew the cops would come to talk to him and he remembers what he did that day. WHAT DID HE DO THAT DAY?

I had just gotten home from work when a police cruiser pulled up and two uniformed officers approached me and asked me where I was on the day of the disappearance. I told them and that was the last I heard from the Springfield police until I got convicted in Texas. In this version, the false story about calling the girlfriend and going to church with her, etc. is just “I told them” because he doesn’t have anything else.

My opinion of being a suspect doesn’t really matter because there is nothing I could say to change the authorities opinion. Indeed.This is a clear, straighforward and believable statement.

[pittsburghgirl]

I am not a trained statement analyst. Clearly. But I think these letters are very revealing, especially in the places where Cox is trying to account for what he has said in the past, where he was at the time of the women's disappearance, and how his grildfriend has blown up his "story."

On the statement analysis site, I saw no example like the one in which Cox says, "I have done work in the area of the house where the abduction occurred." "The house where the abduction occurred," not the "house where the women were staying" or "the Levitt house." Other places, he uses "disappearance." But when he talks about the house itself, he says "abduction."

He never mentions "the women" or the "victims" or their names. He does talk about the "bodies." Even if the police interviewers used that term, an innocent person might talk about "where the women are."

He never even accidentally denies involvement, never unconsciously gives away that he is just playing a game. But he unconsciously says over and over that he knows more than he is saying.

And: "There is nothing I could say to change the authorities opinion." How about--I didn't abduct those women. I didn't kill them. I didn't break in that house. I have no idea who might have done it.

Cox either was involved directly or indirectly. Now the question is: with whom?

Note also that the George's Steakhouse sighting says that the missing women were talking to clean-cut men. See Cox's picture. If someone were making up a story about the abduction, why cleancut men and not scruffy, bedraggled druggie types?

I hope I've gotten everyone stirred up! Let's talk suspects! And one last point: Can we get a hold of those KY-3 tapes by Dennis Graves????? Does anyone have copies???? If he's talking, he'll be revealing things. And I dearly want to know what he thinks would interest behavioral scientists.

[odyssey1492]

Outstanding posts Pittsburghgirl!

I'm not as huge believer in coincidence, so I've always thought Cox's proximity to this crime was too much to ignore. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be any connection between Cox and the three women. If he was involved in it with someone else I still don't see the connection to the women. So that pushes it back into the random crime area unless he knew someone connected to the women and the police never found that out.

Either way, I've always thought his letters were too carefully worded. He seems to be very careful in what he says and how he says it. There's no way to know how long he spent writing those letters or writing and rewriting to get the effect he wanted. While he seems intelligent enough, he would have to be extremely intelligent and self-aware to craft letters in such a way to have so many layers and potential meanings to them. He says things in such a way where it almost seems like he's admitting involvement or direct knowledge but stops just short. And he never once denies involvement.

However, even if he was involved, you would think he'd just deny it. That's the one angle that makes me think he just likes the attention and doesn't know anything.

But my opinion is I think he knows more than he is saying, maybe it's because he knows something but wasn't involved or was somehow involved in only part of it.
I would be really interested if that expert takes a crack at his letters. I'd also be interested in those KY-3 tapes.

[pittsburghgirl]

I sent the materials last night. We can only hope for a response. And if that expert isn't interested, we can look for another.

The randomness isn't as troubling if investigators are correct that more than one person was involved and at least one individual was connected to the women. Cox was living a more or less normal life in Springfield, with a girlfriend, co-workers, parents, etc. He would have known lots of people, if only on a superficial level. He may well have had some kind of relationship that overlapped with the lives of one or more of the women. Even just a girlfriend, mother or friend who got her hair cut at Sherrill's salon or a friend who knew Suzie or Stacy.

[Kathee]

Great insight Pittsburghgirl!

I have a copy of the Dennis Graves interview and am trying to figure out how to upload it to youtube.

It would have to be done in several parts as it is a pretty lengthy interview.

[pittsburghgirl]

Let me say something else, from the point of view of a writing teacher and a person who has studied linguistics. Cox may well have labored long and hard on these letters. He may have drafted and copied and recopied. Whatever. The sort of things that statement analysis looks at are often unconscious things: shifts in verb tense, passive vs. active voice, word choice (abduction vs. disappearance.) Even very good writers often don't notice these things they do and what they show. I have no doubt that Cox loves baiting people when he is interviewed or writes to them, but he can't help but give away more than he wants to, because so much of language use is unconscious. That is, someone knows what they want to say but given enough opportunity they will reveal more than they think they are revealing. I do think the VERBAL language is more indicative, however, and harder to control, which is why I am looking forward to seeing the KY3 tape.

Andeven if it means that it takes Kathee longer to upload this video, the longer the video itself, the better. More opportunities to see what Cox is lying about. 'Cause you know he's lying.

[pittsburghgirl]

Outstanding posts Pittsburghgirl!

However, even if he was involved, you would think he'd just deny it. That's the one angle that makes me think he just likes the attention and doesn't know anything.

But my opinion is I think he knows more than he is saying, maybe it's because he knows something but wasn't involved or was somehow involved in only part of it.
I would be really interested if that expert takes a crack at his letters. I'd also be interested in those KY-3 tapes.

Here's what the statement analysis website has to about denials:

"I couldn’t have done that." "I wouldn’t have done that."

In statements such as these, the person wants you to believe it is impossible for him to have done such a thing. Therefore, he wants you to conclude that he did not do it. However, he has not told you that he did not do it. He has not denied committing the act.

"I loved Nicole, I could never do such a thing." - O.J. Simpson


"I had nothing to do with........"

This can be a very convincing denial. After all, if a person had nothing to do with the crime, then how could he be guilty? However, this denial still stops short of saying “I didn’t do it.”

"First everyone understand, nothing to do with Nicole’s murder." - O.J. Simpson


"I deny........"

Sometimes a person will "deny" doing something. Again this is different than saying "I didn’t do it." The word "deny" can mean "to refuse to accept." If you have a friend who is an alcoholic and he refuses to admit he is an alcoholic, we say he is in denial. It may be the person refuses to accept the fact he committed the act.

"There may be many similarities between these deaths and the death of my first wife, Debra Spivey. However, I deny killing her and her mother." - Mark Barton


there is always a part of the person that wants to tell you everything you want to know. There is a part of him that wants to confess and get it off his chest. However, the fear of getting in trouble or getting someone else in trouble may prevent him from telling you certain things. If only 10% of him wants to talk, that may be a tough interview. In these situations, do not become discouraged but focus on that small part of him that wants to talk. Once you start to get a little information from him more information will follow. Soon 20% of him will be willing to talk. Then 30%. Then 40%, etc. But, don't expect 100% of him to talk. Even in a confession a person will not tell you everything that happened.

Statement analysis shows how much skill there is involved in interviewing or interrogating a suspect. We know that bad interrogation can lead to false confessions, in which the interrogator creates conditions that feed information to vulnerable, but innocent people, and induce them to confess. On the other hand, good interviewers must be able to ask the right questions, listen not just to the content but the language of the answers, and know how to follow up to push the deceptive person into revealing more. All in real time, and under intense pressure to get results.

If you are interested, go to the website. A lot of the best stuff is on the live links on the left side. You might have to dig a bit, but it's worth it. I've learned a lot from the site and intend to buy the book.

[pittsburghgirl]

File regarding Cox's appeal of his Florida death sentence. Includes information like date of birth, etc.

http://www.floridacapitalcases.state.fl.us/Publications/innocentsproject.pdf

Also information about Cox's California attack and attempted kidnapping:

Cox was indicted in Florida nine years after the commission of the offense. At the time of the
indictment, Cox was serving a nine-year sentence in California for Kidnapping and two separate
counts of Assault with a Deadly Weapon. Circumstances of the offenses are as follows;

In August of 1985, a young girl named Kathleen Boice arrived at her house in Crestview
California. As she exited her vehicle, Cox, who was following her, jumped from his car, grabbed
the victim, threw her to the ground, placed a seven-inch knife to her throat and told her, “ Go
with me, don’t scream or I‘ll kill you.” During this scuffle, the knife cut the victim’s hand.

In December of 1985, a young woman, Gidget Wickam, was stationed with the U.S. Army at
Fort Ord, California. Ms. Wickam went to the airport to retrieve luggage and, as she was leaving
the airport, Cox, who asked her for a ride to the base, confronted her. She complied and, en
route, Cox drew a firearm on Ms. Wickham and told her they were not driving to the base but
driving to the mountains.

[Missouri Mule]

I was unaware of this thread until this morning. In reading over Cox's past history it reminded me of one scenario that I picked up a couple of days on Google. I'll try to retrieve it and post excerpts. It comes from a very unlikely source but I thought it interesting nonetheless and appears to fit Cox's MO. I can find no reason to exclude him. The $64,000 question is how he kept his DNA or prints out of the house. This site perhaps offers a clue. It might also answer the long festering problem of the broken glass, in addition to the glass, hair and other forensic evidence may have been swept up as well. If there was anything linking Cox to that house this case would be solved; perhaps no conviction, but we would know he was involved.

[pittsburghgirl]

MM, I look forward to your new information.

It's interesting that Cox has used both a gun and knife in his assaults, and that he attacked one woman OUT of her car and the other while she was in the car, and driving. It suggests a certain flexibility in his methods,

The second example is a little puzzling in terms of what actually happened. What does "Cox, who asked her for a ride to the base, confronted her" mean? He doesn't pull the gun until after she agrees to give him a ride and they are on their way presumably to the base. I'd sure like to know why the request for a ride was described as "Cox...confronted her."

And how did she get away? Does anyone have the full details on this case?

[Missouri Mule]

PG: Let me PM you with this "theory." It is purely a "thinking outside the box" idea I ran across. I prefer not to post this in the open forum. You may think it is pure nonsense but what the heck? At this point what does it matter? It is not exactly "information." So don't get your hopes up.

[Cambria]

I was unaware of this thread until this morning. In reading over Cox's past history it reminded me of one scenario that I picked up a couple of days on Google. I'll try to retrieve it and post excerpts. It comes from a very unlikely source but I thought it interesting nonetheless and appears to fit Cox's MO. I can find no reason to exclude him. The $64,000 question is how he kept his DNA or prints out of the house. This site perhaps offers a clue. It might also answer the long festering problem of the broken glass, in addition to the glass, hair and other forensic evidence may have been swept up as well. If there was anything linking Cox to that house this case would be solved; perhaps no conviction, but we would know he was involved.

Can you at least post the site you are talking about so we can read the info there? Thanks.

[Missouri Mule]

Can you at least post the site you are talking about so we can read the info there? Thanks.

I would except then it wouldn't be taken seriously. I will say, however, that it speaks of the girls being outside the home for a period of time after they arrived at the Levitt residence. It is an idea I have kicked around a long time as I tried to put myself back in the days when kids would be having parties and everyone is somebody's friend and trust abounds even around strangers. Thinking back to my own days in high school and college it is a wonder I lived to tell the tale. I wanted a "second opinion" before I actually linked the site.

Here is a short blurb from KY3 regarding Cox. May have already been posted.

http://www.ky3.com/internal?st=print&id=7876067&path=/home/related

[Missouri Mule]

Can you at least post the site you are talking about so we can read the info there? Thanks.

Actually, I think I was "test driving" Microsoft's "bing" search engine when I ran across this web site.

[Valiant]

Why all these secretive posts in this thread too?

If you are going to allude to a source, it should be posted.

[Indianagirl]

I would except then it wouldn't be taken seriously. I will say, however, that it speaks of the girls being outside the home for a period of time after they arrived at the Levitt residence. It is an idea I have kicked around a long time as I tried to put myself back in the days when kids would be having parties and everyone is somebody's friend and trust abounds even around strangers. Thinking back to my own days in high school and college it is a wonder I lived to tell the tale. I wanted a "second opinion" before I actually linked the site.

Here is a short blurb from KY3 regarding Cox. May have already been posted.

http://www.ky3.com/internal?st=print&id=7876067&path=/home/related


MM, when you say this theory involves the girls being outside for a period of time, does this mean they never went inside or they came back outside after entering the home? I'm interested in hearing this theory.

[Missouri Mule]

Why all these secretive posts in this thread too?

If you are going to allude to a source, it should be posted.

I've already explained why.

The problem is two fold. One is that we can't discuss actual people without fear of lawsuits and my pockets are not deep enough. Secondly, some ideas are met with derision because they are outside "acceptable thought" and I don't need the grief.

If people are that curious about these various web sites they can sit at their computer and do a Google or Bing and just read what is on the internet and draw their own conclusions. The one thing that we can be 100% certain is that someone, at some time, has come up with the right hypothesis. We just don't know which one. Each person will have to make up their own mind and should attempt if at all possible to research this subject and keep and open mind. There is far too much "group think" regarding this crime. Step over the "line" and expect to be pilloried. Who needs the aggravation? I have heard this time and again, even today, from some who are not mainstream in their thinking. My retort would be this. "Mainstream" thinking has gotten us nowhere up to this point.

If anyone wants to know how things could actually occur, suggest looking at the old Robert Redford movie "Three Days of the Condor." He works for the CIA as a researcher and he stumbles onto something he didn't even know meant anything. But it was sufficiently concerning to the powers that be that several people were murdered in cold blood to keep the truth from emerging. Some will say this is just a movie. Well, movies often mirror reality. And let us not forget Churchill's famous admonition,"Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

[Missouri Mule]

MM, when you say this theory involves the girls being outside for a period of time, does this mean they never went inside or they came back outside after entering the home? I'm interested in hearing this theory.

It had more to do with them being outside of the home for a period of time. At one time one of them went into the home and this is how entry was eventually gained.

Believe me, when I was in college I had more good times than were healthy and everyone was my buddy or so I thought. Inhibitions are thrown out the window. I suspect the girls were in similar circumstances. But the difference with me is that no one was going to abduct me. But the girls; well that's a whole different ball game. Predators are always on the prowl and what better time to hook up with someone than when the booze and drugs are flowing freely?

[Indianagirl]

It had more to do with them being outside of the home for a period of time. At one time one of them went into the home and this is how entry was eventually gained.

Believe me, when I was in college I had more good times than were healthy and everyone was my buddy or so I thought. Inhibitions are thrown out the window. I suspect the girls were in similar circumstances. But the difference with me is that no one was going to abduct me. But the girls; well that's a whole different ball game. Predators are always on the prowl and what better time to hook up with someone than when the booze and drugs are flowing freely?

I agree, if someone is under the influence, a predator does have an advantage. My question is, LE reported that both girls had washed up, so wouldn't this indicate both were inside the home at some point? I'm wondering if they washed up and then went back outside? Perhaps to talk and enjoy the summer night? I've always thought it was possible that Suzie stepped outside to smoke. Since Stacy didn't smoke, perhaps Suzie stepped outside to smoke as a courtesy to Stacy?

ETA: Cigarette smoke does give some non-smokers a headache and Stacy was prone to migraines. So, maybe Stacy requested Suzie to smoke outside?

[Missouri Mule]

I agree, if someone is under the influence, a predator does have an advantage. My question is, LE reported that both girls had washed up, so wouldn't this indicate both were inside the home at some point? I'm wondering if they washed up and then went back outside? Perhaps to talk and enjoy the summer night? I've always thought it was possible that Suzie stepped outside to smoke. Since Stacy didn't smoke, perhaps Suzie stepped outside to smoke as a courtesy to Stacy?

ETA: Cigarette smoke does give some non-smokers a headache and Stacy was prone to migraines. So, maybe Stacy requested Suzie to smoke outside?

I've thought about that. I see no reason why they couldn't have simply gone in and cleaned up and came back outside to chat some with their new found "friends." I would doubt anyone would be putting a searchlight on their faces to check for makeup at that hour of the night.

What I like about this theory is that this would explain how entry was gained. And knowing what I think I know about kids of that age, I'll bet they were all over town having a good old time and the girls were revved up as well. And their guard was down. And this is when the predator(s) would be most likely to strike, especially if it had been planned out in advance. That might explain why there was no DNA or fingerprints in the home. The girls could have been outside, called back in for "Mom" to come to the door and they grabbed her and off they went. The porch globe was knocked off and it's over. The perp(s) may never have gone into the home at all.

[Indianagirl]

I've thought about that. I see no reason why they couldn't have simply gone in and cleaned up and came back outside to chat some with their new found "friends." I would doubt anyone would be putting a searchlight on their faces to check for makeup at that hour of the night.

What I like about this theory is that this would explain how entry was gained. And knowing what I think I know about kids of that age, I'll bet they were all over town having a good old time and the girls were revved up as well. And their guard was down. And this is when the predator(s) would be most likely to strike, especially if it had been planned out in advance. That might explain why there was no DNA or fingerprints in the home. The girls could have been outside, called back in for "Mom" to come to the door and they grabbed her and off they went. The porch globe was knocked off and it's over. The perp(s) may never have gone into the home at all.

Do these new found "friends" include Cox as one in this theory?

[Missouri Mule]

Do these new found "friends" include Cox as one in this theory?

Without question. I imagine he was hanging around and perhaps had befriended some of the girl's friends. I still put him up right at the top of the suspect list. If he wasn't actually in that circle he may have been watching at a distance for a good time to make his move. He probably had at least one helper. That helper could have also met an untimely end to tie up any loose ends. As I said in an earlier post, any number of possible theories might be right. But I want to emphasize that this offers the best of all of the theories why his DNA or forensic evidence was not found in the house.

This is why I have many times insisted that until the possible friends, acquaintances, and family of the victims are all eliminated, we are casting about in a large ocean of possible scenarios. If all of those could be eliminated it certainly points strongly at someone like Cox who had no reliable alibi. In my view he didn't even have a alibi plus he concocted a false alibi needlessly if he already had another provable alibi. He had to believe his fall back alibi was near worthless. Bottom line is that he can't be eliminated as a suspect.

[Indianagirl]

Without question. I imagine he was hanging around and perhaps had befriended some of the girl's friends. I still put him up right at the top of the suspect list. If he wasn't actually in that circle he may have been watching at a distance for a good time to make his move. He probably had at least one helper. That helper could have also met an untimely end to tie up any loose ends. As I said in an earlier post, any number of possible theories might be right. But I want to emphasize that this offers the best of all of the theories why his DNA or forensic evidence was not found in the house.

This is why I have many times insisted that until the possible friends, acquaintances, and family of the victims are all eliminated, we are casting about in a large ocean of possible scenarios. If all of those could be eliminated it certainly points strongly at someone like Cox who had no reliable alibi.

Or perhaps Cox and a buddy were out cruising the streets looking for a victim and noticed the girls outside?

[Missouri Mule]

Or perhaps Cox and a buddy were out cruising the streets looking for a victim and noticed the girls outside?

Not inconceivable.

What people get wrapped up is in the wrong things. For example, a theory was espoused that because the dog barked at 1:30AM that it had gotten out and someone, perhaps Cox, brought the dog to the door and gained entry. We don't even know if it was possible for the dog to have gotten outside the premises and for an owner to leave a dog outside for what must have been a long time without checking is not likely.

If we just look to the facts, which is that the car was inside the carport, which has been stated to be unusual, we know it didn't park itself and the keys were in Sherrill's purse and that there was evidently no fingerprints or DNA of the perp(s) (if they didn't come from the people to the home), then it is as probable as anything that the perp(s) never went into the home. That argues for the girls being approached while outside the home. The mother comes out to check on them and they are all snatched up and taken. But was it her usual custom to park half way in and half way out? It does not necessarily follow that because Suzie reportedly parked in an easterly direction that it was because she couldn't access the driveway as Sherrill's car blocked entry from the eastern side of the driveway. Maybe she liked to park facing east where the sun would melt the frost off her windshield in the wintertime and this was just her usual custom regardless. Maybe Sherrill did park all the way in. Where is it established that she didn't?

[pittsburghgirl]

We actually had a pretty spirited discussion here on WS about the possibility that the girls didn't stay in the house, or the possibility that the abductor(s) got them coming out of the house to get things from the car. One of the biggest sticking points in the whole case is the issue of how the abductor(s) got into the house and control of the women, when (so far as we know, and this is a big caveat) there isn't a sign of forced entry or other indications of a break in. If the women were inside, either someone in the house (the women or a guest) let the abductor(s)/accomplice(s) in or the women did or someone failed to lock a door. If Suzie and Stacy were outside, even just to go to the car, things become much easier.

I am still intrigued by the George's sighting because it opens up more opportunity for Suzie and Stacy to be seen and followed home--or to make some connection with "three men" who turn up later at the house. If the sighting at George's is valid, and the waitress's memory is correct or close to correct, Suzie was drunk. That might explain sitting out in the cool summer night after the face washing and getting ready for bed. Sit outside, have a cigarette (Suzie), the abductors spot them as they cruise, SOMETHING happens and one of the girls screams or the dog started barking, Sherrill goes out on the porch and suddenly all three of them are under control. If the whole thing went down on the porch, it might explain the broken porch light as well. The next door neighbors were gone. Maybe no one heard a thing.

Here's a question: somewhere I read that the three men at George's were "clean cut" and I can't find that for the life of me. I hope I wasn't hallucinating. Anyway, pictures of Cox show someone who is fairly young and clean-cut looking.

[Missouri Mule]

Here's a question: somewhere I read that the three men at George's were "clean cut" and I can't find that for the life of me. I hope I wasn't hallucinating. Anyway, pictures of Cox show someone who is fairly young and clean-cut looking.

I seem to recall the same thing and had the same thought about Cox as well. At that time he wouldn't have been that old and not bad looking so he could easily have fit that description. With he and two other "clean cut" fellows they could have followed the women back to the home. Sherrill went inside and the girls stayed outside to shoot the breeze. After a while, Sherrill comes outside to check on their delay and they are all scooped up and taken away. More than plausible. With no DNA or forensic evidence it is highly likely. If Sherrill pulled in her car all the way into the garage to accomodate these "clean cut" fellows it answers two questions of how did there get room to pull the van up to the porch and how did the keys get in her purse? And it also answers a third question. If these "clean cut" guys never even went into the home, they wouldn't even have known about that money in her purse. They just wanted one or more of the women.

[pittsburghgirl]

Then the case become far less mysterious in a way. It's all about abduction, rape and murder. The "outside" scenario might also explain why the TV was left on. The girls turned it on when the came home, washed their makeup off, and then decided to sit outside. Suzie might have wanted a cigarette before bed, or maybe one or both of them was too keyed up (or a little drunk) too sleep. Maybe Stacy borrowed some sweatpants to wear outside.

The only thing I can't figure is how Sherrill's purse would have gotten into the pile with the others and Suzie's overnight bag.

This scenario takes a hit if there was bleach or some other stuff in the drains, but wouldn't we know if there was SOME "signs of foul play" at the scene? That would have tipped the investigation toward abduction/murder from the get-go.

[Missouri Mule]

Then the case become far less mysterious in a way. It's all about abduction, rape and murder. The "outside" scenario might also explain why the TV was left on. The girls turned it on when the came home, washed their makeup off, and then decided to sit outside. Suzie might have wanted a cigarette before bed, or maybe one or both of them was too keyed up (or a little drunk) too sleep. Maybe Stacy borrowed some sweatpants to wear outside.

The only thing I can't figure is how Sherrill's purse would have gotten into the pile with the others and Suzie's overnight bag.

This scenario takes a hit if there was bleach or some other stuff in the drains, but wouldn't we know if there was SOME "signs of foul play" at the scene? That would have tipped the investigation toward abduction/murder from the get-go.

Excellent point. This plays into "Hurricane's" scenario where all the women were rounded up in Suzie's bedroom and promised or enticed to leave the premises unharmed, although I can't imagine what that might be. We have the matter of her vehicle all the way into the carport and the keys in her purse.

Perhaps this could be explained by examining two factors. One would be the matter of the answering machine. What do we really know about that and was there an attempt at obscuring the time line? Secondly it might be explained if one or more of the perp(s) were among the group that went to the home that fateful day. Someone may have placed the purses there deliberately for some unknown reason; dare I say "undoing" the crime?

I really don't have a good explanation about the stacking of the purses. I've always believed it was more likely than not the process of staging the crime scene. But if it was not done by any of the known people who entered the home that day, how did outsiders manage not to leave any DNA, fingerprints or other identifying material behind? Somehow I'm having trouble imagining bumbling burglers and chronic jailbirds being that careful. We know the purses didn't move themselves and we know the keys didn't return themselves to Sherrill's purse. Beats the heck out of me.

[odyssey1492]

Excellent point. This plays into "Hurricane's" scenario where all the women were rounded up in Suzie's bedroom and promised or enticed to leave the premises unharmed, although I can't imagine what that might be. We have the matter of her vehicle all the way into the carport and the keys in her purse.

Perhaps this could be explained by examining two factors. One would be the matter of the answering machine. What do we really know about that and was there an attempt at obscuring the time line? Secondly it might be explained if one or more of the perp(s) were among the group that went to the home that fateful day. Someone may have placed the purses there deliberately for some unknown reason; dare I say "undoing" the crime?

I really don't have a good explanation about the stacking of the purses. I've always believed it was more likely than not the process of staging the crime scene. But if it was not done by any of the known people who entered the home that day, how did outsiders manage not to leave any DNA, fingerprints or other identifying material behind? Somehow I'm having trouble imagining bumbling burglers and chronic jailbirds being that careful. We know the purses didn't move themselves and we know the keys didn't return themselves to Sherrill's purse. Beats the heck out of me.

How in the world does Cox being your primary suspect tie in with a perp being in the house the next day? Maybe I'm reading your post the wrong way, but this seems wildly inconsistent.

[Missouri Mule]

How in the world does Cox being your primary suspect tie in with a perp being in the house the next day? Maybe I'm reading your post the wrong way, but this seems wildly inconsistent.

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if Cox were to be eliminated, it narrows the suspect list down. Logically, an investigator checks out the alibis of those who last had contact with the victims. knew them or may have some unknown motive. Since we can't say with absolute certainty that Cox did it, and if there is no forensic evidence showing he was in the home, we have to go back to those who we do know were in the home as a first option, should he be eliminated.

In the absence of forensic evidence that Cox was in the home, who had the opportunity to place the purses on the steps? Obviously any of those in the home that day could have done that. Why would they do that? I'd say that would be suspicious; wouldn't you?

[odyssey1492]

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if Cox were to be eliminated, it narrows the suspect list down. Logically, an investigator checks out the alibis of those who last had contact with the victims. knew them or may have some unknown motive. Since we can't say with absolute certainty that Cox did it, and if there is no forensic evidence showing he was in the home, we have to go back to those who we do know were in the home as a first option, should he be eliminated.

In the absence of forensic evidence that Cox was in the home, who had the opportunity to place the purses on the steps? Obviously any of those in the home that day could have done that. Why would they do that? I'd say that would be suspicious; wouldn't you?

The 18 people who entered the home that day have been cleared as suspects. I understand you don't feel this was done to your satisfaction, but they were investigated and cleared so you shouldn't post as if that didn't happen.

[Missouri Mule]

The 18 people who entered the home that day have been cleared as suspects. I understand you don't feel this was done to your satisfaction, but they were investigated and cleared so you shouldn't post as if that didn't happen.

You're entitled to your opinion as am I. I'm not satisfied with the time line nor the explanations given. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't really understand the "faith" that says the police are incorruptible or incapable of incompetence. It happens all the time. What makes this case any different than numerous other cases? The prisons are full of ex cops who had their palms greased or were on someone's payroll.

Does this sound like an investigation to you? Oh, and BTW, I rechecked this today. I believe this is a highly reliable report.

"AROUND THE TIME OF THE CRIME, SCREAMS WERE HEARD IN EASTERN GREENE COUNTY. IT WAS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE INVESTIGATION. WE APPEALED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT IT AND RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHO TOLD US THEY SAW HEADLIGHTS AND HEARD A WOMAN SCREAMING ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEIR HOUSE IS 1/2 MILE FROM THE ROAD, SO IT WAS TOO FAR TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEY CALLED THE COPS BACK THEN,
WITH NO RESPONSE OR VISIT FROM AN INVESTIGATOR.

A DISPATCHER TOLD HER THERE WERE A LOT OF PARTIES GOING ON, AND THE HOMEOWNER RE-EMPHASIZED THAT THE SCREAMS WERE BLOOD-CURDLING.

AFTER SPEAKING WITH US, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WALKED OUT TO THE SPOT AND THERE THEY FOUND A 5 x 5 FOOT SQUARISH-SHAPED DUG HOLE, WITH SOME DIRT IN A PILE TO ONE SIDE. RECOVERED FROM THE AREA WERE FRAGMENTS OF DENIM-TYPE CLOTH, AND DUCT TAPE. THE DIRT REMAINING IN THE HOLE LOOKS LIKE THE HOLE WAS DUG AND SOMETHING WAS BURIED. THEN, SOME OF THE DIRT WAS DUG OUT AGAIN, AND SOMETHING WAS REMOVED.

THE HOLE IS WELL WEATHERED AND FULL OF LEAVES ETC FROM THESE MANY YEARS.

LAST WE HEARD, THEY ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE COPS."

http://www.airalex.com/PETITION.html

Cox reportedly had a "kill kit" in his vehicle and surprise, surprise, it included duct tape. Why wasn't this investigated?

Someone please construct an argument how so obvious a clue as duct tape in the middle of a field would be ignored. I can't think of one.

[odyssey1492]

You're entitled to your opinion as am I. I'm not satisfied with the time line nor the explanations given. We'll have to agree to disagree.


You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
The problem is you are never satisfied with any explanation of anything, but you don't offer up any evidence to back it up or you support it with irrelevant quotes or facts.

Case in point:
Your quote about screams in Greene County is totally unrelated to the investigation into the 18 people that entered the house. Cherry picking quotes, and applying them to another aspect of the case altogether isn't proof of anything. All that quote says is that a police dispatcher didn't handle a call very well before anyone even knew a crime of this magnitude occurred.
Implying that somehow proves the police didn't properly investigate the 18 people that entered the crime scene is superfluous and irresponsible. And someone with your background in investigation ought to know better than that.

[Missouri Mule]

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
The problem is you are never satisfied with any explanation of anything, but you don't offer up any evidence to back it up or you support it with irrelevant quotes or facts.

Case in point:
Your quote about screams in Greene County is totally unrelated to the investigation into the 18 people that entered the house. Cherry picking quotes, and applying them to another aspect of the case altogether isn't proof of anything. All that quote says is that a police dispatcher didn't handle a call very well before anyone even knew a crime of this magnitude occurred.

Implying that somehow proves the police didn't properly investigate the 18 people that entered the crime scene is superfluous and irresponsible. And someone with your background in investigation ought to know better than that.

Let me say this. I followed this case from early in the investigation to the current time. That scream on the outskirts of the Springfield was reported very early in the investigation but according to the actual property owners was never even investigated with so much as a telephone call.

As to the 18 people, we ALREADY know that the Chief of Police took it upon himself to exonerate viable suspects on his own judgment without proper vetting. Why should I or anyone believe anything they have to say? How many times do I have to repeat that when I reported an identical van to the department that NO interest was given it? Does that sound like an investigation to you? Explain that to me please.

Yes, I do have 30 years of investigative experience. The ONE thing I learned in those 30 years and which I practice even today is never to take anything for granted. Assuming anything is a very dangerous and highly costly practice to fall into. Ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff.

BTW, I'm not under any obligation to offer up any evidence. I'm not with the police department. And I'm not in a position to find any as I have no police powers to investigate. I am just an ordinary American citizen who expects professionals in the police departments to honor their pledges to "protect and serve." I don't believe that is too much to ask. And just like "Joe Friday" used to say, "Just the facts." I'm looking at the facts and when facts are obviously ignored anyone should be equally concerned.

What we have here is analogous to a baseball manager who has managed for 17 years without a success. At what point does the manager get fired and new management be brought in, like a proven crime organization, the Missouri Highway Patrol. It took them but one month to solve a 20 year old crime in the Ozarks. It may take them less time to solve this case if only given the chance.

And let me add one other thing since you have chosen to make this personal. It is not irresponsible to ask questions or expect the police department to act professionally. They are not to be put on some pedestal as though they are beyond reproach. If they can't handle the heat they should get out of the kitchen to quote Harry Truman.

[odyssey1492]

Let me say this. I followed this case from early in the investigation to the current time. That scream on the outskirts of the Springfield was reported very early in the investigation but according to the actual property owners was never even investigated with so much as a telephone call.

As to the 18 people, we ALREADY know that the Chief of Police took it upon himself to exonerate viable suspects on his own judgment without proper vetting. Why should I or anyone believe anything they have to say? How many times do I have to repeat that when I reported an identical van to the department that NO interest was given it? Does that sound like an investigation to you? Explain that to me please.

Yes, I do have 30 years of investigative experience. The ONE thing I learned in those 30 years and which I practice even today is never to take anything for granted. Assuming anything is a very dangerous and highly costly practice to fall into. Ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff.

BTW, I'm not under any obligation to offer up any evidence. I'm not with the police department. And I'm not in a position to find any as I have no police powers to investigate. I am just an ordinary American citizen who expects professionals in the police departments to honor their pledges to "protect and serve." I don't believe that is too much to ask. And just like "Joe Friday" used to say, "Just the facts." I'm looking at the facts and when facts are obviously ignored anyone should be equally concerned.

What we have here is analogous to a baseball manager who has managed for 17 years without a success. At what point does the manager get fired and new management be brought in, like a proven crime organization, the Missouri Highway Patrol. It took them but one month to solve a 20 year old crime in the Ozarks. It may take them less time to solve this case if only given the chance.

We are getting off topic here.
If you want to quote Joe Friday, then you should be more accepting of the facts that we do have.
And the fact is that those 18 people were investigated and cleared. To imply they weren't is irresponsible.
If you think they somehow tie to Cox, I'd like to know what points to that.
If not and it's just a matter of you thinking some one or more of those 18 might be involved I'd be curious to know who and why, but that would be a discussion for the main board.

[odyssey1492]

And let me add one other thing since you have chosen to make this personal. It is not irresponsible to ask questions or expect the police department to act professionally. They are not to be put on some pedestal as though they are beyond reproach. If they can't handle the heat they should get out of the kitchen to quote Harry Truman.

I'm sorry if you feel this is personal, it's not. But you spend so much time tooting your own horn about being an investigator and you have all this experience and inside knowledge of which you can't share or divulge so that when you play fast and loose with the facts it has to be noted.
If you are going to talk so much about yourself and experience you too should be able to handle the heat.

Nobody is putting the police on a pedestal. You have intermittently accused them of ineptitude and corruption without any real proof of that.
I completely disagree, and am just as free to offer a defense of that as you are to say it in the first place.
If you take that as personal maybe you are placing too much emphasis on yourself, and I'm sorry you feel that way.

[Missouri Mule]

We are getting off topic here.
If you want to quote Joe Friday, then you should be more accepting of the facts that we do have.
And the fact is that those 18 people were investigated and cleared. To imply they weren't is irresponsible.
If you think they somehow tie to Cox, I'd like to know what points to that.
If not and it's just a matter of you thinking some one or more of those 18 might be involved I'd be curious to know who and why, but that would be a discussion for the main board.

When did I say they were tied to Cox?

What I SAID what that they should be eliminated as suspects (so we can focus on Cox). After all he may be innocent.

I have two specific problems. The time lines and the answering machine. Bluntly stated, I find the explanations not credible. I also don't find the actions of those on that day as credible.

It is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. I have several suspects and several scenarios. Although I put Cox at the top of my list, I am not satisfied with others and what seems to be inexplicable actions. I have NEVER heard of anyone walking into someone's home as was done on that day. Springfield is not some backwater town where everyone knows everyone else and walks into people's homes uninvited. It is the third largest city in Missouri. People don't do this sort of thing there and they certainly didn't do it when I was there. I don't do this with my relatives, my friends or acquaintances. And I don't know anyone else who does either.

I would add that I don't wish to argue with you. You contacted me via e-mail and I shared some thoughts with you. Since that time you have pursued an agenda that I find annoying and gratuitous. Had I known that everything I would say would be twisted beyond what I intended or even said I would not have responded. What I am interested in are the facts; proven facts, plausible theories and reasoned and civil discussions. I am not interested in a personal exchange attacking one's ethics or thoughts.

[odyssey1492]

When did I say they were tied to Cox?

What I SAID what that they should be eliminated as suspects (so we can focus on Cox). After all he may not have done it.

I have two specific problems. The time lines and the answering machine.
Bluntly stated, I find the explanations not credible. I also don't find the actions of those on that day as credible.

It is possible to chew gum and walk at the same time. I have several suspects and several scenarios. Although I put Cox at the top of my list, I am not satisfied with others and what seems to be inexplicable actions. I have NEVER heard of anyone walking into someone's home as was done on that day. Springfield is not some backwater town where everyone knows everyone else and walks into people's homes uninvited. It is the third largest city in Missouri. People don't do this sort of thing there and they certainly didn't do it when I was there. I don't do this with my relatives, my friends or acquaintances. And I don't know anyone else who does either.

I would add that I don't wish to argue with you. You contacted me via e-mail and I shared some thoughts with you. Since that time you have pursued an agenda that I find annoying and gratuitous. Had I known that everything I would say would be twisted beyond what I intended or even said I would not have responded. What I am interested in are the facts; proven facts, plausible theories and reasoned and civil discussions. I am not interested in a personal exchange attacking one's ethics or thoughts.

I'm not attacking your ethics, but I feel I have to point out when certain facts are plainly ignored. I find certain aspects of your agenda annoying as well. You are certainly free to ignore my posts.
As for our contact via email, you asked I not share any of that on the boards, and I have honored your request and kept my word, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

As I said earlier, the way I read your post was that you thought there might be a connection between Cox and one of the people in the house that day, that was my original confusion with where this was going and why I pointed out those 18 people had been investigated and cleared.

I'm sorry this has gotten to the level it has between us, and I think it's safe to say we both ought to dial it back a little.
Out of respect for the case and others on the board I will choose my words more carefully in responding, but in all fairness you should also allow some of the rest of us to have opinions without summarily shooting them down because they don't fit your theories. Because whether you realize it or not, that is how it comes across.
Again, my apologies to you and the others on the board for letting the dialogue become argumentative.

[Missouri Mule]

I'm not attacking your ethics, but I feel I have to point out when certain facts are plainly ignored. I find certain aspects of your agenda annoying as well. You are certainly free to ignore my posts.
As for our contact via email, you asked I not share any of that on the boards, and I have honored your request and kept my word, so I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

As I said earlier, the way I read your post was that you thought there might be a connection between Cox and one of the people in the house that day, that was my original confusion with where this was going and why I pointed out those 18 people had been investigated and cleared.

I'm sorry this has gotten to the level it has between us, and I think it's safe to say we both ought to dial it back a little.

Out of respect for the case and others on the board I will choose my words more carefully in responding, but in all fairness you should also allow some of the rest of us to have opinions without summarily shooting them down because they don't fit your theories. Because whether you realize it or not, that is how it comes across.

Again, my apologies to you and the others on the board for letting the dialogue become argumentative.

I wasn't aware I was shooting anyone's view down. I welcome any and all "new thinking" regarding this case.

I don't have any ironclad theory that fits all the facts. What I have said, and what I do believe is that someone, at some time, has put all the facts together perfectly. We just don't know what it is or if it can be proven. After all Einstein labored long in the vineyards of thought before he perfected his General Theory of Relativity. And it was not until it was conclusively proven several years later that he overturned Newton's gravitational theory that had been accepted for two hundred years.

Let's discuss the various theories:

1) Cox did it. If so, how did he keep his DNA/forensics out of the house?

2) The "burglars did it. If so how did they keep their DNA/forensics out of the house?

3) A random killer(s) did it? Possible, although we have no evidence.

4) A serial murderer? If so, why would he come to this home?

5) Drug trade? If so, were any of the women tied to such an enterprise?

6) Jealousy? One of the girls may have locked horns with another. Any evidence of this? Surely one of the classmates may have some information.

7) One or more of the 18? Don't know. Didn't interview them.

8) One or more of the people who entered the home in that two month period? Possible.

9) Some "motorcycle gang?" Police say no; specifically the "Galloping Gooses."

10) Some mysterious "concrete workers?" Possibly, some reports say so.

11) Some mysterious "businessman behind a big desk with wing tipped shoes?" Could be. The lead detective claimed he looked at all the suspects to see what kind of shoes they wore.

12) The women just ran off the start new lives? Could be, but they have never been seen and left everything behind.

13) The women were abducted for the "sex trade" and carted off to some third word country. Possible but no evidence of such.

14) The grave robbing theory? Plausible but the chief evidently ruled them out.

15) Relatives? We don't know but we do know that relatives have a high percentage of crimes toward other relatives.

16) "Space Aliens?" Unlikely, since we know that matter cannot exceed the speed of light and the nearest star is four light years away. Would require "worm holes" to go vast distances in the universe since there are no habitable planets in our own solar system. Highly unlikely.

If anyone can think of any other theories, I'd be interested.

[Indianagirl]

Robert Craig Cox

http://i146.photobucket.com/albums/r260/kl4025930/RobertCraigCox738775.jpg

[Kathee]

Thanks for your help in getting Cox's picutre up, Indy. It took me a couple of days to get them to send me the newest one. I have put in a formal request with TXDOC to go interview Cox.