1534 users online (309 members and 1225 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 49
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I was unaware of this thread until this morning. In reading over Cox's past history it reminded me of one scenario that I picked up a couple of days on Google. I'll try to retrieve it and post excerpts. It comes from a very unlikely source but I thought it interesting nonetheless and appears to fit Cox's MO. I can find no reason to exclude him. The $64,000 question is how he kept his DNA or prints out of the house. This site perhaps offers a clue. It might also answer the long festering problem of the broken glass, in addition to the glass, hair and other forensic evidence may have been swept up as well. If there was anything linking Cox to that house this case would be solved; perhaps no conviction, but we would know he was involved.
    Can you at least post the site you are talking about so we can read the info there? Thanks.

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Cambria View Post
    Can you at least post the site you are talking about so we can read the info there? Thanks.
    I would except then it wouldn't be taken seriously. I will say, however, that it speaks of the girls being outside the home for a period of time after they arrived at the Levitt residence. It is an idea I have kicked around a long time as I tried to put myself back in the days when kids would be having parties and everyone is somebody's friend and trust abounds even around strangers. Thinking back to my own days in high school and college it is a wonder I lived to tell the tale. I wanted a "second opinion" before I actually linked the site.

    Here is a short blurb from KY3 regarding Cox. May have already been posted.

    http://www.ky3.com/internal?st=print...=/home/related
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  3. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Cambria View Post
    Can you at least post the site you are talking about so we can read the info there? Thanks.
    Actually, I think I was "test driving" Microsoft's "bing" search engine when I ran across this web site.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  4. #19
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    ATL
    Posts
    141
    Why all these secretive posts in this thread too?

    If you are going to allude to a source, it should be posted.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I would except then it wouldn't be taken seriously. I will say, however, that it speaks of the girls being outside the home for a period of time after they arrived at the Levitt residence. It is an idea I have kicked around a long time as I tried to put myself back in the days when kids would be having parties and everyone is somebody's friend and trust abounds even around strangers. Thinking back to my own days in high school and college it is a wonder I lived to tell the tale. I wanted a "second opinion" before I actually linked the site.

    Here is a short blurb from KY3 regarding Cox. May have already been posted.

    http://www.ky3.com/internal?st=print...=/home/related

    MM, when you say this theory involves the girls being outside for a period of time, does this mean they never went inside or they came back outside after entering the home? I'm interested in hearing this theory.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Valiant View Post
    Why all these secretive posts in this thread too?

    If you are going to allude to a source, it should be posted.
    I've already explained why.

    The problem is two fold. One is that we can't discuss actual people without fear of lawsuits and my pockets are not deep enough. Secondly, some ideas are met with derision because they are outside "acceptable thought" and I don't need the grief.

    If people are that curious about these various web sites they can sit at their computer and do a Google or Bing and just read what is on the internet and draw their own conclusions. The one thing that we can be 100% certain is that someone, at some time, has come up with the right hypothesis. We just don't know which one. Each person will have to make up their own mind and should attempt if at all possible to research this subject and keep and open mind. There is far too much "group think" regarding this crime. Step over the "line" and expect to be pilloried. Who needs the aggravation? I have heard this time and again, even today, from some who are not mainstream in their thinking. My retort would be this. "Mainstream" thinking has gotten us nowhere up to this point.

    If anyone wants to know how things could actually occur, suggest looking at the old Robert Redford movie "Three Days of the Condor." He works for the CIA as a researcher and he stumbles onto something he didn't even know meant anything. But it was sufficiently concerning to the powers that be that several people were murdered in cold blood to keep the truth from emerging. Some will say this is just a movie. Well, movies often mirror reality. And let us not forget Churchill's famous admonition,"Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  7. #22
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    MM, when you say this theory involves the girls being outside for a period of time, does this mean they never went inside or they came back outside after entering the home? I'm interested in hearing this theory.
    It had more to do with them being outside of the home for a period of time. At one time one of them went into the home and this is how entry was eventually gained.

    Believe me, when I was in college I had more good times than were healthy and everyone was my buddy or so I thought. Inhibitions are thrown out the window. I suspect the girls were in similar circumstances. But the difference with me is that no one was going to abduct me. But the girls; well that's a whole different ball game. Predators are always on the prowl and what better time to hook up with someone than when the booze and drugs are flowing freely?
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  8. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    It had more to do with them being outside of the home for a period of time. At one time one of them went into the home and this is how entry was eventually gained.

    Believe me, when I was in college I had more good times than were healthy and everyone was my buddy or so I thought. Inhibitions are thrown out the window. I suspect the girls were in similar circumstances. But the difference with me is that no one was going to abduct me. But the girls; well that's a whole different ball game. Predators are always on the prowl and what better time to hook up with someone than when the booze and drugs are flowing freely?
    I agree, if someone is under the influence, a predator does have an advantage. My question is, LE reported that both girls had washed up, so wouldn't this indicate both were inside the home at some point? I'm wondering if they washed up and then went back outside? Perhaps to talk and enjoy the summer night? I've always thought it was possible that Suzie stepped outside to smoke. Since Stacy didn't smoke, perhaps Suzie stepped outside to smoke as a courtesy to Stacy?

    ETA: Cigarette smoke does give some non-smokers a headache and Stacy was prone to migraines. So, maybe Stacy requested Suzie to smoke outside?

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    I agree, if someone is under the influence, a predator does have an advantage. My question is, LE reported that both girls had washed up, so wouldn't this indicate both were inside the home at some point? I'm wondering if they washed up and then went back outside? Perhaps to talk and enjoy the summer night? I've always thought it was possible that Suzie stepped outside to smoke. Since Stacy didn't smoke, perhaps Suzie stepped outside to smoke as a courtesy to Stacy?

    ETA: Cigarette smoke does give some non-smokers a headache and Stacy was prone to migraines. So, maybe Stacy requested Suzie to smoke outside?
    I've thought about that. I see no reason why they couldn't have simply gone in and cleaned up and came back outside to chat some with their new found "friends." I would doubt anyone would be putting a searchlight on their faces to check for makeup at that hour of the night.

    What I like about this theory is that this would explain how entry was gained. And knowing what I think I know about kids of that age, I'll bet they were all over town having a good old time and the girls were revved up as well. And their guard was down. And this is when the predator(s) would be most likely to strike, especially if it had been planned out in advance. That might explain why there was no DNA or fingerprints in the home. The girls could have been outside, called back in for "Mom" to come to the door and they grabbed her and off they went. The porch globe was knocked off and it's over. The perp(s) may never have gone into the home at all.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  10. #25
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I've thought about that. I see no reason why they couldn't have simply gone in and cleaned up and came back outside to chat some with their new found "friends." I would doubt anyone would be putting a searchlight on their faces to check for makeup at that hour of the night.

    What I like about this theory is that this would explain how entry was gained. And knowing what I think I know about kids of that age, I'll bet they were all over town having a good old time and the girls were revved up as well. And their guard was down. And this is when the predator(s) would be most likely to strike, especially if it had been planned out in advance. That might explain why there was no DNA or fingerprints in the home. The girls could have been outside, called back in for "Mom" to come to the door and they grabbed her and off they went. The porch globe was knocked off and it's over. The perp(s) may never have gone into the home at all.
    Do these new found "friends" include Cox as one in this theory?


  11. #26
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    Do these new found "friends" include Cox as one in this theory?
    Without question. I imagine he was hanging around and perhaps had befriended some of the girl's friends. I still put him up right at the top of the suspect list. If he wasn't actually in that circle he may have been watching at a distance for a good time to make his move. He probably had at least one helper. That helper could have also met an untimely end to tie up any loose ends. As I said in an earlier post, any number of possible theories might be right. But I want to emphasize that this offers the best of all of the theories why his DNA or forensic evidence was not found in the house.

    This is why I have many times insisted that until the possible friends, acquaintances, and family of the victims are all eliminated, we are casting about in a large ocean of possible scenarios. If all of those could be eliminated it certainly points strongly at someone like Cox who had no reliable alibi. In my view he didn't even have a alibi plus he concocted a false alibi needlessly if he already had another provable alibi. He had to believe his fall back alibi was near worthless. Bottom line is that he can't be eliminated as a suspect.
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 06-17-2009 at 09:58 AM.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Without question. I imagine he was hanging around and perhaps had befriended some of the girl's friends. I still put him up right at the top of the suspect list. If he wasn't actually in that circle he may have been watching at a distance for a good time to make his move. He probably had at least one helper. That helper could have also met an untimely end to tie up any loose ends. As I said in an earlier post, any number of possible theories might be right. But I want to emphasize that this offers the best of all of the theories why his DNA or forensic evidence was not found in the house.

    This is why I have many times insisted that until the possible friends, acquaintances, and family of the victims are all eliminated, we are casting about in a large ocean of possible scenarios. If all of those could be eliminated it certainly points strongly at someone like Cox who had no reliable alibi.
    Or perhaps Cox and a buddy were out cruising the streets looking for a victim and noticed the girls outside?
    Last edited by Indianagirl; 06-17-2009 at 03:07 AM. Reason: spelling

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    Or perhaps Cox and a buddy were out cruising the streets looking for a victim and noticed the girls outside?
    Not inconceivable.

    What people get wrapped up is in the wrong things. For example, a theory was espoused that because the dog barked at 1:30AM that it had gotten out and someone, perhaps Cox, brought the dog to the door and gained entry. We don't even know if it was possible for the dog to have gotten outside the premises and for an owner to leave a dog outside for what must have been a long time without checking is not likely.

    If we just look to the facts, which is that the car was inside the carport, which has been stated to be unusual, we know it didn't park itself and the keys were in Sherrill's purse and that there was evidently no fingerprints or DNA of the perp(s) (if they didn't come from the people to the home), then it is as probable as anything that the perp(s) never went into the home. That argues for the girls being approached while outside the home. The mother comes out to check on them and they are all snatched up and taken. But was it her usual custom to park half way in and half way out? It does not necessarily follow that because Suzie reportedly parked in an easterly direction that it was because she couldn't access the driveway as Sherrill's car blocked entry from the eastern side of the driveway. Maybe she liked to park facing east where the sun would melt the frost off her windshield in the wintertime and this was just her usual custom regardless. Maybe Sherrill did park all the way in. Where is it established that she didn't?
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  14. #29
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Pittsburgh (of course)
    Posts
    2,490
    We actually had a pretty spirited discussion here on WS about the possibility that the girls didn't stay in the house, or the possibility that the abductor(s) got them coming out of the house to get things from the car. One of the biggest sticking points in the whole case is the issue of how the abductor(s) got into the house and control of the women, when (so far as we know, and this is a big caveat) there isn't a sign of forced entry or other indications of a break in. If the women were inside, either someone in the house (the women or a guest) let the abductor(s)/accomplice(s) in or the women did or someone failed to lock a door. If Suzie and Stacy were outside, even just to go to the car, things become much easier.

    I am still intrigued by the George's sighting because it opens up more opportunity for Suzie and Stacy to be seen and followed home--or to make some connection with "three men" who turn up later at the house. If the sighting at George's is valid, and the waitress's memory is correct or close to correct, Suzie was drunk. That might explain sitting out in the cool summer night after the face washing and getting ready for bed. Sit outside, have a cigarette (Suzie), the abductors spot them as they cruise, SOMETHING happens and one of the girls screams or the dog started barking, Sherrill goes out on the porch and suddenly all three of them are under control. If the whole thing went down on the porch, it might explain the broken porch light as well. The next door neighbors were gone. Maybe no one heard a thing.

    Here's a question: somewhere I read that the three men at George's were "clean cut" and I can't find that for the life of me. I hope I wasn't hallucinating. Anyway, pictures of Cox show someone who is fairly young and clean-cut looking.

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by pittsburghgirl View Post

    Here's a question: somewhere I read that the three men at George's were "clean cut" and I can't find that for the life of me. I hope I wasn't hallucinating. Anyway, pictures of Cox show someone who is fairly young and clean-cut looking.
    I seem to recall the same thing and had the same thought about Cox as well. At that time he wouldn't have been that old and not bad looking so he could easily have fit that description. With he and two other "clean cut" fellows they could have followed the women back to the home. Sherrill went inside and the girls stayed outside to shoot the breeze. After a while, Sherrill comes outside to check on their delay and they are all scooped up and taken away. More than plausible. With no DNA or forensic evidence it is highly likely. If Sherrill pulled in her car all the way into the garage to accomodate these "clean cut" fellows it answers two questions of how did there get room to pull the van up to the porch and how did the keys get in her purse? And it also answers a third question. If these "clean cut" guys never even went into the home, they wouldn't even have known about that money in her purse. They just wanted one or more of the women.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Suspect - John Robert King and Gerald Pieter Zwarst
    By JeannieC in forum Texas Killing Fields and Mysteries Along I-45
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 03-03-2017, 02:24 PM
  2. SUSPECT - Robert Lawrence Wilson
    By JeannieC in forum Texas Killing Fields and Mysteries Along I-45
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 08-20-2014, 05:23 PM
  3. Zodiac Killer- New Suspect-Robert G
    By acmeintuitiveenergy in forum The Zodiac Killer
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-30-2012, 07:22 PM

Tags for this Thread