Enrique Sparta said:
I'll have to take a look at those letters you linked...interesting stuff.
-1:15. 20 minutes so they probably got home a little after 1:30. That is about an hour earlier than all the reports I've read, articles, disucssion, etc. This could be important. Perhaps the girls were home and in bed or ready for bed when the abductors came knocking? I sure wish we knew whether or not Suzie called home and said she was gonna end up coming back for the night. I don't think they would have but if they did, it might give us a much better idea of when they got home.
-so there was a witness on the cars? in the middle of the night? this could potentially be huge. what time did this person see the cars? they saw nothing else? what was this person doing outside? Did they see the two girls drive up? or what? when did this person first notice the cars and then notice they had been moved? Were lights on in the home? These questions could've been easily answered as soon as this witness came forward with the comments about the cars being moved around. If this witness didn't see anything unsual other than the cars I think it's possible the girls didn't surprise anybody in the act and the abductors hadn't got there yet. Of course they'd still be surprised if they only expected Sherrill home. Also if this witness saw the cars and nothing else then is it safe to rule out anybody following the girls home?
-must find the waitress or at least her comments...especially if she had seen sherrill in there before.....AND the fact she saw all three girls and Suzie was apparently being rowdy, it's definitely something somebody would remember. I wouldn't trust anything the Springfield, MO Police did on this case. Sounds like shoddy work to me.
-Even if Mr McCall can't recall if Cox worked with him, I think it's possible to find out or at least back then it wouldn't have been hard. Ask all the people working at the businesses. Not just Mr McCall but his co-workers. But then again if he can't recall working with Cox that means he never really talked to him in depth. Which means Cox may not have known about Stacy. What was Cox on death row in Florida for? Is he a sexual predator? I'd have to lean towards the possible McCall-Cox connection not ringing true here if the guy can't remember anything about Cox. It's his daughter gone, he wouldn't be lying and certainly it's worth noting if this creep was living in the area at the time and they were co-workers.
-the ruse theory. If Sherrill was concerned for her safety...enough that she didn't allow entry from the side door (not even her daughter) she would probably be extremely cautious late at night of somebody ringing the bell or knocking. the thing about maybe the abductors taking the dog outta the yard and using that to get in is interesting. That's why I'd like to know if they kept the dog inside at night or outside. That would answer that quesiton right there. The broken light/lamp thing on the porch may have been used to gain entry. Perhaps they broke the thing knowing Sherrill would check the noise?
-the blinds and the unmade bed are on my mind too. here's my thoughts. If these abductors wanted to stage something, I think they would've done a lot more than they did, overboard, if they did anything to make it look like something else....it was very little and very odd. if the blinds were shoved up as if somebody was looking out, it makes me think the girls may have arrived before the kidnappers....also the fact that the "witness" saw the cars parked a certain way late at night leads to this as well. And why take pictures outta the frames?
-the phone call to AMW hotline or police or whatever, okay that's very interesting if this person had information that was not released to anybody. First off did they call the police or America's Most Wanted hotline? And how does this work, the hotline records the info and then hands it over to police? I think this case is cold enough that all information should be released. The FBI can also trace these calls can't they? Even if they aren't on the line long enough and the # is unlisted, they can locate where the phone call was placed. Why was this not done? Florida huh...is this for sure true? I wonder what the caller said.
Gimmie a a while to look at those letters and I will think about it. Thanks I love your posts Missouri Mule.
Please excuse me if I got the timeline slightly wrong. I'm working off the memory of 14 years old. As I said, all those newspaper articles were sent on and I hope to recover them from the columnist who e-mailed me that she would attempt to locate them.
The phone calls should have been verifiable from the police requisitioning the phone records. Any incoming calls should have been identifiable. It would seem that this would be one of the very first things to be checked. If they were checked and no other calls were in evidence, that would argue against the abductors making any advance phone calls and it also argues that the initial person gaining entry did not place any phone calls, so the others entered the home at a pre-scheduled time. And cell phones were virtually unknown at that time. They would have had to come via land line.
My mind's eye seems to recall that at one time a van was pictured in the newspaper that was NOT of the vintage van that was displayed on the police lawn. I believe it was from the 1970s and not the 1960s that the van believed to have been. I think the color of the van was what was intended to convey. I think the house was located across the street from a commercial establishment and there were street lights up and down Glenstone and probably on Delmar as well. It would have been fairly easy to see the vehicles in my opinion. There is nothing that I know of that establishes that anyone saw the vehicles enter the driveway. That would certainly establish a more firm timeline. One can go onto the internet and exactly locate the residence and even satellite photos of where it is located. I've not yet done that but intend to.
As I recall, there were some witnesses who said that they saw the vehicles as they drove by the residence and reported it as the crime was publicized. If true, this would have been prior to the women being taken from the residence since the vehicles were later known to be pointing in the opposite direction.
I should think that it would have been fairly easy to establish whether Cox worked with Mr. McCall. Payroll records that were on file with the IRS and/or Social Security should have been able to have made that connection. Certainly both would be regular employees and not independent contractors. Again, the police have shed no light on that angle. Certainly, if they were employed in the same dealership, the finance manager would know all the salesmen but not necessarily the shop employees who often come and go without great fanfare. What was Cox's actual position? No one seems to know. I'm inclined to disbelieve that connection.
On the broken globe? That's an interesting thought. Make the noise and gain entry when Sherill opens the door to check. I'm disinclined to think the dog would have been put out in the middle of the night. As I recall it was a very small dog; perhaps a Yorkie. I don't know what they did in those days, but typically if one crates their dogs they will not mess in their bed. That's also one of the best ways to housebreak a dog. I believe the dog was found in the home but it was barking in the night. This suggests that it ran out the door as the activity was taking place outside. When the women were in the van, then the dog was put back into the home to keep the noise down would be my thinking.
A thought occurred to me and that was the matter of the blinds. If one individual gained entry with the expectation that his cohorts would come along shortly, it would follow that he might be looking out of the blinds to see when they would arrive. I don't see any particular reason why Sherrill or the young women would have had reason to appear out of the blinds unless they were expecting someone else. On the other hand, it may mean nothing but it is doubtful that they would be left in this state based on Sherill's concern for safety.
I really need to look at those newspaper articles again to go over the known facts providing I can recover them. At the time the case was new I read the articles both in chronological and reverse chronological order primarily to avoid reading material that was later proven to be discounted. There was an earlier sighting that sounded very credible until another woman came along and established that it was her instead of Sherill so I didn't need to read that again. The "George's" connection seemed to fall off the radar soon after the case began. But certainly your skepticism is entirely justified. I don't know how the police ruled it out exactly.