759 users online (68 members and 691 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1023
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    844
    Fullmoon, I am pretty confident in the N-L's reporting of the facts in this case, especially during the early weeks when they got their information from the daily press conferences held by SPD. Most of the anniversary reviews have just been a rehashing of previous published accounts with little if any new facts added. Anyone who was expecting more than that from the most recent 20th year anniversary has to be disappointed.

    Don't confuse these TV shows as news programs or documentaries because they are 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

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I would prefer just an honest reporting of the true facts of the case.
    I understand the frustration about little if any information coming from LE regarding a cold case. I don't believe LE should keep any information from the public. I'm for full disclosure, i.e., transcripts of interviews, releasing information that is under seal, particularly on a case that is 20 years old now. It might just help solve the case. Without any new information, you have rehashing of the old and are adding little to the discussion to keep this case alive. But I think the broadcasts of the case, even though they don't add anything new, still bring in new leads, something the families of the missing women welcome. I think the broadcasts may seem lame to some because there is little information on the facts. But unfortunately, the media is only reflecting what little information LE will give to them, hence, some of the filler.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by fullmoon View Post
    Thanks so much, Auramyst, for looking for the video for me. I am also on a message board "FindJodi.com" regarding the missing anchorwoman, Jodi Huisentruit. I posted a message on that board asking for a copy of the 20/20 episode on the case. I was surprised that the message board administrators contacted ABC to ask if they could post the video on the message board, and it was approved! Very cool. Someone also burned me a copy and sent it, which was very nice. I realize the 48 Hours episode was a long time ago. But I am bummed out that CBS told me they could not sell me anything from their archives. I wonder if they realize they could make a good chunk of change by making such items available? A lot of interest out there on older cases. Thanks again for your efforts! Anyone know if Unsolved Mysteries or Cold case Files did anything on this case?
    You brought up the Jodi Huisentruit case. There is a very nebulous link to this case. Probably slim to none but I will throw it out for you to chew on. Three years ago there was an individual by the name of Chris Revak who hanged himself in the Douglas county jail where he was suspected in the disappearance and murder of a lady bartender there. There was speculation at the time that he may have been a serial killer. He was a good looking young man, a paramedic and his co-workers found it hard to believe he could do such a thing.

    If you check into his background I believe you will find links to Battlefield, Missouri (although don't confuse with a relative of his) and to the town in Iowa where Ms. Huisentruit went missing. Going on memory here, I believe his ex wife lived nearby.

    Now where this gets intersting is that some poster claimed that he saw Revak talking to Suzie the night she went missing. He claimed he saw them on the corner of Delmar and Glenstone near her home. Said he looked right into this person's eyes and was convinced that this was Revak. Is there anything to this story? Don't know, but in view of the fact that we know so few hard facts about the case I wouldn't rule it out of hand. Revak would have been 19 years old in 1992.

    Thought I would throw that out for you if you are interested in looking into that angle. This may help you if you want to read more.

    http://www.truecrimereport.com/2009/...t_serial_k.php
    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

    Arthur Conan Doyle





  4. #34
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by fullmoon View Post
    I understand the frustration about little if any information coming from LE regarding a cold case. I don't believe LE should keep any information from the public. I'm for full disclosure, i.e., transcripts of interviews, releasing information that is under seal, particularly on a case that is 20 years old now. It might just help solve the case. Without any new information, you have rehashing of the old and are adding little to the discussion to keep this case alive. But I think the broadcasts of the case, even though they don't add anything new, still bring in new leads, something the families of the missing women welcome. I think the broadcasts may seem lame to some because there is little information on the facts. But unfortunately, the media is only reflecting what little information LE will give to them, hence, some of the filler.
    I have no frustration concerning what little information and evidence LE has released to the public. I understand why Moore clamped down on the flow of information coming out after the 48 HRS program first aired (the quality of the program and some of the misinformation from it might have contributed in his decision). The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.

    I do believe Janis McCall has recently been told by SPD the essence of the case and what it will take to obtain a conviction in a court of law. That seems to have brought her some peace of mind and perhaps some patience to see this thru. As I have said before, I believe this case is solved.
    “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

  5. #35
    Auramyst's Avatar
    Auramyst is offline One should look for what is, not for what one thinks should be ~Albert Einstein
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I have no frustration concerning what little information and evidence LE has released to the public. I understand why Moore clamped down on the flow of information coming out after the 48 HRS program first aired (the quality of the program and some of the misinformation from it might have contributed in his decision). The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.

    I do believe Janis McCall has recently been told by SPD the essence of the case and what it will take to obtain a conviction in a court of law. That seems to have brought her some peace of mind and perhaps some patience to see this thru. As I have said before, I believe this case is solved.
    I'm pleased to hear that Janis McCall has been given some peace of mind. That poor lady and her family have lived a nightmare for more than 20 years.

    Do you believe the case was solved recently? Or do you believe it was solved during the beginning of the investigation?
    All posts are my opinion

  6. #36
    Auramyst's Avatar
    Auramyst is offline One should look for what is, not for what one thinks should be ~Albert Einstein
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    130
    Stacy called Janis to tell her she was staying at Janelle's for the night. Janell's mother knew they were planning on spending the night- she had pallets made for Suzy and Stacy in the living room. So, we know that Stacy and Janelle both told their mother's they were not going to Branson that night.

    Did Suzy call Sherrill?

    I would hazard a guess that 'yes', Suzy would have called her mother to let her know that their plans had changed. According to all accounts, Suzy and Sherrill were close and it's likely that if Stacy and Janelle were calling/talking to their mothers, then Suzy would most certainly have tried to contact hers.

    Janis says Stacy called around 10:30. Sherrill was on the phone with a friend at 9:30. Did Suzy try to call and the line was busy? Did Suzy call and leave a message on the machine? Or did Suzy call and get through to her mother? If so, then Sherrill knew they weren't going to Branson. Sherrill might have suggested that Stacy stay at their house for the night, rather than adding two more people to the amount of guests at Janell's.

    If Sherrill knew they weren't going to Branson, and even if Sherrill thought the girls were staying at Janelle's, she (Sherrill) would have known that there was a possibility that Suzy (and possibly Stacy) might be coming home for the night.

    Sherrill might have more readily answered a knock on the door- expecting to see the girls (locked out or forgotten key), if Sherrill went to bed, and fell asleep, then she might have dismissed 'unusual' sounds in the house and attributed them to the girls coming home, etc, etc

    She also might mention it to any late night visitors- if the perp was a 'friend' who 'happened' to stop by for some reason.

    Maybe a minor detail, but one that could have implications on how events of the evening unfolded.
    All posts are my opinion

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    106
    The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.

    I'm sure it's a matter of style on how much LE wants to divulge to the public on cold cases. I think the public should receive updates regarding the status of the case without it being compromised by details, i.e., suspects, particularly a case like this that has been cold for 20 years. I don't expect LE to release a list of possible suspects to the public. They could answer some questions, however, to keep ongoing interest in the case in hopes of getting it solved. I doubt a case would be lost because of something said on an Internet forum somewhere. After 20 years, I would hope LE would trust the public enough to release some information that could help jog a memory and solve this case.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by fullmoon View Post
    The public has no right to know. If this case ever comes into court I don't want to see it lost because of something said on an internet forum somewhere.

    I'm sure it's a matter of style on how much LE wants to divulge to the public on cold cases. I think the public should receive updates regarding the status of the case without it being compromised by details, i.e., suspects, particularly a case like this that has been cold for 20 years. I don't expect LE to release a list of possible suspects to the public. They could answer some questions, however, to keep ongoing interest in the case in hopes of getting it solved. I doubt a case would be lost because of something said on an Internet forum somewhere. After 20 years, I would hope LE would trust the public enough to release some information that could help jog a memory and solve this case.
    Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

    Arthur Conan Doyle





  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    SO, CA
    Posts
    80
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
    In some ways that’s a little encouraging. It would appear that at least some in the investigation are willing to look ‘outside the box,’ and put their biases/prejudices aside from being overly familiar with the case and individuals involved. I was also encouraged recently by ‘new technology’ analyzing old evidence, getting good hard evidence in a case mostly of ‘he said/she said/they said,’ is nice.

    I hear from some here that ‘the case is solved.’ Great...but that means nothing. There’s a pesky little detail of proving it in a court of law, unless the State is given a gift of an outright confession. I agree with the State holding cards close to its vest, and keeping information regulated. But, the suspect protests his innocents, I don’t care if he is the scum of the earth and the State’s witnesses are angels and saints. Means nothing. You have to convince a dispassionate, detached jury with the facts challenged, analyzed and cross examined. You can cut through all this and right to the chase some systems do, China and some countries in the Middle East come to mind, I prefer ours thank you.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    844
    Quote Originally Posted by former central time View Post
    In some ways that’s a little encouraging. It would appear that at least some in the investigation are willing to look ‘outside the box,’ and put their biases/prejudices aside from being overly familiar with the case and individuals involved. I was also encouraged recently by ‘new technology’ analyzing old evidence, getting good hard evidence in a case mostly of ‘he said/she said/they said,’ is nice.

    I hear from some here that ‘the case is solved.’ Great...but that means nothing. There’s a pesky little detail of proving it in a court of law, unless the State is given a gift of an outright confession. I agree with the State holding cards close to its vest, and keeping information regulated. But, the suspect protests his innocents, I don’t care if he is the scum of the earth and the State’s witnesses are angels and saints. Means nothing. You have to convince a dispassionate, detached jury with the facts challenged, analyzed and cross examined. You can cut through all this and right to the chase some systems do, China and some countries in the Middle East come to mind, I prefer ours thank you.






    That's why arrests have not been made, charges have not been filed, and the case brought into a court of law. Cases are solved all the time but never officially closed because overwelming evidence is just not there to convince a jury of 12 (much easier to obtain a conviction in a civil lawsuit where one jurist can't hang the jury). I too am hopeful that new technology can produce suitable results from the forensic evidence if it was collected and stored properly. Without the additional evidence they seek there is no hurry to take their chance at a conviction. If no further evidence is ever developed then the PA at some time in the future will be forced to take his best shot with the evidence he has. I think that is a part of what has been explained to the McCalls. In the meantime the investigation continues for additional evidence that would make this case and get a conviction.

    Most of this "out of the box" stuff and tipsters claiming they weren't taken seriously by LE stems from lies and rumors that have been looked into by LE hundreds of times over the past 20 yrs. Not knowing versions of their tip have already been looked into numerous times before the tipster feels slighted because not enough attention was paid to something he/she strongly believes in. And thus starts another round of the cops are dirty or the cops aren't doing their job talk.
    “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


  11. #41
    Auramyst's Avatar
    Auramyst is offline One should look for what is, not for what one thinks should be ~Albert Einstein
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by former central time View Post
    In some ways that’s a little encouraging. It would appear that at least some in the investigation are willing to look ‘outside the box,’ and put their biases/prejudices aside from being overly familiar with the case and individuals involved. I was also encouraged recently by ‘new technology’ analyzing old evidence, getting good hard evidence in a case mostly of ‘he said/she said/they said,’ is nice.
    I agree and a fresh set of eyes may have helped bring more leads, suspects, and evidence to light. Some of this may have come about from the 3 day conference with NCMEC, and also from SPD 'digitizing' all that evidence.
    All posts are my opinion

  12. #42
    Auramyst's Avatar
    Auramyst is offline One should look for what is, not for what one thinks should be ~Albert Einstein
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Actually, they did release some information that we didn't previously have. They made it clear that there is one sole male individual whose whereabouts are unaccounted for during the time from about 9 PM to 6 AM the next morning. They want someone to talk to them about this person. I have read about everything ever published about this case and can never remember that they were this specific. From what I gather this person is not one of the "usual suspects" that have been discussed.
    I hadn't seen 9PM to 6AM anywhere, but I did read the report from the police stating:

    "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."

    That time frame is interesting. It leaves the door wide open for someone to have abducted/harmed Sherrill well before the girls allegedly got to the house at 2:30 AM.

    Maybe the police are still considering the sighting of a man loitering around the neighborhood to be valid- at least within the context of Saturday evening. If the police thought the only crime that occurred happened after the girls got home- then the time frame would be smaller and say something like "early Sunday morning" rather than including Saturday night as well. I can think of a few reasons why they would include Saturday evening in the time frame:

    1) They know something happened to Sherrill late Saturday evening
    2) They consider the 'transient' to be the suspect and he was seen by the witness on Saturday evening
    3) Both 1 & 2
    4) ?

    I'm taking the statement "into the morning of Sunday, June 7. 1992" to mean well into the morning. Like 11 AM or later.

    I would think that an abduction of three women, driving somewhere to rape/kill/abandon them, and coming back home would take some time. It could be shorter if he left them imprisoned somewhere and returned later to do his thing, but that would be much riskier than killing them right away and being done with the whole deal. With that being said, I wonder what condition his clothes were in when he got home.
    Last edited by Auramyst; 07-25-2012 at 10:45 PM.
    All posts are my opinion

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    30
    Quote Originally Posted by Auramyst View Post

    I would think that an abduction of three women, driving somewhere to rape/kill/abandon them, and coming back home would take some time. It could be shorter if he left them imprisoned somewhere and returned later to do his thing, but that would be much riskier than killing them right away and being done with the whole deal. With that being said, I wonder what condition his clothes were in when he got home.
    That is assuming that the abductor and the murderer are the same person/people. I know that there are a few of us who are not necessarily convinced that this is the only plausible scenario.

  14. #44
    Auramyst's Avatar
    Auramyst is offline One should look for what is, not for what one thinks should be ~Albert Einstein
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    130
    Quote Originally Posted by Jaya View Post
    That is assuming that the abductor and the murderer are the same person/people. I know that there are a few of us who are not necessarily convinced that this is the only plausible scenario.
    Ahhh, yes, another perp or two would certainly open up the possibilities within the "late Saturday night, early Sunday morning" timeframe publicized by the police.

    I was actually applying the scenarios based on the timeframe statement released by the police. But, their lack of mentioning another suspect doesn't necessarily eliminate the fact that there may be another suspect.

    When I first learned of this case a few years ago (I was stationed in England before coming back to the States), my original theory was that there was just one perp.

    I've read extensively, both this forum and through my own research, and developed theories that included everything from one to several perps.

    At the moment, I'm back on the one perp theory- but barely. I wouldn't be surprised if there were two, but I would be surprised if there was more than that.
    All posts are my opinion

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,825
    Quote Originally Posted by Auramyst View Post
    I hadn't seen 9PM to 6AM anywhere, but I did read the report from the police stating:

    "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."

    That time frame is interesting. It leaves the door wide open for someone to have abducted/harmed Sherrill well before the girls allegedly got to the house at 2:30 AM.

    Maybe the police are still considering the sighting of a man loitering around the neighborhood to be valid- at least within the context of Saturday evening. If the police thought the only crime that occurred happened after the girls got home- then the time frame would be smaller and say something like "early Sunday morning" rather than including Saturday night as well. I can think of a few reasons why they would include Saturday evening in the time frame:

    1) They know something happened to Sherrill late Saturday evening
    2) They consider the 'transient' to be the suspect and he was seen by the witness on Saturday evening
    3) Both 1 & 2
    4) ?

    I'm taking the statement "into the morning of Sunday, June 7. 1992" to mean well into the morning. Like 11 AM or later.

    I would think that an abduction of three women, driving somewhere to rape/kill/abandon them, and coming back home would take some time. It could be shorter if he left them imprisoned somewhere and returned later to do his thing, but that would be much riskier than killing them right away and being done with the whole deal. With that being said, I wonder what condition his clothes were in when he got home.
    I'm going to eat crow about a recent post as I can't find the specific time frames what I thought I had read. I sincerely thought I had read that somewhere but I haven't been able to lay my hands on it now. (I'm going to have to be more exacting in the future.)

    The information I have been getting recently points to at least two perpetrators. Hurricane might want to opine here if he wishes.

    This is the best I have been able to find at this time. This comes from "The Crime Scene." Maybe I did imagine it. I apologize for misleading you.

    At the very least we know the police are referring to one male subject and if he "clearly" spent a considerable time out and about, etc., this comports with the recent information I have seen. What is particularly interesting about this is that the police state he "may" not have a history of violence. This suggests that he is not someone who has been discussed in the various forums. I would call this person "Mystery Man" and I do not know the identity of this person although I know the identities of the usual suspects bandied about. If, as I believe, two of the GJ3 suspects are in prison (as is Cox) and one's whereabouts are unknown but had a long history of bad behavior it reinforces the view that we are looking at someone not generally known to the public. I do believe this press release was carefully constructed by the police department, although they do leave themselves considerable "wiggle" room in the interpretation of their wording, i.e. "may not" instead of "does not", etc. Stated differently, even Cox could be fitted into this description of the suspect.

    "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."

    http://crimesceneinvestigations.blog...&by-date=false


    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 07-26-2012 at 01:23 AM.
    “Once you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, must be the truth.”

    Arthur Conan Doyle





Page 3 of 69 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum The Springfield Three
    Replies: 751
    Last Post: 06-15-2012, 01:58 AM
  2. 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
  3. 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
  4. 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

Tags for this Thread