The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #1

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Missouri Mule - Just a thought...you don't think drugs were involved at all, even though it was suggested that Bartt was thrown out of the house for drug use. I know we don't know that for sure, someone mentioned it in the guestbook.

The earliest archives of the News-Leader online are from 1999. Nothing before that so any articles from '92 would have to come from a library I'm afraid. I even checked on Newspaper Archive and Newslibrary as well as the News-Leader site itself. I just wondered where that came from, that entry in the guestbook I mentioned above.
 
liz325 said:
Missouri Mule - Just a thought...you don't think drugs were involved at all, even though it was suggested that Bartt was thrown out of the house for drug use. I know we don't know that for sure, someone mentioned it in the guestbook.

The earliest archives of the News-Leader online are from 1999. Nothing before that so any articles from '92 would have to come from a library I'm afraid. I even checked on Newspaper Archive and Newslibrary as well as the News-Leader site itself. I just wondered where that came from, that entry in the guestbook I mentioned above.
Click to expand...
Are you close to Springfield, then? Do you have any friends or relatives near Springfield? They should have this on microfiche. I once looked up newspapers from way back in the 1940s in St. Louis City. I would think they would also have them there in Springfield as well. When I checked there back in the early days of the case I went there myself as I was missing three or four of the early editions. Fortunately I had a big backlog of newspapers from my two week vacation so I carefully cut out all of those articles and read through all of those but I still had to go to the library to see the ones I couldn't locate. They had the original newspapers but eventually they should put them on microfiche for permanent reference.

No, I don't think that drugs were the motivating factor. It was widely speculated about but unless I am greatly mistaken, Sherill Levitt never had any history of drugs, drug habits or drug dealing. Suzie might have smoked a little pot (who hasn't) but that wasn't the reason for this crime in my opinion. However, if anyone knows differently, speak or forever hold your peace.
 
Missouri Mule said:
Are you close to Springfield, then? Do you have any friends or relatives near Springfield? They should have this on microfiche. I once looked up newspapers from way back in the 1940s in St. Louis City. I would think they would also have them there in Springfield as well. When I checked there back in the early days of the case I went there myself as I was missing three or four of the early editions. Fortunately I had a big backlog of newspapers from my two week vacation so I carefully cut out all of those articles and read through all of those but I still had to go to the library to see the ones I couldn't locate. They had the original newspapers but eventually they should put them on microfiche for permanent reference.

No, I don't think that drugs were the motivating factor. It was widely speculated about but unless I am greatly mistaken, Sherill Levitt never had any history of drugs, drug habits or drug dealing. Suzie might have smoked a little pot (who hasn't) but that wasn't the reason for this crime in my opinion. However, if anyone knows differently, speak or forever hold your peace.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not close to Springfield at all. I wish I was, I love going to libraries and looking up old newspaper archives.

I only wondered about the drug angle not from a standpoint of Sherrill or Suzie's possible use but maybe from Bartt...i.e. if it were true he was thrown out of the house, if he was angry, knew his mom had a stash of cash, etc. The guestbook entry referring to his possibly being evicted sort of stuck in my mind. But I'm way off base with that I'm sure. Thanks anyway.
 
Missouri Mule said:
But on the other hand, the plan was not necessarily the plan of the one(s) who knew of this money. That is to say "A" knows the facts, but is acting on the behest of "B" who has an interest in what goes down that night. "A" was the means to gain entry but "B", "C" or "D" pursued the matter further than "A" ever intended to or was led to believe. On the other hand, "A" might have been the sole perpetrator. But that would have required considerable persuasive power or other means to subdue three grown women.
Click to expand...

This is what I meant by "murder for hire." "A" knows Sherrill and Suzie and can gain entrance to the house. This person knows there is money there and needs help from "B", "C" or "D" to get to the money. He "hires" them to help. They are supposed to get a cut or a set fee and/or drugs.

Now, the other possibility is that "B" hears from "A" that Sherrill has money or other property and convinces him that they can confront Sherrill and get it. There, "A" is a follower and "B" is the leader. "B" might have known all along that Sherrill would have to be murdered; maybe "A," as you say, might not have thought things would get that far.

How do you account for the observation that Suzie and Stacy were getting ready for bed before they disappeared? If events were already in motion when they arrived, would they have have done that?

******
Another thought: You said this about the broken light globe: "The globe over the entry light was broken and a lot of publicity was made of that. Perhaps it was thought that someone might have broken it and cut their hand and there would be DNA available. But the broken pieces should have been in the trash with the DNA. Perhaps it had something to do with the angle of the glass breakage. As a further fyi, DNA is 100% reliable, except for identical twins. Fingerprints and handwriting especially are not."

In addition to DNA, if the glass had been stepped on--crushed or ground up--it might indicate whether the light was broken before the killers entered or as they were exiting. Dirt or debris from shoes might have gotten mixed in. Once Janelle and her boyfriend walked on the porch and he cleaned up the class, there would be no way to learn anything from the pieces.
 
liz325 said:
No, I'm not close to Springfield at all. I wish I was, I love going to libraries and looking up old newspaper archives.

I only wondered about the drug angle not from a standpoint of Sherrill or Suzie's possible use but maybe from Bartt...i.e. if it were true he was thrown out of the house, if he was angry, knew his mom had a stash of cash, etc. The guestbook entry referring to his possibly being evicted sort of stuck in my mind. But I'm way off base with that I'm sure. Thanks anyway.
Click to expand...

Drug use might explain an urgent need for money, either to buy drugs or to settle a debt of some kind to a dealer higher on the food chain.

The eviction might explain why he wasn't at the graduation, but that still sticks out as very odd.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
This is what I meant by "murder for hire." "A" knows Sherrill and Suzie and can gain entrance to the house. This person knows there is money there and needs help from "B", "C" or "D" to get to the money. He "hires" them to help. They are supposed to get a cut or a set fee and/or drugs.

Now, the other possibility is that "B" hears from "A" that Sherrill has money or other property and convinces him that they can confront Sherrill and get it. There, "A" is a follower and "B" is the leader. "B" might have known all along that Sherrill would have to be murdered; maybe "A," as you say, might not have thought things would get that far.

How do you account for the observation that Suzie and Stacy were getting ready for bed before they disappeared? If events were already in motion when they arrived, would they have have done that?

******
Another thought: You said this about the broken light globe: "The globe over the entry light was broken and a lot of publicity was made of that. Perhaps it was thought that someone might have broken it and cut their hand and there would be DNA available. But the broken pieces should have been in the trash with the DNA. Perhaps it had something to do with the angle of the glass breakage. As a further fyi, DNA is 100% reliable, except for identical twins. Fingerprints and handwriting especially are not."

In addition to DNA, if the glass had been stepped on--crushed or ground up--it might indicate whether the light was broken before the killers entered or as they were exiting. Dirt or debris from shoes might have gotten mixed in. Once Janelle and her boyfriend walked on the porch and he cleaned up the class, there would be no way to learn anything from the pieces.
Click to expand...
What you say about the broken glass and debris may very well be true. I have no information or speculaton on this.

On your earlier point, there is no particular reason to believe that the room may not have been made to look as though they were getting ready for bed by the intruders instead of the young women. They may have been immediately seized upon entry to the home and Stacy told to take her shorts off. So far as I know it is highly unlikely that any prints or DNA at that time could have been lifted from clothing.

I think your second scenario is the closest to the truth but suppose that neither "A" nor "B" was the driving force behind the abduction? It could have been "C" or "D" or "E" who may not even have been there. If someone like Cox was there; a former Army Ranger, he could easily have subdued the three women. "A" could have been threatened himself to keep his trap shut or the same thing that happened to the women would befall him.

Cox is currently cooling his heels until 2025 in the Lovelady, Texas "maximum" facility. He quite likely guilty of greater crimes than he was convicted of. Furthermore he was a Springfield native and was in town the night of the abduction but his story is so convoluted it is impossible to know if he played any part in the abduction. However, it would certainly make all the sense in the world for him to be the primary "muscle" man as well as the one who ultimately directed events that night. "A" is not likely the one to have ramrodded things there. Sherill is unlikely to have been involved in anything to do with "B" until the night of abduction but almost certainly familiar with "A" and could have been coaxed to let him in.

There is always another alternative scenario and that a person or persons not known to Sherill managed to use a "ruse" (the detective's words) to gain entry. Perhaps dressed as a utility repairman or something like that. I tend not to put much credence in this simply because she was known to be very careful with her security. Another remote possibility is that Suzie was already in custody outside the home and she had Sherill let her in or let herself in the home at which time all three were subdued. This would be the most difficult scenario because nothing may never be known of him or them. They could simply have left town to go on down I44 never to be heard or seen from again.

And that brings the final possible (and I emphasize possible) clue which would be the so-called "moss green" van and the alleged sighting of Suzie behind the wheel with someone else telling her "Don't do anything stupid." Who owned the van? Where did it come from? The van was a very old vintage van and I once extrapolated that perhaps some 22,000 such vans existed in the entire United States and a considerably lower number existed in the State of Missouri. My first thought would be to find every possible van, at least in the State of Missouri, that fit that make and model and rule them out one by one. Evidently the police thought it important as that van sat on the lawn outside the police headquarters for what seemed to be three or four months.

Finally, it has often been said by the police department that they only need one good tip to break the case and that (so far as I understand) all leads previously given them have been exhausted. I'm not convinced of that in view of the fact that neither of my two co-workers who were customers of Sherill were ever interviewed by the police as was stated during the "48 hour piece."

There are two people I would like most to sit down and talk to if I had my druthers. They would be former Lieutenant Webb, now retired, and former KTTS general manager Dan Shelley now with WCBS out of New York. Both, in my opinion are quite knowledgable but are now largely out of the loop. I know where Mr. Shelley can be located. Does anyone know the whereabouts of Mr. Webb?
 
new person here...

I just heard of this case last night. It interested me a great deal and so I've been doing major research to try and get as many details as possible.

-did Sherrill know Suzie and Stacy decided to end up driving back to the Levitt home. Did Suzie call her mom and say they were coming? About what time did Suzie and Stacy leave the party? Did anybody leave with either of the girls? Were they drunk?

-the server who claimed to have seen the three women in the steakhouse between 1 and 3 in the morning. First off I live in Los Angeles and I don't know any steakhouse that is open at those hours. Was there a bar inside too? Was this really one of Shrerrill's favorite restaurants and she was a regular? Did this employeee notice Sherrill before or did she just see the faces in the news and think back and thought she saw them. Is this woman without a doubt certain she saw the three women? If Suzanne was being loud and rowdy it's possible another employee could back up this woman's claims. If she's credible and certain she saw them this could be important....especially if she had seen Sherrill before in the restaurant since Sherrill was supposedly a regular. I wonder if they checked credit cards receipts just in case. I'm sure they did.

-Robert Cox. Was he in Springfield, MO at this time or not? There must be some way to find out. There also must be a way to know for sure whether he worked with Stacy McCall's father. It's frustrating not to know these possible crucial details. What was Cox in prison for and how long? From the comments he gave to authorities (that I read about) he sounded like he was just dicking the police around. Somebody needs to get a hold of Mr McCall and find out if Cox worked with him or not. They also need to find out where he was in spring/summer of 1992.

-The house. okay I read the women's purses were lined up on stairs. it was a one-story home, yes? What stairs are they talking about? Were there pictures taken out of frames? Somebody who visited the house frequently should've been able to say if there were pictures in there or not and possibly who the photographs were of. Were the frames hanging up or on the ground. Broken? The television was on too I read. Which television, living room or one of the bedrooms? Did the dog normally stay outside at night or inside?

-Were all the beds unmade, looked as if they had been slept in or just Sherrill's? Were either Stacy's or Suzanne's clothes lying around? I read from Missouri's post her pants were found in the home. Is it possible the two girls were in the home already before the kidnappers got there? If not then why were the beds unmade? It makes sense with the book and the glasses that Sherrill may have been interrupted but I don't see why the beds were not made. If the kidnappers tried to shake the house up a little bit I suspect they would've taken the purses, jewelry, etc to make it look like a robbery. All they took was pictures evidently and placed the purses together on the stairs. The blinds being pulled apart in Suzanne's room would suggest she was in bed, in her room, and heard something. I just don't see the kidnappers purposely pulling the blinds apart. If they were gonna do something like that I think they would've made it look like a home robbery. If the girls got home earlier then you'd have to rethink everything. If the time is right then it's likely they surprised the kidnappers by showing up.

-this alleged green van. first off were both cars parked in the driveway? I believe they were....one of the above posts mentions how the cars were moved from where they were parked. How would anyone know this without being there? How do we know where Suzie and Stacy parked their cars when they got home in the middle of the night? And this whole green van incident. Okay if some woman saw a girl who looks like Suzie driving the green van, how could she also hear an unseen man say "Don't do anything stupid." How could she hear that while driving next to the green van or on the opposite side of the street? Was the van parked when this allegedly occurred? And this guy who says he saw a green van that looked suspicious. What made it look so suspicious? I mean he supposedly wrote down the license plate # so must have been really shady to him. But then why toss the paper with the license plate? What was so shady about the van in the parking lot of a grocery store?

-this caller to america's most wanted hotline after the program featured the three missing women case. how do the police know that he may have had vital information? What made them come to that conclusion?

baffling mystery, I've enjoyed reading the posts on this thread.
 
Enrique Sparta said:
new person here...

I just heard of this case last night. It interested me a great deal and so I've been doing major research to try and get as many details as possible.

-did Sherrill know Suzie and Stacy decided to end up driving back to the Levitt home. Did Suzie call her mom and say they were coming? About what time did Suzie and Stacy leave the party? Did anybody leave with either of the girls? Were they drunk?

-the server who claimed to have seen the three women in the steakhouse between 1 and 3 in the morning. First off I live in Los Angeles and I don't know any steakhouse that is open at those hours. Was there a bar inside too? Was this really one of Shrerrill's favorite restaurants and she was a regular? Did this employeee notice Sherrill before or did she just see the faces in the news and think back and thought she saw them. Is this woman without a doubt certain she saw the three women? If Suzanne was being loud and rowdy it's possible another employee could back up this woman's claims. If she's credible and certain she saw them this could be important....especially if she had seen Sherrill before in the restaurant since Sherrill was supposedly a regular. I wonder if they checked credit cards receipts just in case. I'm sure they did.

-Robert Cox. Was he in Springfield, MO at this time or not? There must be some way to find out. There also must be a way to know for sure whether he worked with Stacy McCall's father. It's frustrating not to know these possible crucial details. What was Cox in prison for and how long? From the comments he gave to authorities (that I read about) he sounded like he was just dicking the police around. Somebody needs to get a hold of Mr McCall and find out if Cox worked with him or not. They also need to find out where he was in spring/summer of 1992.

-The house. okay I read the women's purses were lined up on stairs. it was a one-story home, yes? What stairs are they talking about? Were there pictures taken out of frames? Somebody who visited the house frequently should've been able to say if there were pictures in there or not and possibly who the photographs were of. Were the frames hanging up or on the ground. Broken? The television was on too I read. Which television, living room or one of the bedrooms? Did the dog normally stay outside at night or inside?

-Were all the beds unmade, looked as if they had been slept in or just Sherrill's? Were either Stacy's or Suzanne's clothes lying around? I read from Missouri's post her pants were found in the home. Is it possible the two girls were in the home already before the kidnappers got there? If not then why were the beds unmade? It makes sense with the book and the glasses that Sherrill may have been interrupted but I don't see why the beds were not made. If the kidnappers tried to shake the house up a little bit I suspect they would've taken the purses, jewelry, etc to make it look like a robbery. All they took was pictures evidently and placed the purses together on the stairs. The blinds being pulled apart in Suzanne's room would suggest she was in bed, in her room, and heard something. I just don't see the kidnappers purposely pulling the blinds apart. If they were gonna do something like that I think they would've made it look like a home robbery. If the girls got home earlier then you'd have to rethink everything. If the time is right then it's likely they surprised the kidnappers by showing up.

-this alleged green van. first off were both cars parked in the driveway? I believe they were....one of the above posts mentions how the cars were moved from where they were parked. How would anyone know this without being there? How do we know where Suzie and Stacy parked their cars when they got home in the middle of the night? And this whole green van incident. Okay if some woman saw a girl who looks like Suzie driving the green van, how could she also hear an unseen man say "Don't do anything stupid." How could she hear that while driving next to the green van or on the opposite side of the street? Was the van parked when this allegedly occurred? And this guy who says he saw a green van that looked suspicious. What made it look so suspicious? I mean he supposedly wrote down the license plate # so must have been really shady to him. But then why toss the paper with the license plate? What was so shady about the van in the parking lot of a grocery store?

-this caller to america's most wanted hotline after the program featured the three missing women case. how do the police know that he may have had vital information? What made them come to that conclusion?

baffling mystery, I've enjoyed reading the posts on this thread.
Click to expand...
I've just now read your post so am late in responding. You ask some important questions.

As to whether the young women called home it could be answered by the police department as Sherill's phone records could have been requisitioned. I'm sure neither had cell phones with them during 1992 and would have had to rely on pay phones or the home they were first at celebrating. I think they left around 1:15 AM in the morning. It would have taken about 20 minutes to get to the Levitt home at that time of night.

The "steak" house in question used to be a "George Lindsay" restaurant named after the Gomer Pyle character. It later became just "George's" and is a short distance from the Levitt home. I believe it was a family restaurant and was on the main drag in Springfield. It was open according to the reports. The waitress did seem to me to be quite credible but the police detectives seemed convinced they were not there. That's where the tape would be helpful as she is on camera if I recall correctly.

Cox was in Springfield during this time to the best of my knowledge. Some have compared him to Ted Bundy in the way he has jerked the police around. He was on death row in Florida before the Florida Supreme Court released him for lack of evidence. That was prior to the abductions in Springfield. He had been working in the area marking utility lines. Did he work with Mr. McCall? I don't know that we have that information. I know that Mr. McCall did work as a finance manager for a local auto dealership north of Springfield because I saw him there when I purchased a vehicle there. I can't verify that Cox worked there and the dealership has since gone out of business. I believe that Mr. McCall has indicated that he has no recollection of working with Cox. It is also possible that this supposed relationship existed at another dealership. I have no information on that but the police would be able to determine that if they bothered to.
--------------------------------------------------------------------


14. Robert Cox Florida Conviction 1988 - Released 1989
  • "Cox was convicted and sentenced to death, despite evidence that Cox did not know the victim and no one testified that they had been seen together. In 1989, Cox was released by a unanimous decision of the Florida Supreme Court that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction."
    http://www.fadp.org/fl_exonerated.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The home was a small home. From viewing it from the outside I would estimate it to have perhaps 1,200 to 1,400 square feet. It was a one story dwelling. The "stairs" evidently have something to do with the side entrance which may have had steps to a higher or lower ground outside the home. Or perhaps the bedroom(s) were sunken below the main level of the home.

As to the vehicle's location it was determined through witnesses (as best as I recall) who said they were parked in one direction in the middle of the night but parked in a different direction when the investigation began in earnest.

As to the van, these were questions that are not answerable. I have wondered the same thing. As best as I can recall a woman next door to the driveway that the van entered was close enough to hear the conversation. It was in June and logical that the window would have been opened in the van as it was unlikely it had air conditioning from that era. Why the man threw away the newspaper and why he thought it looked "suspicious" is not known. (at least according to public accounts.)

As to the call from Florida to AMW, the caller evidently knew something about the case that could only be known by someone privy to the case that was not published. This is normal procedure for police to withhold certain information to weed out false confessers. I have no idea why the police were not more specific but they seemed to be sure that it was legitimate. One might extrapolate, as I do, that it was someone who participated in the crime and wanted to get it on the record as a form of penance for his participation or fully intended to confess or it could have been someone like Cox who just wanted to jerk the police around. As you can see from his documents posted (in PDF) on the internet you can see he hints around the edges but doesn't say anything that would convict him in Missouri where the death penalty is in force. He is now in Lovelady, Texas until 2025 for aggravated robbery or something similar. He may be guilty of far worse. But it cannot be stated with any degree of certainty that he was a participant in this particular crime. See if you can figure out Cox's game from these letters. Springfield police have interviewed him but they came up empty. I really don't know what to make of the letters. His reindition of his employment rings true. I am fully familiar with City Utilities and Southwestern Bell (then SBC and now AT&T). And he says he was in the area although I don't offhand see the relevance unless his uniform he might have worn would have been part of the "ruse" described by the detective in "48 hours." (Ordinarily I don't recall that these utility locators wore uniforms. They were largely identifiable when they carried those long handled paint cans around to paint the areas where utility cables were located. Normally they just wore street clothes as best I can recall.)

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/documents/CoxMay97.pdf

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/documents/CoxMay02.pdf
 
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 "wintess" 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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
-they probably got the right time considering some friends at the party would easily be able to say at about what time Suzie and Stacy left. so it's probably correct in that they arrived at about 2:15 AM. I also read where Sherrill telephoned a friend at about 11:15 PM and she also received a call from Suzanne at 10:30 PM to discuss her plans for the next day. So obviously the authorities must've checked the phone records. Probably safe to say Sherrill had no idea Suzie and Stacy were on their way back and they both arrived after 2 AM.

-the blinds would probably really have to be pulled apart for them to stay that way. I can't picture the kidnappers staging the home to look like something else had happened. If they did, why put the three purses together in an odd space. That's just weird. They may have been pulled by the kidnappers but also by one of the women. Especially if Sherrill heard something (the globe breaking) and freaking out (evidently she was worried for her safety) certainly it's plausible she may have been reading in bed, heard something, and then was abducted. The only problem with this is that then why would the kidnappers wait around for the other two? Nobody except those two girls knew they were coming home. I can't shake the idea that the girls got home before the abductors.

-interesting about the witnesses noticing the cars as they drove by. i wish we knew approximately what time that was.

-i'm also inclined to put too much into the Cox/McCall employee relationship thing.
 
Enrique Sparta, some of your questions can be answered by the Charley Project site, http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/m/mccall_stacy.html.

As you will see, the girls were thought to arrive at Sherrill and Suzie's house around 2:15. The party they were attending was broken up by police around 1:40 a.m. That information is available on the News-Leader archive link in this thread (about 1/2 through). I found all of the articles useful.

The pictures are a bit of a puzzle, but I see 3 possibilities: the killer(s) took them for personal reasons; he/they took them because they contained information that might identify him or them; he/they took them to taunt the investigators as part of the staging. Or--for a combination of these reasons. If Suzanne had hung pictures 2 months after the move, they would not be empty frames. And women do not remove photos and then rehang them. I'd bet the ranch on that.

I am still digesting some new thoughts (so to speak) after having spent all day getting ready to start teaching again tomorrow. Let's try to keep this energy going to see what we might be able to do to turn up some new information.
 
Enrique Sparta said:
-they probably got the right time considering some friends at the party would easily be able to say at about what time Suzie and Stacy left. so it's probably correct in that they arrived at about 2:15 AM. I also read where Sherrill telephoned a friend at about 11:15 PM and she also received a call from Suzanne at 10:30 PM to discuss her plans for the next day. So obviously the authorities must've checked the phone records. Probably safe to say Sherrill had no idea Suzie and Stacy were on their way back and they both arrived after 2 AM.

-the blinds would probably really have to be pulled apart for them to stay that way. I can't picture the kidnappers staging the home to look like something else had happened. If they did, why put the three purses together in an odd space. That's just weird. They may have been pulled by the kidnappers but also by one of the women. Especially if Sherrill heard something (the globe breaking) and freaking out (evidently she was worried for her safety) certainly it's plausible she may have been reading in bed, heard something, and then was abducted. The only problem with this is that then why would the kidnappers wait around for the other two? Nobody except those two girls knew they were coming home. I can't shake the idea that the girls got home before the abductors.

-interesting about the witnesses noticing the cars as they drove by. i wish we knew approximately what time that was.

-i'm also inclined to put too much into the Cox/McCall employee relationship thing.
Click to expand...
I suppose it is possible that the girls got home before the abductors. Hard to say one way or another. Don't know that it is particularly critical, however. As I recall, Delmar is sufficiently wide enough for the van to have been parked in the street by the curb. The young women could have driven in together, walked into the home or were let in or hustled in and they were quickly subdued. I don't get the purse thing either but evidently the abductors were trying to "tidy" up the house before they left. It may have meant little or nothing. I am inclined to believe that Sherill was home by herself when she was disturbed by the knock or ringing doorbell. She would naturally have turned the book over on the bed to retain the page she was reading (probably had reading glasses - presbyopia you know), and went to the door, peaked out and saw someone she recognized and let in the house. He could have been by himself or once she cracked open the door, the others simply forced open the door, grabbed her mouth to keep her quiet and that's when the dog ran out of the house. He/they went about their business and heard the dog barking and let him back in. And then the young women arrived home unexpectantly and likewise were subdued upon entry.

But we still have an unanswered question. If the logical suspects were actually cleared by polygraph, then who would she have let in? The abductors couldn't have known the young women would be coming home unless they had followed them home from the party in Battlefield. But it would be hard to imagine that everyone at that party would not have been interrogated at length. So far as I know, no one has ever come forward stating that they stopped on the way back to the Delmar address. So it would appear they came straight home. One can go to Mapquest and figure the mileage and the approximate location to the home. It is right at 11 miles from the party address to the Delmar address. That should take no more than 20-25 minutes at that time of night. Let's see if this link works. I just picked out an address near where I used to live in Battlefield and you can see the route to be taken.

http://www.mapquest.com/directions/main.adp?go=1&do=nw&rmm=1&1gi=0&un=m&1da=-1.000000&1rc=L1AAA&cl=EN&qq=1ADqpk24ofBk4OWLmqHRtiFMe6GkYCdIOZnvKosLO5oKek8TsQwTeVZdwkbDPY5XPyFV4yej3R2FCX4LvbCkksTM4cZF1wlaj7pB9M22fFzmjFIVtyK35E9oFO0RRNOKkS2ECNzlbhzSU2GBaI1RyOKwX2%252bQo1Zjms%252bpdz78pSqc%252bRP0PmV1ghKJpvcpk11ZbFQiZo0agVcPXEnsgb4%252bBw%253d%253d&ct=NA&r=f&1si=navt&rsres=1&1y=US&1ffi=&1l=wy543aqfNHMSQXnXdM%252fQ1w%253d%253d&1g=EgStM7aKzs2mcfqYiQG9TA%253d%253d&1pl=&1v=ADDRESS&1n=GREENE+COUNTY&1pn=&1a=4211+W+MONTERREY+ST&1c=BATTLEFIELD&1s=MO&1z=65619-9225&2y=US&2ffi=&2l=&2g=&2pl=&2v=&2n=&2pn=&2a=1727+E+DELMAR+ST&2c=SPRINGFIELD&2s=MO&2z=65804-0255&panelbtn=2#south
 
thanks pittsburghgirl, all those articles are very helpful. on the video in the multimedia section, you can see a very quick glance at one of the bedrooms, looks like Suzie's. I wish I could freeze it and check out the picture but it won't let you. I'm gonna purchase the 48 Hours segment.

Missouri, I think you're right on when you say "find the motive, solve the crime." by the way do you have Google Earth? You'll be able to see the home from above and the entire area, all you need to do is type in the address. go to google and download it, it's free.
 
I am thinking that the girls did get home before the abductors were in the house. It said in the newspaper articles that it was apparent they had gotten ready for bed and washed their faces. If someone was already in the house, they probably weren't giving the girls time to do that. Whoever planned this wanted it carried out quickly.

I think the blinds were opened by one of the perps who was sort of looking out to make sure no one saw them and they were accidentally left apart.

Everything that happened, I'm sure, was planned and it had to go smoothly and quickly. The only concern was getting the girls into the van or whatever vehicle was used and getting them out of there. It's just a guess, but I would have to think that someone Sherrill knew came to the door after the girls got home and either broke the globe and that's what brought her to the front door, or they simply knocked and gained entry because they were known to Sherrill.
 
In Springfield, most homes of that era were build over crawl spaces. Where I live in Texas most homes and businesses are built on concrete slab foundations. Many homes in Springfield now have basements but they are not a requirement as in St. Louis, for example. I never had a basement in my seven homes in Springfield. All had crawl spaces of anywhere from two to four feet to gain access to the plumbing.

It would have conceivably been possible to have gained access to the interior of the home without the front door been opened had someone entered from the crawl space and came through a floor entrance. I had one in my last home in the closet.

Just a further thought to consider.
 
Enrique Sparta said:
thanks pittsburghgirl, all those articles are very helpful. on the video in the multimedia section, you can see a very quick glance at one of the bedrooms, looks like Suzie's. I wish I could freeze it and check out the picture but it won't let you. I'm gonna purchase the 48 Hours segment.

Missouri, I think you're right on when you say "find the motive, solve the crime." by the way do you have Google Earth? You'll be able to see the home from above and the entire area, all you need to do is type in the address. go to google and download it, it's free.
Click to expand...
Thanks. I downloaded it but the free version is too blurry to make out much detail. If I had an extra $400 I'd spring for the professional version. No wonder Google's stock is selling for $484 a share as I write this. Pretty neat, nonetheless.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 72 more.
Total: 4,479 (members: 73, guests: 4,406)

Online statistics

Members online
73
Guests online
4,406
Total visitors
4,479
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,397
Messages
17,968,339
Members
228,767
Latest member
Mona Lisa
Back
Top