Page 22 of 51 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22 23 24 32 ... LastLast
Results 316 to 330 of 752
  1. #316
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    This excerpt seems contradictory to the "Disappeared" episode. As I recall, Jannelle said she had never been to the Levitt home, prior to June 7. 1992. (I stand to be corrected.) How is it that she would have known anything definitive about Sherrill cleaning something up?

    "We cleaned it up because we knew Sherrill wouldn't want it that way," Kirby said. "Normally, the second it broke she would have cleaned it up. "

    Perhaps she is going on what Suzie had said to her of Sherrill's habits. It may mean nothing.

    I may be making a mountain out of a molehill but it is what appear to be minor details which are not consistent which cast doubt of the veracity of witnesses. I'm not sure what to make of Jannelle. Perhaps this is why multiple questioning of Jannelle was conducted by the SPD.

    As to the account of the fraternity, I hope the SPD are availing themselves of this information and pursue such an angle if in fact they don't know already who the perp(s) were. It has the ring of truth and harkens back to the days when some guys would keep count of the number of women they had seduced. And that was about the time of the "date rape drugs" culture which many young women were assaulted without their knowledge.

    Where did Janelle say that? She didn't say it in the Disappeared Video....or any of the other videos out ther. I've never read that either. Not meaning to be contrary, but I've never read anywhere that Janelle said that. She DID SAY, that they cleaned the glass up as "A Favor To Sherrill"....which sounded equally as strange.


  2. The Following User Says Thank You to monkeymann For This Useful Post:


  3. #317
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghgirl View Post
    Of course the problem with media accounts is that almost everything hinges on the reporter's skill and diligence as well as the memory and integrity of the people who are interviewed. The KC Star article is clearly an early one. if I can find the Springfield articles, we can do some comparing.

    I can see why Janelle and Mike would sweep up the glass, just because it posed a hazard and it might seem to be a thoughtful thing to do, Forget what Sherrill would have "wanted"; at that point they didn't know she wasn't coming home in a minute or two. It's still very pushy. And I am still not clear on how they got a broom and dustpan to do that.
    Thats another point of contention: There are two different stories. Aparently one states that they cleaned up the glass as a "Favor to Sherrill"....when asked where they got the broom, they said from the kitchen in one story, but they had stated that they "Hadn't" been in the house prior to cleaning up the glass...oops.....In the other they got the broom from under the carport. Either way Police had to have recovered the shards of glass from the globe. I also would love to know if it just the producers of the Disappeared Video making Janelle play up the whole part about Cinnimon, Sherrills dog, acting anxious, and Janelle stating "She wanted to be held".

    But if you want to take that another step.....watch original footage of Janelle's interview with the KY3 reporter, also watch the Disappeared Video footage of her, and Bartt.....before you do though, go to a few web sites and bone up on how to spot deception in peoples body language and micro expressions and verbage used. And then watch the videos, rewind them and watch them over several times, you will pick up many very obvious, as some very suttle things. Watch them and be your own judge......just do me a favor, bone up on the whole how to spot deception thing first.....it makes sorting out whats going on a whole lot easier.


  4. The Following User Says Thank You to monkeymann For This Useful Post:


  5. #318
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    Not sure if Janelle had ever been to the Delmar house before that day (can't remember offhand), but I'm sure she had been to the previous home(s) Sherrill and Suzie lived in before that. So, I'm sure she was accustomed to Sherrill's habits and likes/dislikes when it came to how she liked her home to be.
    I agree. During the Levitt marriage they were living in the same subdivision with the Kirby''s. Janelle and Suzie were best friends during the years the McCall's had moved away. Janelle would have certainly formed an opinion about how Sherrill lived and kept house whether she had ever been to 1717 before or not.
    “Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us – and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” – Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection


  6. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Hurricane For This Useful Post:


  7. #319
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    Thats Incorrect in a couple ways:

    Number one, Stacy did have a swim suit with her that was found at Susies house, I also thought she had a bag....but thats not made clear in the accounts...at least ones that I've run across.

    Number two, According to the original police report, the "LAST" party they attended was 5002 Coach (Greeson Residence). The 1500 Block of Hanover Street party that was broken up by police at aprox. 1:40am. They went from the 5002 Coach party to Janelles house around the corner at 4961 Butterfield Place. Janelle claims that she last saw them at aprox. 2:00am. Mike H. and Shane A. were supposidly there when the girls left.....where did they go afterwards? Janelle went inside according to her mothers account, and went to bed. Think they carried the party elsewhere?
    And how was the bathing suit found? Is it reasonable to think that if Stacy had an overnight bag she went to her car and removed her bathing suit and her migrane medication from the bag without bringing the bag inside? When she removed her shorts and jewelry for the night she wouldn't have placed them inside an overnight bag if she had one, but chose to put them on top of her shoes instead? That doesn't add up.

    Brian Joy lived around the corner at 5002 Coach from the Kirby residence, with his mother and step-father. Their names were Gleason. The Elder party on Hanover St was an impromptu party that came about when Michelle Elder's mom told her during dinner that she could have a few friends over.

    So what have I stated that is incorrect?
    “Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us – and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” – Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection


  8. The Following User Says Thank You to Hurricane For This Useful Post:


  9. #320
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    292
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    And how was the bathing suit found? Is it reasonable to think that if Stacy had an overnight bag she went to her car and removed her bathing suit and her migrane medication from the bag without bringing the bag inside? When she removed her shorts and jewelry for the night she wouldn't have placed them inside an overnight bag if she had one, but chose to put them on top of her shoes instead? That doesn't add up.

    Brian Joy lived around the corner at 5002 Coach from the Kirby residence, with his mother and step-father. Their names were Gleason. The Elder party on Hanover St was an impromptu party that came about when Michelle Elder's mom told her during dinner that she could have a few friends over.

    So what have I stated that is incorrect?
    You're not making sense? In your original post you posted " Stacy thought that she would probably end up sleeping in her own bed at home but didn't want to be locked into a curfew from her mother. That is why she never informed her mother on the change of plans. Therefore I don't think there was an overnight bag.

    Then you posted: "Is it reasonable to think that if Stacy had an overnight bag she went to her car and removed her bathing suit and her migrane medication from the bag without bringing the bag inside? When she removed her shorts and jewelry for the night she wouldn't have placed them inside an overnight bag if she had one, but chose to put them on top of her shoes instead? That doesn't add up.

    I'm confused...are you saying that you think she may have had an overnight bag out in the car. Or one that is "Missing" now that she had with her that night?

    Her Jewelery is another point of contention: Janelles account of what she and Mike found at 1717 Delmar on 6/7/92 stated that there were wash cloths in the bathroom where they had "Supposidly" taken their make-up off, and that their jewelery was sitting on the counter top as well.

    But, in the original police report it states that one of the officers found Stacys jewelery in the pocket of her shorts that were still folded next to Susies bed.


  10. The Following User Says Thank You to monkeymann For This Useful Post:


  11. #321
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    841
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    You're not making sense? In your original post you posted " Stacy thought that she would probably end up sleeping in her own bed at home but didn't want to be locked into a curfew from her mother. That is why she never informed her mother on the change of plans. Therefore I don't think there was an overnight bag.

    Then you posted: "Is it reasonable to think that if Stacy had an overnight bag she went to her car and removed her bathing suit and her migrane medication from the bag without bringing the bag inside? When she removed her shorts and jewelry for the night she wouldn't have placed them inside an overnight bag if she had one, but chose to put them on top of her shoes instead? That doesn't add up.

    I'm confused...are you saying that you think she may have had an overnight bag out in the car. Or one that is "Missing" now that she had with her that night?

    Her Jewelery is another point of contention: Janelles account of what she and Mike found at 1717 Delmar on 6/7/92 stated that there were wash cloths in the bathroom where they had "Supposidly" taken their make-up off, and that their jewelery was sitting on the counter top as well.

    But, in the original police report it states that one of the officers found Stacys jewelery in the pocket of her shorts that were still folded next to Susies bed.
    There was no overnight bag, otherwise Stacy's bathing suit, jewelry and shorts would have likely been in the bag. Why would she take out the bathing suit? What else of value could the bag have contained? Her medication was not in there. What could the perps have wanted with the bag after throwing the bathing suit aside?

    Suzie's jewelry was found beside the sink. Stacy's jewelry was found in the pockets of her shorts, including a new ring she had received as a graduation present.
    “Finding the occasional straw of truth awash in a great ocean of confusion and bamboozle requires intelligence, vigilance, dedication and courage. But if we don’t practice these tough habits of thought, we cannot hope to solve the truly serious problems that face us – and we risk becoming a nation of suckers, up for grabs by the next charlatan who comes along.” – Carl Sagan, The Fine Art of Baloney Detection


  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Hurricane For This Useful Post:


  13. #322
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh (of course)
    Posts
    2,352
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    Janelle stated in the Discovered Video that came out recently, that they "She and Mike" had never been to the house prior to the two of them going over there at aprox. 12:30pm on 6/7/1992.
    And yet they walked right in.


  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pittsburghgirl For This Useful Post:


  15. #323
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,590
    For some reason I had it in my mind that there was an overnight bag but in rereading some older threads apparently there was not. (So my post #310 is inaccurate) So we have to conclude that her make-up, her medication and other personal effects were in her purse which was left behind.

    I'm sure this was asked and answered previously but wouldn't she logically have had a change of clothing either in her car or in an overnight bag that was not in evidence? She had been out all night and I would think she would not wish to put on soiled clothing, underwear and the like after leaving Branson. If on the other hand, she did have an overnight bag that was inspected and the bathing suit cast aside, one wonders what might have been in the bag, if it existed at all.

    Just seems a little odd to me. When I go to the gym to do a workout I carry along a change of underwear as perspiration becomes uncomfortable. This occurred in June and the temperatures must have been in the 80s or so and I would think she would want to change into clean clothing and underwear. I don't know what, if anything, this tells us.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra




  16. The Following User Says Thank You to Missouri Mule For This Useful Post:


  17. #324
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh (of course)
    Posts
    2,352
    Ah, yes, there was Suzie's overnight bag, according to this article:

    Bookout took a walk through the home, Janis at his side. They went into Suzie's room, where pictures of famous blondes hung on the wall and seven oversized stuffed animals were scattered across the floor. Two slats in the window blinds had been separated, as if someone was looking out. 

The three women's purses were all together, Stacy's sitting on Suzie's overnight bag.


    http://http://www.news-leader.com/ar...Later-Part-3-5

    I had written that Janis McCall said Stacy had a bag, but I can't find such a reference and think I was---arrgghh--mistaken. Janis talked about letting Stacy wonder where her cars and clothes were, which is something of an ambiguous statement. Was she referring to the clothed found in Suzie's room (what she had worn that night?) or to clothes packed for overnight (PJs, clothes for the water slide trip?) If she left a swimsuit behind, what was it carried in? We don't know what was in either girl's car--a quick trip out to get a toothbrush might have resulted in making one girl vulnerable or leaving the door unlocked.
    Last edited by pittsburghgirl; 01-01-2012 at 06:53 PM.


  18. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pittsburghgirl For This Useful Post:


  19. #325
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    202

    Body Language

    I have heard a lot about body language over the years and while I agree that body language CAN be a tool to detect deception, I don't believe that it is accurate enough to be used in this manner. IMO, I think that it could be more accurately used with my 12 year old than an adult with many years of baggage.

    I went to SMSU to get a degree in psychology, and during those years, I learned that many of the things that people do unconsciously are aspects of defense mechanisms and learned behavior. I believe that a person's body language may just be the way they handle stressful situations and sometimes this body language may appear to be deceptive, but in many instances that is not the case at all. That is why it is not admissible in court and neither is a polygraph.

    I think that everyone involved in this case probably feels that they need to defend and protect themselves after all of the finger pointing and scrutiny for the past 20 years. This desire would most definitely show up in their body language.


  20. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to CaliMama For This Useful Post:


  21. #326
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghgirl View Post
    And yet they walked right in.
    I still don't think this is a big deal. I would have done the same thing if it looked like my friends were there, but just not answering the door.


  22. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to CaliMama For This Useful Post:


  23. #327
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,590
    Quote Originally Posted by CaliMama View Post
    I have heard a lot about body language over the years and while I agree that body language CAN be a tool to detect deception, I don't believe that it is accurate enough to be used in this manner. IMO, I think that it could be more accurately used with my 12 year old than an adult with many years of baggage.

    I went to SMSU to get a degree in psychology, and during those years, I learned that many of the things that people do unconsciously are aspects of defense mechanisms and learned behavior. I believe that a person's body language may just be the way they handle stressful situations and sometimes this body language may appear to be deceptive, and in many instances that is not the case at all. That is why it is not admissible in court and neither is a polygraph.

    I think that everyone involved in this case probably feels that they need to defend and protect themselves after all of the finger pointing and scrutiny for the past 20 years. This desire would most definitely show up in their body language.
    I agree with you about body language. I have often seen these "experts" show how people are supposedly deceptive by their hands held over their mouths or looking down or this or that and it may be that they are contemplating their answers. It could be that they are trying to hide something but as you say, polygraphs are not admissible because they are not reliable. At best they are an indicator. And so it is with body language.

    What I find most interesting (or irritating) about people is when they won't address a direct question. That drives me up the wall. It is one thing to not remember something; but it is quite another when someone evades answering a question. Just recently, I asked someone connected to this case a direct question and was met with evasion. To me that speaks volumes.

    There is also the matter of projection when one wants to lay the blame for his or her problems on others by giving the same or similar motives to the person they feel hostility toward. They never seem to want to accept personal responsibility.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra




  24. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Missouri Mule For This Useful Post:


  25. #328
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    This excerpt seems contradictory to the "Disappeared" episode. As I recall, Jannelle said she had never been to the Levitt home, prior to June 7. 1992. (I stand to be corrected.) How is it that she would have known anything definitive about Sherrill cleaning something up?

    "We cleaned it up because we knew Sherrill wouldn't want it that way," Kirby said. "Normally, the second it broke she would have cleaned it up. "

    Perhaps she is going on what Suzie had said to her of Sherrill's habits. It may mean nothing.

    I may be making a mountain out of a molehill but it is what appear to be minor details which are not consistent which cast doubt of the veracity of witnesses. I'm not sure what to make of Jannelle. Perhaps this is why multiple questioning of Jannelle was conducted by the SPD.

    As to the account of the fraternity, I hope the SPD are availing themselves of this information and pursue such an angle if in fact they don't know already who the perp(s) were. It has the ring of truth and harkens back to the days when some guys would keep count of the number of women they had seduced. And that was about the time of the "date rape drugs" culture which many young women were assaulted without their knowledge.
    I thought that the Disappeared episode stated that Sherill had just downsized from a larger home that was near the neighborhood that SM and JK lived in? She had moved to the home on Delmar in Feb, so I thought when JK said she had never been to the home, she meant THAT home. I might be wrong and I could have totally misinterpreted everything.

    Regarding the frat situation, that happened in 1989 and some of those guys would have still been around in 1992. Lots of us went to school throughout the Summer or stayed and worked during the summer. However, something tells me that what they did (or were going to do) to us, didn't end that night. I really think that they wanted to do it again and be successful next time. I also think that if they ever succeeded, they would want to cover it up to protect the fraternity and I don't believe the girl or girls would survive.


  26. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to CaliMama For This Useful Post:


  27. #329
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    SO, CA
    Posts
    81
    Quote Originally Posted by _mb_ View Post
    I've never really bought this. I believe that Stacy told her mom that she and her friends were staying in a Branson hotel that night, but I don't believe that there really were plans to do so. One, good luck finding a hotel that will rent to 18 year olds. Two, somebody had to pay for that room if they didn't show up, but didn't cancel 24 hours or so in advance. If they didn't have reservations, I doubt they could have found a hotel in Branson with vacancies that night.



    Agreed, not to split hairs but in that era, it was possible to have 'curtesy holds' on hotel rooms. Airlines used to do the same thing, generally for twenty-four hours. In this case, say, somebody in the group 'reserved' a room, got a courtesy hold with some kind of 'comp number' but was NOT guaranteed. If they got a credit card, they could have guaranteed the room, and a call to cancel was and is generally required by 6 PM local night of check in.

    I was always under the impression it was some kind of ma and pa hotel in Branson. Be it that or a chain, it's possible someone in the gang made a call early that day and made the 'curtesy hold.' Whether it was made through the 1-800 clerk or Mary Jane Glutz in the lobby of the local hotel, no later call with a credit card to firm it, no show, records purged that night, no harm/no foul. Clearly, no credit cards were charged and I doubt this gang was that together enough to call in a cancellation by the 6 PM deadline.


  28. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to former central time For This Useful Post:


  29. #330
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    202
    Quote Originally Posted by former central time View Post
    Agreed, not to split hairs but in that era, it was possible to have 'curtesy holds' on hotel rooms. Airlines used to do the same thing, generally for twenty-four hours. In this case, say, somebody in the group 'reserved' a room, got a courtesy hold with some kind of 'comp number' but was NOT guaranteed. If they got a credit card, they could have guaranteed the room, and a call to cancel was and is generally required by 6 PM local night of check in.

    I was always under the impression it was some kind of ma and pa hotel in Branson. Be it that or a chain, it's possible someone in the gang made a call early that day and made the 'curtesy hold.' Whether it was made through the 1-800 clerk or Mary Jane Glutz in the lobby of the local hotel, no later call with a credit card to firm it, no show, records purged that night, no harm/no foul. Clearly, no credit cards were charged and I doubt this gang was that together enough to call in a cancellation by the 6 PM deadline.
    That was what I was thinking also. I grew up in a different part of Missouri, but visited Branson every summer from the age of 12 -18. There were a lot of little motels that didn't operate like big hotel chains. In 1992, they might not have had to reserve the room with a cc at all.

    The actions of this group remind me of how my friends and I used to operate during those years and none of this really seems odd to me at all. The only thing I would like to know is what and/or who was it to cause Stacy and Suzie to change their plans. That might be the key to why they are no longer with us.


  30. The Following User Says Thank You to CaliMama For This Useful Post:


Page 22 of 51 FirstFirst ... 12 20 21 22 23 24 32 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #4
    By christine2448 in forum The Springfield Three
    Replies: 1035
    Last Post: 04-19-2011, 09:02 PM
  2. The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 /Possible locations.
    By :+:MrTT:+: in forum The Springfield Three
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-09-2009, 10:02 PM
  3. The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #1
    By englishleigh in forum The Springfield Three
    Replies: 630
    Last Post: 02-05-2008, 10:56 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •