(sorry about being defensive) The reason why I shared what happened to me is that I wanted to illustrate that it could easily happen to anyone. Thankfully, my situation ended on a positive note. I endangered my well being to save my friend, and in the end we both came out of it ok...mainly because I didn't do what they told me to do. I threatened to scream and fight to the bitter end if they did not take us back into Springfield immediately and drop us off at our dorm. Yes, they abducted us and took us to an apt way passed the Strawberry Fields complex...far away from Woods House. There were guys there waiting in the dark. If I hadn't gone into that SUV to save my friend, I don't know what would have happened to her. This was perpetrated by seven preppy, frat guys...just think of what a couple of guys who were more rough around the edges could have done.
The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5
- Thread starter SheWhoMustNotBeNamed
- Start date
- Status
BTW, these frat guys took us somewhere else...away from the party where we initially encountered them. The apt on the outskirts of Springfield was where the crime was going to take place. We had no idea where we were, we were freshman. This was planned. I believe something similar could have happened to Suzie, Stacy and Sherrill.
While I agree that JK and MH seemed to do strange things upon arriving to the house, I don't think that it is out of the ordinary for teenagers to act on a whim and do things without thinking. Teenagers can also be very selfish because they live in the moment, so taking off and going to Branson without even giving it a thought doesn't really surprise me either. When I was that age, I did a lot of stupid things basically because I was just so naive to think that something bad or sinister couldn't happen to someone. If I had walked into that situation, I probably would have thought it was weird and then connected the dots later. Evil things didn't happen to people in Springfield, so she probably just thought that they had made other plans, probably got a little angry about that and went to Branson.
monkeymann
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 422
- Reaction score
- 52
JK & MH DIDN'T go to Branson that day. After going to the house around 12:30am and finding what they did, broken porch light globe, cars in the driveway, purses in the house, jewelery and washcloths in the bathroom apparently from taking their makeup off, cigerettes and lighters there, door unlocked.....they took off and "Supposidly" ended up at the Hydroslide. Then ended up back at the Delmar house at around 7:30pm. Janis McCall came around 9pm, police came around 10:30pm to take their report. One of the officers noticed that Janelles pants she was wearing over her swim suit were soaked. (Why would they still be soaked at 10:30pm???) Why did that entire day pass without JK or MH letting anyone know about what they found at 1717 Delmar that morning? Also, in the original KY3 interview with JK, you can tell by her body language that she's not being totally honest about the story she's telling the reporter. In the Discover Video done recently....she isn't either. Plus...everytime they tell their story, the details change, or the timeline changes a bit. Example. Original police report states that Janelle started calling the house at 7:30am.....but it later changes to 9am....and then 9:30am.(Ish). JK's story was that "Susie & Stacy" were suppose to call her in the morning, and she screws up, then corrects herself during the KY3 interview and states that she called and called and called and got no answer. They parted company at 2:00am according to the police report.....so why was Janelle calling Susie's house at 7:30am? Look......I could go on and on and on and on about all of the inconsistancies, and screwed up things that day....but right now I have to step away. Parting note: JK originally states that they cleaned up the glass from the broken globe as "A Favor to Sherrill"...before she and MH entered the house.....but when asked where she got the broom at.....one story was that it was under the carport, but later changed to in the kitchen closet. "But she and MH hadn't gone into the house yet" before they cleaned the glass up..........so how did that happen?
HmmWhoKnows
Former Member
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2011
- Messages
- 455
- Reaction score
- 555
JK and MH had control of the crime scene for as long as they wanted if they were behind it.
Does anybody know if Janis tracked JK and MH at Hydroslide? Did that happen or not?
Does anybody know if Janis tracked JK and MH at Hydroslide? Did that happen or not?
Luzer
Professional Cat Dodger
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 4
It had not occurred to me about controlling the crime scene, but it is an eye-opening point.
From what I remember, Janis called the Kirby house before noon to talk to Stacy. One of the Kirby girls told Janis Stacy did not stay all night there, but changed plans and went to the Streeter residence. Janis then went with another daughter to try on a wedding gown, deciding to wait till Stacy came home that evening to deal with Stacy not notifying her parents of the change of plans. The McCalls had a small reunion that afternoon at Springfield Lake, I believe. Then, when that was over, Janis started looking into Stacy whereabouts. I don't remember if Janis called the Street home or if Janelle called Janis to let the McCalls know Stacy had not been seen all day.
Luzer
Professional Cat Dodger
- Joined
- Aug 14, 2007
- Messages
- 553
- Reaction score
- 4
The original plan was for the girls to stay all night at a Branson motel. That was cancelled and then it was to stay at the Kirby residence. Then Suzie and Stacy changed plans again and headed for the Streeter home.
Also, CaliMama, you mentioned your brush with the frat boys and wondered if that could have happened to the girls. My opinion is that the frat boys would have gone home towards the end of May and not been in town. I am really sorry to hear that something bad happened to you.
Missouri Mule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,490
- Reaction score
- 1,566
I don't think I have addressed your question but let me try. As a civilian I have no means nor authority to do my own investigation but surely you would concede the police, had they not gotten to Cox so late in the game (some two years after crime with his phony alibi), might have taken it upon themselves to have availed themselves of questioning the neighbors where Cox claimed to have lived and slept at his parent's home. Two years after the fact, memories fade and it may be that the neighbors moved, died or otherwise had no solid evidence to place Cox in the house on that particular night.
Just imagine that had the police not been thrown off Cox's trail early on how critical information might have come to light; such as "well yes, officer, I do happen to remember something odd that night. A green van pulled up in front of the house and Robert got in it and drove away." I'd call that significant if it happened and would go a long way to building a good circumstantial case.
We can use another case for illustration. You are no doubt familiar with the Green River killer (AKA Gary Ridgway). It just so happened he was interviewed at about the second or third murder but something appeared to rule him out. He went on to murder at least 48 more women in the Seattle area. Ruling suspects out is always a chancy operation but necessary in the case where many suspects exist.
We'll never know what might have been learned if the searchlight had been placed squarely on Cox in the first two weeks of this case. That alibi not only got him off the hook but allowed time to weaken memories and make the evidence much less persuasive. I would doubt very few, if any people on the planet could place a particular vehicle in front of someone's house two or three years after the fact. But I would also argue that they might remember what had happened just two weeks prior. Am I wrong?
pittsburghgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 3,520
- Reaction score
- 8,857
Regarding the changing plans for where the girls would spend the night: In my experience with high-school and college-age kids, they make a plan about every 10 minutes, and often the first iteration is over-ambitious, expensive, and not well-received by adults. If I recall correctly, Janis McCall didn't like the motel idea, but eventually agreed to it. Why or how the plan broke down probably has a lot to do with the parties and who ended up where, how tired kids got, who was driving, etc. When I think about that night, it is upsetting how much horror could have been avoided if parents had been properly worried about 18-year old kids driving home at 2 am after a night of partying. If there was no room at the inn (to use a Christmas metaphor), an adult in Janelle's house should have made sure the girls got home safely. We don't even know if they had been drinking, or how much. And certainly even if the trip between Janelle's and Suzie's houses was short, there could be other drunk kids on the roads, a car could break down, etc. It would have been simple for one adult to drive, say, Suzie's car, and another to follow behind. Then the girls would have transport in the morning and the adults would know the girls got home OK and someone knew they got home safe, since Sherrill was not expecting them. If the killer(s) arrived after the girls got home, that would not have saved their lives, but at least we would have an arrival time and would know most likely that the murders didn't start out as a teen party. And of course, it would have been best had everyone just slept at Janelle's. 20/20 hindsight, I know. Over the years I've been considered over-anxious about these things, but it is never a good idea for teenage girls to be driving home after a night partying.
I never expected you to answer my questions because I know that you don't know the answers <modsnip>. I am <modsnip> tired of hearing the same stories about Cox without any additional evidence I could puke. <modsnip>. In the meantime there are other suspects besides those offered up <modsnip>, who can be tied to a 1960's van among other evidence. That is where I will choose to spend my time on this case; <modsnip>
Ah, I didn't know that the Hydroslide was not in Branson (it sounded like a Branson attraction to me). I lived in Springfield from 1989 - 1995 and had never heard of it! Where was the Hydroslide located? If the girls were going to split the costs of going to Branson and staying in a motel room, JK and MH might have decided to just not to go at all because they didn't have the $$$. Did they ever say why they didn't go to Branson? Did their stories change over the course of the past 20 years or were they always inconsistent? I appreciate all of the research and knowledge from all of you and thanks for helping me catch up. Oh one more thing, what happened to the broken glass? Did they throw it away or just push it to the side (I thought the Disappeared episode said that they swept it off the porch)? Their actions that day still don't sound strange to me, at least for teenagers. Teenagers just don't think things through and are very flighty...they may also have been doing something that day that they weren't supposed to be doing that is unrelated.
monkeymann
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 422
- Reaction score
- 52
My understanding is that she and her husband went to the house after the event at the lake. (Mini Boat races....something like that). I have never heard that they tracked down JK and MH at the Hydroslide. I would have surely though that if they were going to go to the Hydorslide, they would have done it during the day.
Personally, I want to know what they were doing all day! And you're absoutely correct that they did control the crime scene until aprox. 9:00pm 6/7/1992 when Janis McCall came to the Delmar house. When the police came to the residence at aprox 10:30pm they found the following people at the house:
Janeller Kirby
Mike Henson
Mr. Stuart McCall
Ms. Janis McCall
Meridith McCall (Stacys sister)
Lisa McCall (Stacys sister)
Adina Ruthrauff (Friend of Stacy & Susie)
Darlene Ruthrauff (Mother of Adina)
Randy Kirby (Janelles Father)
Kathy Kirby (Mother of Janelle)
Missouri Mule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,490
- Reaction score
- 1,566
I'm at a complete loss to understand your apparent unwillingness to think outside the box. I was merely addressing your question. I went into considerable detail about what hypothetically might have occurred. And I think it is absolutely critical to conclude the obvious. Namely that memories two years later are less vivid than two weeks after the event. Do you find that difficult to appreciate? If so, why? I've never claimed to have a perfect recollection of what I did or observed but I can certainly more accurately tell what happened recently than what occurred a long time ago. Is that unreasonable? Why does that upset you so? I never intended to do that I hope you are feeling better now that you have told me how you feel.
If you want to talk about others who owned such vehicles I am open to discussing them but do we even know for a certain fact that this van was even used? Has that ever been established? As I recall there was another vehicle; a sedan, in the vicinity that may have been used. Perhaps it was the vehicle in question and the "phantom" van was not actually used. Any large American sedan of that era with their large trunks could have contained the three women.
My personal belief is that knowing, even for certain, what vehicle was used is much less critical than who might have used any vehicle in the commission of this crime. We can probably assume that it has long been destroyed and unavailable and even had it been found immediately, there is no certainty that any forensic evidence would have been found if it had been "scrubbed" clean of evidence.
Do you know of anyone who owned such a vehicle and care to put their names out there and we can examine their background? For example, did any of the 12 suspects, agreed upon, by the four agencies (who have examined the case) have such a vehicle that you are aware? If the van was not owned or in possession of one of these 12 suspects, how does that advance the ball? As I said it could have been borrowed for that night and not traceable to any of these suspects.
I think that you are right that they might not have been in town. But, one year, I stayed throughout the summer to take classes and my friends did the same during other years.
And thank you so much!! I am so glad that our ordeal ended on a positive note and I am so embarrassed to say that I was so naive at that time in my life that I did not know that they had committed a crime. I thought "kidnapping" was when someone steals a kid. THAT was how naive my friend and I were at the age of 18. They told her that they were going to take her back to Woods House where we both lived at the time, I hopped in to make sure that these five guys were going to do what they said they were going to do and they ended up taking us to an apartment with all the lights turned off and two guys waiting in chairs. That was a crime...now I know this. I didn't then.
That said. I wonder just how naive these girls were. I was away at college in 1989, but still only 18. My thoughts are that if guys who have no criminal record whatsoever could even conceive of doing whatever they thought they were going to do to my friend (I think I messed it all up by the way...by jumping into the SUV to protect her...I think they banked on only one girl with no witnesses and then I show up at the apartment with her...THAT wasn't the plan...???), this is something that could happen to anyone. I absolutely don't think that any of the five guys in that SUV or the two guys waiting at the apartment have told a single person what they were conspiring to do that night. No way. So, for the people who think that no one could keep a secret, I think that is wrong.
Guys keep lots of secrets.
I just want everyone to know that I am not here to throw a wrench into all the hard work and dedication that everyone has put into this case. As a matter of fact, I didn't even connect what happened to my friend and I in 1989 to this case at all until a couple of weeks ago. I don't think the same guys that tried to orchestrate something horrific (with us) are the same people that were involved with their disappearance, but I know how easily something like this can be pulled off because I was almost on my way to whatever fate waited for me. I do wonder if what these frat guys were doing was some kind of initiation thing and if the same frat or others were doing something similar. My point is that everyday people commit horrific crimes for various reasons and it does't have to be a convicted rapist, murderer or felon who is responsible. This is something I know from experience.
This is most likely a very simple case and not some big conspiracy involving hitmen and professional cleaners as has been proposed in the past. If this case is essentially solved but not closed because it can not be made in a court of law (which I believe to be the case) then only evidence putting the complete puzzle together will solve it. Not mumbo-jumbo about the Green River Killer, BTK, Ted Bundy, or what was on Law & Order last night.
Missouri Mule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,490
- Reaction score
- 1,566
I essentially agree with you but my analogies were intended to show the problem with investigations that are too quick to rule suspects off the list. To my knowledge none of the aforementioned serial killers had any motive other than they enjoyed killing people. Law and Order is no longer on the air except for reruns.
You speak of "evidence" as though it were out in the streets somewhere and we can just go and pick it up and solve this crime. Since that would evidently not be the case in that this is an open case after nearly two decades is it not incumbent on us to think about alternative theories of what might have gone down?
I believe you have stated you are inclined toward the burglary angle but as you know there was substantial monies left behind. I have begun to look at this crime as one that was not planned, but spontaneous growing out of some dispute that took place in the house. If, as I have been told, that Stacy had attempted escape out of the side door it would answer why she left in her underwear.
The five elements of oversight I have discussed indicate to my way of thinking a rushed exit and not a well thought out plan. If not a "ruse" such as a utility repairman, then someone known to the women as suggested by the profiler (I think) but then again there is the element of the "sexual assault" which doesn't quite fit a close acquaintance, unless that person had it in his mind to gain sexual favors. That might call into question classmates of the girls who followed them home that night and why Sherrill was not taken earlier if she were the target. Yet, it is believed by some, if not many, that she was the target.
It's a puzzling case and if you will indulge me, tell me what you think might explain these opposing theories. And I refer to your own words; "most likely" which suggests you have doubts about what happened as well. Can we not discuss these issues as adults?
Missouri Mule
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2006
- Messages
- 2,490
- Reaction score
- 1,566
So far as I am concerned you have not thrown any wrenches into the works at all. In fact, you have provided a very plausible scenario of what might have happened. I would ask you this. Do you know who the fraternity or fraternities they belonged to? As you know certain fraternities have gained reputations over the years for such behavior. If the fraternity were known, it would be a relatively simple matter of the police pulling the yearbooks and getting the names and going down the list to get to the probable sexual predators. Although I graduated 40 years ago myself, I could go down the list of fraternity brothers and name those who I believed had such a propensity. I would gather that more recent events would come rather easily to memory. Personally, I think that is a very good avenue to explore from where I sit.
I would add one final thought. While it is possible to keep secrets among several people, it is always lurking in the back of their minds. They never really forget and if asked would probably welcome the chance to cleanse their consciences; especially if they had no direct part in the incident. It is all to easy to rationalize behavior but in the end it doesn't work; not if a person is not a psychopath.
monkeymann
Former Member
- Joined
- Apr 4, 2008
- Messages
- 422
- Reaction score
- 52
I TOTALLY AGREE!! I think the police known the basic pieces to the puzzle for a long time. Unfortunately, what they have is probably more circumstancial than it is "Hard Evidence Based"....otherwise someone would have already been charged and tried for the crimes.
I also DON'T THINK it was the work of this elaborate conspiricy. I fully believe what the FBI agent James Wright said...7/19/1992 ."Based on the TOTALITY OF INFORMATION gathered from this investigation, I believe that the 3MW were abducted by someone at least one of them trusted, and the abductor probably had help from one or more others. The abduction leader probably was an acquaintence, who may have known the 3MW's commings and goings, Secondary players may fear going to police because they think the primary culprit would retalitate. I think other people were brought into this, not knowing what was going to happen. It is quite possible that the primary person did not know what was going to happen". Again I want to point out that he was a seasoned FBI Violent Crimes Expert, who established that profile based on "THE TOTALITY OF INFORMATION GATHERED FROM THE INVESTIGATION"......he made that statement July, 19, 1992. So my guess is that by the time he made that statement publically, the police had already gained a pretty good idea of what probably happened that night....as well as who their primary suspects were. Just because their primary suspects were never arrested and charged with anything.......doesn't mean that police don't have the crime figured out.....at least to the point of having a pretty good idea who did it. They just DON'T HAVE enough evidence to bring charges against who ever they think did it.
Read and re-read the FBI Experts summary......I think that it speaks fathoms about this case!
P.S. Hurricane.....PM me about what I Pm'd you about last night....Please.
- Status