The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hurricane said:
Richard, when did you ever know me to be "provocative to elicit information" better known as "fishin"? Not my style. I post very little and when I do the information is factually based or clearly stated as my opinion or something I believe in. I'm not on here to continually posit daily or weekly theories. I really don't care how many people you bounce anything off of and if you want to keep asking who it was that could have gotten the front door open that night; be my guest.
Click to expand...

Hurricane: With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with being provocative in order to elicit information or generate new ideas. I found it surprising that you believe what you say you believe.

Having said this you wrote your post as though you had information that indicated forced entry was the method of entry (as I interpreted your post). So I had no idea if you were generating controversy to gather other views or actually know something the rest of us do not. I meant no disrespect to your point of view. I merely wanted clarification. And you have provided it. Thank you.
 
Trooogrit said:
The previous post has holes, I just do not believe that the crime occurred for a "reason" there is very little evidence of a motive. So I think it was an impulsive sexual assault, and it spiraled very quickly into what it became. I only believe one was in the house when the girls came home and he was trapped in Sherrill's room. His friends were close by though.
Click to expand...

First of all I concur that this was an impulsive sexual crime. I was also very intrigued with your suggestion of a "sexual deviant." (That got me to reconsider my thinking about Cox) I could also agree with your scenario except for one thing. The crime scene was that there was an overturned book in Sherrill's room (which was small as described to me) indicating she was reading this book and put it down to answer the door. Additionally, if the perp was in her room, he would have had to be in there for a considerable period of time and no sounds came from her bedroom that alerted the girls. (as they removed their clothing and make-up, etc.) In fact, we have to believe they came into the house and Sherrill would not have gotten up to greet them at any time. We know that the television was on which in and of itself would have likely awakened Sherrill.

In the early days of this inquiry into this case I entertained the idea that the perp(s) were in her bedroom seeking something in her closet and that they were there when the girls arrived. So that I can agree that it is a plausible scenario, the time and appearance of Sherrill's room argues that he/they were not in the room. We also have to believe that nothing of forensic evidence was left behind in the bedroom in particular. Now that is possible, but if so, it has been a well kept secret.

Finally, if any forensic evidence was left behind of any of the GJ3, I cannot construct a good argument why the case hasn't gone to trial long ago. It seems to me that any of these individuals could not possibly have provided a plausible reason why their DNA was in the house. So far as can be determined they had never been in the house, nor had they any reason to be in the house. To my mind, it would have been a slam dunk case. They had already committed multiple crimes so there could be very little reason to believe their lack of involvement with physical evidence of their presence presented to the jury.

Bottom line this is plausible but unlikely in my view but I appreciate your reply.
 
Missouri Mule said:
Hurricane: With all due respect, there is nothing wrong with being provocative in order to elicit information or generate new ideas. I found it surprising that you believe what you say you believe.

Having said this you wrote your post as though you had information that indicated forced entry was the method of entry (as I interpreted your post). So I had no idea if you were generating controversy to gather other views or actually know something the rest of us do not. I meant no disrespect to your point of view. I merely wanted clarification. And you have provided it. Thank you.
Click to expand...



Being "provocative in order to elicit information" usually leads to telling lies in an attempt to influence the other posters & readers opinions; to bridge a "gap" in your theory; inflate your ego and a whole other group of reasons along those lines dealing with the individual that lies. Never is there any evidence put forth to support the original lie (because there can't be) unless it is another lie concocted for that purpose. That's why it is wrong. So much time is wasted running down those lies in an effort to prove or disprove them that I no longer try. You soon learn who does good work and can be trusted.

As far as discussion goes and "thinking outside the box" we hear so much about: if someone wants to propose that the girls came home, drank tea, ate crumpets, and had a pedicure party before going to bed don't you think there should be some evidence offered in support of such a claim before a lot of time is invested into the discussion? But I guess the answer to that depends on whether you are working to solve the case or just talking about it.
 
Hurricane said:
Being "provocative in order to elicit information" usually leads to telling lies in an attempt to influence the other posters & readers opinions; to bridge a "gap" in your theory; inflate your ego and a whole other group of reasons along those lines dealing with the individual that lies. Never is there any evidence put forth to support the original lie (because there can't be) unless it is another lie concocted for that purpose. That's why it is wrong. So much time is wasted running down those lies in an effort to prove or disprove them that I no longer try. You soon learn who does good work and can be trusted.

As far as discussion goes and "thinking outside the box" we hear so much about: if someone wants to propose that the girls came home, drank tea, ate crumpets, and had a pedicure party before going to bed don't you think there should be some evidence offered in support of such a claim before a lot of time is invested into the discussion? But I guess the answer to that depends on whether you are working to solve the case or just talking about it.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the police just release a statement to the fact that everything is on the table and want new information from anyone? They did provide a synopsis of what they believed likely occurred. In fact, they went so far as to state the perp as one person who kidnapped the women and whose whereabouts were unaccounted for on the night the women went missing. They also suggest that this person may not have a criminal background which to my knowledge has never been stated previously. That suggests someone outside the GJ3 individuals, does it not?

“Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours,” the release said. “The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.”Police added: “People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence.”... (Snip)

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120607/NEWS12/306070037

You have suggested that entry was gained by means of forcible entry, somewhere other than the front door and included more than one perpetrator. (as I understand your post) How does one square your take on what the police have provided to the public? I am really quite interested in why you have a different view what the police statement appears to say.

My take on the police statement tells me that the police are looking at someone outside the GJ3 who does not ("may not") have a criminal history. I do not mean to be argumentative. I am just looking for clarity. And I certainly would not want to be seen as lying to advance any point of view I express.
 
If LE hints dropping all over the net say to stay close to the GJ3, we can say for a fact that Garrison was a member, fitting the profiles released to the press.

Facts:

1. He breaks into homes.
2. He rapes.
3. Has a gang of criminal friends in Springfield in 1992. An accomplice of another GJ3 member.
4. Firearm violations... so he carries a gun.
5. Escaping from police and prison multiple times. Shows some kind of intelligence or slyness.
6. In his rape case he was known to try and "cover his tracks" so who knows maybe he did a better job this time around? Or maybe Janelle and Mike and the families coming over did them a favor in contaminating the crime scene.
7. Fits police sketch of van driver


If Garrison didn't do this, then you can still see why he'd be a hot suspect. He's my number 1 suspect until I see stronger evidence on someone else. And someone that's not a talker like Cox. Hard to believe Garrison didn't have a hand in this crime unless the grand jury were way off.

The problem with this case is that Suzie knew so many people from "the wrong crowd" and they were all over town. Couple Bartt's weird behavior before and after the crime and Random vs. Planned crime and Sexual crime vs. revenge crime vs. money crime. The press doesn't release anything to move on this case other than brief profiles of the GJ3.

I've got a list of the potential people who delivered the waterbed to Sherrill's house in early 1992. It's not getting anywhere but I'm still hopeful on some of the ones that did do jail time in Greene county or had some crime later in their life.

Stu McCall said there is now 142,000 dollar award (his 100,000 donor and the original 42,000 from Smitty's/SPD). Hopefully someone comes forward to move this. I doubt we get evidence to convict unless bodies are found. Maybe we'll see a deathbed confession in our lifetimes.
 
Missouri Mule said:
Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't the police just release a statement to the fact that everything is on the table and want new information from anyone? They did provide a synopsis of what they believed likely occurred. In fact, they went so far as to state the perp as one person who kidnapped the women and whose whereabouts were unaccounted for on the night the women went missing. They also suggest that this person may not have a criminal background which to my knowledge has never been stated previously. That suggests someone outside the GJ3 individuals, does it not?

“Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours,” the release said. “The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.”Police added: “People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence.”... (Snip)

http://www.news-leader.com/article/20120607/NEWS12/306070037

You have suggested that entry was gained by means of forcible entry, somewhere other than the front door and included more than one perpetrator. (as I understand your post) How does one square your take on what the police have provided to the public? I am really quite interested in why you have a different view what the police statement appears to say.

My take on the police statement tells me that the police are looking at someone outside the GJ3 who does not ("may not") have a criminal history. I do not mean to be argumentative. I am just looking for clarity. And I certainly would not want to be seen as lying to advance any point of view I express.
Click to expand...





I only see three things that have come to light during the events surrounding the 20th anniversary:

1. After organizing and digitizing the case file (which would certainly make it easier to review, so I am sure they have) SPD does not believe that they have the evidence to make an arrest, obtain a conviction, and serve justice in this case. Note that I didn't say that they don't think it is solved or they don't know what happened. Refer back to previous discussions about the differences between a case being solved; being closed; and serving justice.

2. Much like what the FBI did early in the case SPD is asking for help from the public, but specifically from (ex)wives, (ex)girlfriends, family and friends, or minor players in the crime who might know or have suspicions about the involvement of their (ex)loved one or other individual. That is what is referred to in the statement. They are saying to the (ex)wives, (ex)girlfriends, family and friends who may have suspicions and knowledge centered around odd hours their (ex)loved one may have been keeping; who may have knowledge that their (ex)loved one was recently working in the immediate area such as the estate homes just to the west; and who know their (ex)loved one can't account for all his time during the night/morning of June 6/7.

It is a hypothetical statement. SPD is not referring to a specific suspect like you are reading into it. The statement says that the suspect "may not have a history of committing crimes of violence...". If they were referring to a specific suspect as you claim don't you think SPD would know what his criminal history is? And from that you interpret that they "suggest that this person might not have a criminal background...". How do you get that? Can't a suspect have a nonviolent criminal history? Again, if they are referring to a specific suspect wouldn't they know if they have a criminal background or not?

Can you reference for me where it is that SPD says that this person they are looking for, his "whereabouts were unaccounted for on the night the women went missing"? They are not referrencing a specific individual.

In post #737 above you say that you "believe the GJ3 are right in the middle of this crime" but now they can't be because they have a criminal history? Of course, you looked into their background before and according to what you have said they weren't smart enough to carry out this crime. Now SPD says a suspect "may not have a history of committing crimes of violence". Before the 3MW and the coed rape cases the GJ3 were just career burglars, a couple of gun possession charges, escapes, DUI's, etc; just minor stuff, no crimes of violence. Assault charges from fights were the closest thing to violence they had been charged of. Seems to me that fits right in with what SPD is saying about not having a history of crimes of violence.

3. SPD may have forensic evidence worthy of retesting due to the advances in testing technology over the last 20 yrs. That does not mean they don't have any positive forensic evidence or meaningful physical evidence from 20 yrs ago.

I'll add one other observation. The 20th anniversary memorial service on the morning of June 7th was said by Janis McCall to be a celebration of their lives. It appears to me that she intends to put new emphasis on her One Missing Link organization, but move on as best she can. I wish her the best in that endeavor.
 
Hurricane said:
I only see three things that have come to light during the events surrounding the 20th anniversary:

1. After organizing and digitizing the case file (which would certainly make it easier to review, so I am sure they have) SPD does not believe that they have the evidence to make an arrest, obtain a conviction, and serve justice in this case. Note that I didn't say that they don't think it is solved or they don't know what happened. Refer back to previous discussions about the differences between a case being solved; being closed; and serving justice.

2. Much like what the FBI did early in the case SPD is asking for help from the public, but specifically from (ex)wives, (ex)girlfriends, family and friends, or minor players in the crime who might know or have suspicions about the involvement of their (ex)loved one or other individual. That is what is referred to in the statement. They are saying to the (ex)wives, (ex)girlfriends, family and friends who may have suspicions and knowledge centered around odd hours their (ex)loved one may have been keeping; who may have knowledge that their (ex)loved one was recently working in the immediate area such as the estate homes just to the west; and who know their (ex)loved one can't account for all his time during the night/morning of June 6/7.

It is a hypothetical statement. SPD is not referring to a specific suspect like you are reading into it. The statement says that the suspect "may not have a history of committing crimes of violence...". If they were referring to a specific suspect as you claim don't you think SPD would know what his criminal history is? And from that you interpret that they "suggest that this person might not have a criminal background...". How do you get that? Can't a suspect have a nonviolent criminal history? Again, if they are referring to a specific suspect wouldn't they know if they have a criminal background or not?

Can you reference for me where it is that SPD says that this person they are looking for, his "whereabouts were unaccounted for on the night the women went missing"? They are not referrencing a specific individual.

In post #737 above you say that you "believe the GJ3 are right in the middle of this crime" but now they can't be because they have a criminal history? Of course, you looked into their background before and according to what you have said they weren't smart enough to carry out this crime. Now SPD says a suspect "may not have a history of committing crimes of violence". Before the 3MW and the coed rape cases the GJ3 were just career burglars, a couple of gun possession charges, escapes, DUI's, etc; just minor stuff, no crimes of violence. Assault charges from fights were the closest thing to violence they had been charged of. Seems to me that fits right in with what SPD is saying about not having a history of crimes of violence.

3. SPD may have forensic evidence worthy of retesting due to the advances in testing technology over the last 20 yrs. That does not mean they don't have any positive forensic evidence or meaningful physical evidence from 20 yrs ago.

I'll add one other observation. The 20th anniversary memorial service on the morning of June 7th was said by Janis McCall to be a celebration of their lives. It appears to me that she intends to put new emphasis on her One Missing Link organization, but move on as best she can. I wish her the best in that endeavor.
Click to expand...

I agree with everything you say until the middle of your third paragraph. In point of fact, I strongly believe that the police do know what (if any) criminal background this person has but are being deliberately vague in this one area. (as opposed to the other definitive statements)

I believe this person is a fourth person not part of the GJ3. It is my opinion he does not have a recent criminal history. But that is only my surmise. "May not" allows for a variety of interpretations.

What I believe this is that the police have decided to focus the complete attention and get the message to this perpetrator that they are looking down on him and want him to know it.

Offhand, I do not know the background of all of the GJ3. In my opinion two of them do have a history of violent behavior. At the current time I do not know the whereabouts and the criminal history of the third one. My personal opinion is that they can probably be excluded from the actual kidnapping (and entry into the house) with the possible exception of the third one. To restate, it is my opinion the PD is looking very hard at a fourth person as yet (apparently - to me at least) unstated but known to them. I suspect, although I do not know, that all four were in the van or shortly thereafter involved with the final crimes committed.

Please note the last sentence of the following. "Clearly" this would exclude the GJ3 (with possible exception of the third one) Note also that it states "is" as opposed to "was" further indicating this person is on the street at this time. Furthermore, the police have made a categorical statement of one person when they say this: "The suspect clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992." I do not see how that statement could be interpreted in any other way. One suspect, who "clearly spent" is about as definitive as we have yet seen regarding this case.

Please also note that Cox cannot be eliminated. It is altogether possible that friends and relatives didn't view him as violent if they didn't know his history (although that should be unlikely except to the most naive).

For a more complete report:

...(Snip)


"The suspect clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The suspect had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the suspect in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the suspect may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.
-
Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.
-
People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence" ....

(Snip)

http://crimesceneinvestigations.blogspot.com/
 
Well.......whoops my baloney detector just went off, time for my dinner!
 
Seems to me a simple phone call to the person who wrote the article would clear this up.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 168 more.
Total: 4,543 (members: 169, guests: 4,374)

Online statistics

Members online
169
Guests online
4,374
Total visitors
4,543
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,846
Messages
17,959,934
Members
228,622
Latest member
crimedeepdives23
Back
Top