Page 11 of 70 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 ... LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 1036
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    GAIA227,

    Interesting that you you would mention the Yosemite Killings as they were the first thing I thought when I heard about the SP3. One man can definitly contol three women under the right circumstances. I was also struck bt the fact that, in both cases, three women were removed from the initial crime scene.
    Usually, a prowler rapist/murderer will identfy victims and break into their residence at night, commit the sexual assalt and murder and leave them there.
    Both the room at the Ceder Lodge and the house in Springfield were far enough from any occupied buildings to make a good crime scene yet, in both cases, all three women were removed and the subsequent crimes were committed elsewhere.
    This seems very risky when unnecessary. I can't think of any "solved' case where the Perp had an KO of abductiong women from their residences and killing them and disposing of their bodies elsewhere.
    We know why Cory Staynor "moved" the women; he had very strong links to to the Ceder Lodge.
    This is why I suspect the SP3 Perp had links to at least one of the women, (or perhaps the neighborhood)
    Usually, a prowler rapist/murderer will identfy victims and break into their residence at night, commit the sexual assalt and murder and leave them there.


    Most crimes of rape are single victim crimes. The majority of rape crimes occur in or on the victim’s property. We can all sight examples where rape victims have been abducted from public places such as a parking lot and held captive in basement bunkers or backyard tents for the purpose of rape but I think the statistics will back me up on these two points. If the 3MW case started out as a rape crime then the scenario changed when the girls came home or in some other fashion it became three women instead of just one. Because there were now three women, and because of the late/early morning hour it became necessary to remove the women from their home before the neighborhood and the city woke up. Even Cox speculated to SPD in an interview about possible scenarios that when the girls came home the plan changed.

    This seems very risky when unnecessary. I can't think of any "solved' case where the Perp had an KO of abductiong women from their residences and killing them and disposing of their bodies elsewhere.


    That is precisely why a learned criminal would remove them from the home. The very act of removing multiple victims gives the perp(s) better control over them. It also establishes a second, primary crime scene which may never be found. Therefore the risk of the perp(s) being captured moves in their favor if the primary crime scene is never found. Only a learned criminal would probably know such things. I doubt that a 19-20 yr old friend of the girls would.


    This is why I suspect the SP3 Perp had links to at least one of the women, (or perhaps the neighborhood).



    A perp with links to the victims or the house; a frequent guest in the home would have been better off leaving the victims behind (with the possible exception of a crime of rape). Any forensic evidence found in the house, with the possible exception of semen could be attributed to prior visits.

    If the motive was nothing more than rape then the key to identifying the perp(s) lies in the attempted abductions and rapes in the area prior and subsequent to the abduction of the 3MW.


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


  3. #152
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,036
    Hurricane,
    I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to agree with my contention that your basic, garden variaty "find a victim, break into her home, rape and kill " type perp will generally leave the victims at the crime scene but you feel that an unexpected woman or two would cause the perp to "alter" his plan and move them instead. This doesn't make sense. If it is difficult and "risky" to move one victim, it is at lest three times more to move three.

    I agree that there would be advantages in having the bodies of the victims never be found. You don't have to be a criminal genius to figure that out. The problem is that there are so many things that can go wrong when you try to "move" victims, especially when they are still alive.

    The primarily "forensic" advantage of "disappearing the bodies" is DNA and in 1992, only the most sophisticated Perps understood how it worked. They must have understood that the house would be thoroughly searched bodies or no bodies, and he/they did appear to have been careful about fingerprints, cigarette butts etc, the obvious. One forensic" drawback to moving the victimes is that you contaminate your own car.

    I go back to my contension that this case did not follow the pattern of "a prowler rapist/murderer who will identfy victims and break into their residence at night, " because the victims were not assalted and left at the scene. Therefore it was PROBABLY not that type of crime.

    Obviouly Perps deviate from the norm and do not always act logically or rationally. Sometimes they will do somethin "contrarian" just to throw off the investigation; essentially this would be a type of "stageing"
    Last edited by kemo; 09-25-2009 at 03:23 PM.


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


  5. #153
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    Hurricane,
    I'm not sure what your point is. You seem to agree with my contention that your basic, garden variaty "find a victim, break into her home, rape and kill " type perp will generally leave the victims at the crime scene but you feel that an unexpected woman or two would cause the perp to "alter" his plan and move them instead. This doesn't make sense. If it is difficult and "risky" to move one victim, it is at lest three times more to move three.

    I agree that there would be advantages in having the bodies of the victims never be found. You don't have to be a criminal genius to figure that out. The problem is that there are so many things that can go wrong when you try to "move" victims, especially when they are still alive.

    The primarily "forensic" advantage of "disappearing the bodies" is DNA and in 1992, only the most sophisticated Perps understood how it worked. They must have understood that the house would be thoroughly searched bodies or no bodies, and he/they did appear to have been careful about fingerprints, cigarette butts etc, the obvious. One forensic" drawback to moving the victimes is that you contaminate your own car.

    I go back to my contension that this case did not follow the pattern of "a prowler rapist/murderer who will identfy victims and break into their residence at night, " because the victims were not assalted and left at the scene. Therefore it was PROBABLY not that type of crime.

    Obviouly Perps deviate from the norm and do not always act logically or rationally. Sometimes they will do somethin "contrarian" just to throw off the investigation; essentially this would be a type of "stageing"
    I have said before that it is my opinion that if the two girls had not returned home that night that Sherrill would probably have been raped in her own home and made to take a shower afterwards, threatened and beaten to within an inch of her life that night, but left alive. Steve Garrison carried out a rape in just such a manner in 1993. There were several rapes in Springfield and the surrounding area during the 12-15 months both before and after this crime and not a single victim was murdered. I think statistics will prove as fact that most rapists who do not first abduct their victims do not kill them. Statistics do not support your theory of “garden variaty "find a victim, break into her home, rape and kill " type perp will generally leave the victims at the crime scene” without abducting the victims.

    When suddenly faced with three women instead of just a single victim it became necessary to remove them from their element in order to control them. It would be more risky to carry out sex crimes X3 within a setting familiar to the victims than it would be to remove them. The perp(s) would have less control over the women while they were in a familiar setting. If a sex crime X3 had been committed inside the house then all kinds of forensic evidence would have been left behind. When it became necessary to move them then time became critical because of the hour.

    Other than the physical abductions of the three victims the heart of the crimes were carried out at an unknown crime scene which has never been found! And contaminating the vehicle by moving them? It has never been found either. And I have not said anything about DNA; only forensic evidence. Any learned criminal in 1992 knew about such evidence if found and what could be gleaned from it.


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


  7. #154
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    281
    Quote Originally Posted by Hurricane View Post
    I have said before that it is my opinion that if the two girls had not returned home that night that Sherrill would probably have been raped in her own home and made to take a shower afterwards, threatened and beaten to within an inch of her life that night, but left alive.
    Ok..I just have to say I don't agree with this theory. How could anyone possiably presume to predict the mindset and over all plan of anyone who is capable of either raping and or abducting someone. I'm of the opinion that anyone capable of raping and abducting is definatly capable of taking the crime one step further....ie. Murder.

    Personally I believe after much much ponder and research into this case over the years, that the answer to solving it lies closer to home.
    I've always thought that the Brother...not nameing names...should be looked into closer...MUCH CLOSER!
    His actions overall are not in line. Not in line with anything normal. I don't believe he had a solid alibi, and I don't hold one iota's worth of faith in polygraphs.
    Just my personal opinion.


  8. #155
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    823
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    Ok..I just have to say I don't agree with this theory. How could anyone possiably presume to predict the mindset and over all plan of anyone who is capable of either raping and or abducting someone. I'm of the opinion that anyone capable of raping and abducting is definatly capable of taking the crime one step further....ie. Murder.
    Personally I believe after much much ponder and research into this case over the years, that the answer to solving it lies closer to home.
    I've always thought that the Brother...not nameing names...should be looked into closer...MUCH CLOSER!
    His actions overall are not in line. Not in line with anything normal. I don't believe he had a solid alibi, and I don't hold one iota's worth of faith in polygraphs.
    Just my personal opinion.
    You cropped what I had said. What I said was this (with emphasis added):

    I have said before that it is my opinion that if the two girls had not returned home that night that Sherrill would probably have been raped in her own home and made to take a shower afterwards, threatened and beaten to within an inch of her life that night, but left alive. Steve Garrison carried out a rape in just such a manner in 1993. There were several rapes in Springfield and the surrounding area during the 12-15 months both before and after this crime and not a single victim was murdered. I think statistics will prove as fact that most rapists who do not first abduct their victims do not kill them.


    I would recommend that you read the coverage concerning the August 1993 rape and the conviction of that rape in Sept 1995 of one of the leading suspects in the 3MW case to see exactly how that rape was carried out. I am offering as evidence how the 3MW case might have progressed and ended up if the two girls had not returned home that night. It goes to a possible, original motive for this crime.

    What was being discussed when I cited the above example was that the “garden variaty "find a victim, break into her home, rape and kill " type perp will generally leave the victims at the crime scene” vs. the risk of moving the victims to a location where “the subsequent crimes” could be committed. Perhaps you could cite a case to support your “opinion that anyone capable of raping and abducting is definatly capable of taking the crime one step further....ie. Murder” where the victim was raped and murdered in her home?
    Last edited by Hurricane; 10-05-2009 at 02:40 PM.


  9. #156
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,582
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    Ok..I just have to say I don't agree with this theory. How could anyone possiably presume to predict the mindset and over all plan of anyone who is capable of either raping and or abducting someone. I'm of the opinion that anyone capable of raping and abducting is definatly capable of taking the crime one step further....ie. Murder.

    Personally I believe after much much ponder and research into this case over the years, that the answer to solving it lies closer to home.
    I've always thought that the Brother...not nameing names...should be looked into closer...MUCH CLOSER!

    His actions overall are not in line. Not in line with anything normal. I don't believe he had a solid alibi, and I don't hold one iota's worth of faith in polygraphs.

    Just my personal opinion.
    I couldn't agree more. The polygraphs have been proven over and over again that they are next to worthless. The guilty can pass and the innocent can fail. I have talked to a professional polygrapher and he said categorically they could be beaten.

    It is my view that if the dots were drawn between obvious suspects and logical perpetrators (namely Cox), the motives and method of carrying out this crime would be abundantly clear. Personally, I believe there are about three motives by three different people all being driven separately for their own nefarious reasons. And all these individuals are interconnected. Any one of them could give up the others but they are toughing it out in their own way. Until one of them talks the case will remain unsolved unless the prosecutor and SPD somehow start racheting up the pressure.

    I would also add that I have read somewhere that the detective who worked this case most extensively knows EXACTLY what went down that night. From what I have read of this officer he is highly respected.

    Your further view is important in the context of the profiler who stated that person or persons "didn't feel good" (paraphrasing) about what went down that night. It is entirely logical to believe he/they went into this crime believing something must less sinister would take place perhaps not knowing the history of Cox. After all, the very definition of a psychopath includes the ability to con someone else. Most psychopaths could sell ice to the Eskimos if necessary. I can imagine Cox could easily do this. He plays everyone for fools and thus far has gotten by with this behavior.
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 10-05-2009 at 03:31 PM.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra




  10. #157
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    Ok..I just have to say I don't agree with this theory. How could anyone possiably presume to predict the mindset and over all plan of anyone who is capable of either raping and or abducting someone.
    You can't. But you can attempt to predict a rapist's behavior based on other rapists. For the most part, a rapist is looking for 'power'. Some result in murder, but most do not. While you put a rapist into the same category as murder, because to a normal mind those are both heinous crimes, there is a difference. Just like there is a difference between murdering someone who tried to murder you (self-defense), murdering someone because they murdered a loved one (revenge), or murdering someone because you want to, and can (possibly psychopath). All are murder, but they are different, and I would look upon each of those perps in different ways.


    Quote Originally Posted by monkeymann View Post
    Personally I believe after much much ponder and research into this case over the years, that the answer to solving it lies closer to home.
    I've always thought that the Brother...not nameing names...should be looked into closer...MUCH CLOSER!
    His actions overall are not in line. Not in line with anything normal. I don't believe he had a solid alibi, and I don't hold one iota's worth of faith in polygraphs.
    Just my personal opinion.
    I understand that this is your opinion, and I've thought the same in the past myself. However, investigations don't put much stock in polygraphs either. They are not admissible in court. All a polygraph does is give them an opinion about someone. If the decline to take one, then that normally means that they have something to hide.


    My belief is that someone got away with murder. Period. Investigators are just missing one tiny bit of evidence. If it is found, or the perp or perps break their silence, then it will be like a rainstorm and everything will fall into place.

    Until that moment though, I don't know what else to say.


  11. #158
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I couldn't agree more. The polygraphs have been proven over and over again that they are next to worthless. The guilty can pass and the innocent can fail. I have talked to a professional polygrapher and he said categorically they could be beaten.

    It is my view that if the dots were drawn between obvious suspects and logical perpetrators (namely Cox), the motives and method of carrying out this crime would be abundantly clear. Personally, I believe there are about three motives by three different people all being driven separately for their own nefarious reasons. And all these individuals are interconnected. Any one of them could give up the others but they are toughing it out in their own way. Until one of them talks the case will remain unsolved unless the prosecutor and SPD somehow start racheting up the pressure.

    I would also add that I have read somewhere that the detective who worked this case most extensively knows EXACTLY what went down that night. From what I have read of this officer he is highly respected.

    Your further view is important in the context of the profiler who stated that person or persons "didn't feel good" (paraphrasing) about what went down that night. It is entirely logical to believe he/they went into this crime believing something must less sinister would take place perhaps not knowing the history of Cox. After all, the very definition of a psychopath includes the ability to con someone else. Most psychopaths could sell ice to the Eskimos if necessary. I can imagine Cox could easily do this. He plays everyone for fools and thus far has gotten by with this behavior.
    Which officer are you referring to?


  12. #159
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,256
    I agree with everyone. Polygraphs should not be used to eliminate suspects. In this case, I have never seen it printed anywhere that a POI was eliminated solely based on a polygraph they took.


  13. The Following User Says Thank You to Indianagirl For This Useful Post:


  14. #160
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by MHamby View Post
    You can't. But you can attempt to predict a rapist's behavior based on other rapists. For the most part, a rapist is looking for 'power'. Some result in murder, but most do not. While you put a rapist into the same category as murder, because to a normal mind those are both heinous crimes, there is a difference. Just like there is a difference between murdering someone who tried to murder you (self-defense), murdering someone because they murdered a loved one (revenge), or murdering someone because you want to, and can (possibly psychopath). All are murder, but they are different, and I would look upon each of those perps in different ways.




    I understand that this is your opinion, and I've thought the same in the past myself. However, investigations don't put much stock in polygraphs either. They are not admissible in court. All a polygraph does is give them an opinion about someone. If the decline to take one, then that normally means that they have something to hide.


    My belief is that someone got away with murder. Period. Investigators are just missing one tiny bit of evidence. If it is found, or the perp or perps break their silence, then it will be like a rainstorm and everything will fall into place.

    Until that moment though, I don't know what else to say.
    Welcome to the forum It appears you have followed this case for a long time. Do you have a theory or opinion on what you think may have happened?


  15. #161
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    Welcome to the forum It appears you have followed this case for a long time. Do you have a theory or opinion on what you think may have happened?

    Hi

    I have followed the case for the past couple of months actually. I am extremely interested in such cases, and in another life I would have been an investigator.

    As far as my theory or opinion goes, it is really hard for me to type that out. I am a very factual person. And being that there are few facts in this case, it is tough for me to come to a concise opinion.

    I can pick out bits and pieces that I do not agree with from others' theories, but that is as far as I go.

    I do appriciate all of the work that has been done by a number of people on this forum and many others. It definitly helps someone like me who, when this crime actually took place, was only 10 years old.


    The only bit of someones theory that has stuck a major chord with me was the person who was thinking that the perp lured the woman outside. It hits me the wrong way because of Stacy. She was in her underwear. Whether it was a smoke, or to answer the door, I cannot see Stacy doing anything outside while still just in her underwear. Maybe I have gotten the wrong impression of the 'type' of person that she was, but that's how I see it.

    Therefore, in my head, she was forced out the door. And, most likely, so were the other women. Consciously, or unconsciously. But, again, in my head, they were taken from that house.


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


  17. #162
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,582
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    Which officer are you referring to?
    Two things. Doug Thomas worked the case longer than anyone else so far as I know. Secondly, and I am going on memory, I read within the past month that it was he (and I can't cite the source) that he knew what went down. I'd give the source if I could lay my hands on it but I don't have that at hand. If that is incorrect, then I stand to be corrected. But I am reasonably certain that Thomas was in fact the longest serving detective assigned to the case.

    But that aside, it isn't critical to analysis of the case. We know essentially what happened based on known and extrapolated facts. We know all about Cox and we know all about "Steve." We also know the polygraphs are for all intents and purposes worthless. The motives are clear enough to me. Cox did what he did for much the same reason that Ted Bundy did what he did. "Steve" couldn't keep out of the newspapers with his rampage during the early 1990s. Cox worked the area; has no alibi and even refuses to deny he did the crime yet categorically states he knows they are dead and are buried in the Springfield area. He refers to "Steve" in one of his own letters. The exact connection is not known but I would be astounded if they didn't know each other on more than a mere casual relationship. I suspect "Steve" came into the crime after the fact but I believe the "plot" was concocted by Cox and "X." Cox did what he liked to do and "X" had a motive. "Steve" most probably was invited in to enjoy the spoils. Can I prove any of this? No. But it is what I believe.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra




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


  19. #163
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Two things. Doug Thomas worked the case longer than anyone else so far as I know. Secondly, and I am going on memory, I read within the past month that it was he (and I can't cite the source) that he knew what went down. I'd give the source if I could lay my hands on it but I don't have that at hand. If that is incorrect, then I stand to be corrected. But I am reasonably certain that Thomas was in fact the longest serving detective assigned to the case.

    But that aside, it isn't critical to analysis of the case. We know essentially what happened based on known and extrapolated facts. We know all about Cox and we know all about "Steve." We also know the polygraphs are for all intents and purposes worthless. The motives are clear enough to me. Cox did what he did for much the same reason that Ted Bundy did what he did. "Steve" couldn't keep out of the newspapers with his rampage during the early 1990s. Cox worked the area; has no alibi and even refuses to deny he did the crime yet categorically states he knows they are dead and are buried in the Springfield area. He refers to "Steve" in one of his own letters. The exact connection is not known but I would be astounded if they didn't know each other on more than a mere casual relationship. I suspect "Steve" came into the crime after the fact but I believe the "plot" was concocted by Cox and "X." Cox did what he liked to do and "X" had a motive. "Steve" most probably was invited in to enjoy the spoils. Can I prove any of this? No. But it is what I believe.
    Thanks. I figured you were referring to Thomas but just wanted to double check. I think I've read the same about Thomas. He thought he had a good idea of what happened, but no evidence. As time went by, he was the only officer working the case, with assistance from the FBI.

    IMO, if Steve and Cox knew each other, LE would have somehow been able to make a connection, but as far as we know they haven't. That makes me think it's too much of a long shot to believe they did know one another.


  20. #164
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    St. Louis, MO
    Posts
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    Two things. Doug Thomas worked the case longer than anyone else so far as I know. Secondly, and I am going on memory, I read within the past month that it was he (and I can't cite the source) that he knew what went down. I'd give the source if I could lay my hands on it but I don't have that at hand. If that is incorrect, then I stand to be corrected. But I am reasonably certain that Thomas was in fact the longest serving detective assigned to the case.

    But that aside, it isn't critical to analysis of the case. We know essentially what happened based on known and extrapolated facts. We know all about Cox and we know all about "Steve." We also know the polygraphs are for all intents and purposes worthless. The motives are clear enough to me. Cox did what he did for much the same reason that Ted Bundy did what he did. "Steve" couldn't keep out of the newspapers with his rampage during the early 1990s. Cox worked the area; has no alibi and even refuses to deny he did the crime yet categorically states he knows they are dead and are buried in the Springfield area. He refers to "Steve" in one of his own letters. The exact connection is not known but I would be astounded if they didn't know each other on more than a mere casual relationship. I suspect "Steve" came into the crime after the fact but I believe the "plot" was concocted by Cox and "X." Cox did what he liked to do and "X" had a motive. "Steve" most probably was invited in to enjoy the spoils. Can I prove any of this? No. But it is what I believe.

    I assume you are referring to the 'Steve' Cox talks about in his letters to KY-3? Do we have any further information on this man?

    My other question is; Do you have an individual in mind for 'X'? Or is this just your belief? That there was a 3rd, but you don't have a name for this person? Do you think that this is the individual who was somehow connected to one or more of the women? Hense why he is the one with the motive?

    I am also assuming that this is all based on Cox being part of this. Do you put any stock in those that say he is just saying all of this for attention purposes?


  21. #165
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,582
    Quote Originally Posted by MHamby View Post
    I assume you are referring to the 'Steve' Cox talks about in his letters to KY-3? Do we have any further information on this man?

    My other question is; Do you have an individual in mind for 'X'? Or is this just your belief? That there was a 3rd, but you don't have a name for this person? Do you think that this is the individual who was somehow connected to one or more of the women? Hense why he is the one with the motive?

    I am also assuming that this is all based on Cox being part of this. Do you put any stock in those that say he is just saying all of this for attention purposes?
    I am reluctant to put names to people on mere supposition or inference. But I think most people here would be able to figure out who these "persons of interest" would actually be. I'll just have to leave it there.

    It is entirely possible that most people believe Cox is just attention seeking. That is reasonable. It is also reasonable and proven that he is a psychopath who had the means, the motive and the opportunity. We can't tie him to the van but obviously it is not unreasonable to conclude that he could have obtained one in any number of ways. It will never be found. That was probably true on the very day the women were found.

    I will add this. The Zellers in Florida whose daughter was murdered were certain beyond that any doubt tht when Cox was cut loose off death row by the Florida Supremes that he would again murder, given the chance. When they came to learn of the abductions in Springfield and where Cox was (and he was also a native of Springfield) they correctly believed, in my view, that he was the most logical of logical suspects. I believe it is correct to state that the SPD was unaware of Cox until they were contacted by the Zellers family within a few days of the abductions. I find their arguments quite persuasive. I also believe that Cox is a probably a serial murderer.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra




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


Page 11 of 70 FirstFirst ... 9 10 11 12 13 21 61 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. MO Stacy Kathleen McCall (18) & Suzanne E. Streeter (19) - Springfield MO, 1992
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum Missing Children in America - A Profile
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 04-17-2010, 02:05 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

Tags for this Thread

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
  •