I got so behind on this thread. (My mother got sick right after I moved.) There is almost too much to take in. Missouri Mule and Hurricane, your knowledge and analysis are impressive.
So where are we? The whole grand jury thing is very important. The cliche is that a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich, and we have seen no indictments. That might not mean that the prosecutor did a bad job: maybe a witness recanted or maybe the prosecutor used the grand jury to go fishing, or to try to drive a wedge between the suspects. It's frustrating that grand jury stuff is so secret.
Since Missouri Mule is trying out the "outsider killer" scenario, let me follow him. I have always thought that there were 2 or 3 people involved, mostly because the BTK types that like multiple victims are pretty rare. But think about the case in Florida where the predator lured a woman and two of her daughters out on a boat and killed them all. So it's possible. That scenario also suggests what such a specialist would need--a big ocean where he knows he will not be interrupted and he can get rid of the bodies easily. Even so, the fact that we know where and how those people were killed suggests the enormity of the task. Thus, I am sticking with 2 or 3 perpetrators.
Then there is the matter of whether or not at least one of the perpetrators was known to the victims to the extent that he could gain access with a knock at the door--or just walk in, as family and friends often do. The scenario of a house in good order, the dog left behind, the tv on, etc. seemed to suggest that there wasn't a big struggle, etc. The other end of the string has to do with why (if the woman were assaulted and killed) they weren't left in the house.
If the predators were career criminals, leaving the bodies (with all of the forensic evidence) would be like a robber writing the bank robbery note on his deposit slip. Even pre-DNA, semen and hair and fingerprints could show more that one perpetrator at work. Three sets of clothes, three sets of sheets, the rugs, the bodies...there wasn't the time to do all that and clean it up to leave little or nothing behind. So if rape and murder were the motives, the safest thing is to abduct the victims while they can walk out the door on their own and take them to a place where those things can be done without as much risk. Enter the van, which can carry 6 people easily. Or 4, if Sherrill was the original intended victim.
Even a certified moron would also have to know that the rape/murders of 3 woman, two of whom had JUST THAT DAY graduated from high school would raise a veritable ****storm in a town the size of Springfield. In the mid 70s, when Pittsburgh was a larger city than it is now, there was a string of shotgun murders, where a man would be shot and his female partner abducted. One woman's body was found; others were not. These murders/abductions were one right after the other and people were terrified. My point is that if an "insider" would get the women out of the house to avoid being linked to their murders, an "outsider" might do that to stir up doubt about where the woman are. A smart predator might leave the purses to stage the scene; a smarter one would leave them because having them in his possession is riskier than leaving them. At some point, he would have to get rid of that stuff if he took it. The more the predators handle, the more risk they take. The scenario would also explain why Stacy would be barefoot--they knew she wouldn't need her shoes and the less they took out of the house, the better.
The question of timing still bothers me; we had speculated before that one of the perpetrators was in the house when Suzie and Stacy arrived. Where are we with that idea?
My last thought is that we might be able to get most of the newspaper stuff from online archives, although that will cost a few dollars. I can't get to that this week, but I will try over the next weekend.
Consider, too, why the police might have clammed up if they suspected early on that 3 nutjobs had abducted these women.
