1481 users online (288 members and 1193 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 70 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 1036
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    Well the Hammond case and 2 others around that time in Nevada, Clinton and Macks Creek, the i-70 killer, Ziewicki murder, all of this in a short amount of time. Recla, Clay, Bartt, Cox, GJ3, the Peacocks. Rapes in SPringfield, Branson, Wichita. All known events, known suspects, but do we really have anything to follow? Botched case? I dont believe so, nothing to prove that. IF we know all these things right here on this board then investigators knew all of this then. I am sure these leads were followed as far as they could go. I dont know if there is anything that involves any of these suspects that gives an answer. SOMETHING new needs to come to light in my opinion.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    nowhere special
    Posts
    1,843
    Ok I am only going to say this once on here and I expect what I say to be adhered to. Do not out anyone on these threads if htere is a problem with someones post alert to it and pass it by do not reply.

    As far as the "from what I know posts"--knock it off. If you cant post it here do not talk about it at all. If you cannot post links to back up your facts then you need to post as opinions only. When you say something is fact give a link to the item you are talking about. We do not allow ANYONE to post the "i know this but cant say how" items here--it does nothing but cause problems for the original poster and the mods and they will be deleted and the poster given a break.

    Go back and delete the posts that do not comply with this rule. If they are too old for you to delete pm a mod and give them a link to the post so we can delete them for you.

    eta: I deleted numerous posts quoting the problem posts if I missed any please pm me with a link!
    Last edited by Animal04216; 07-23-2009 at 07:14 PM. Reason: remove deleted quotes

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    For those interested, I've added a couple of old news articles to the media thread for review.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    For those interested, I've added a couple of old news articles to the media thread for review.
    Good information about the birthmark and the location of the van sighting. I hadn't recalled seeing either of those articles. Thx very much! That is really a terrific find in my view.
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 07-24-2009 at 12:32 AM.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  5. #35
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,798

    Regarding Indianagirl's post of last night.

    Many thanks for the find. May I suggest doing a "Mapquest" and then plug in 1717 East Delmar and then 3000 East Grand. It appears apparent that Grand Street does not leave Springfield. That suggests why the van had to turn around. Also it appears Suzie was in fact driving the van. A timeline and a likely route out of town appear clear. It was not previously clear to me this was actually the van or that Suzie was actually the driver. This clears up those questions to my satisfaction.

    Relevant excerpts:

    The woman told authorities Streeter drove a van into a next-door driveway and stopped as if lost about 6:30 a.m. that day.

    Streeter appeared to be crying and
    a birthmark on her face could be seen as the van stopped. (snip)

    "Now back up and don't do anything stupid," Clymer said.

    Clymer said the incident has been considered a
    confirmed sighting...

    (snip) The silvery green and older model Dodge van sighted was 15 blocks from the home where the women disappeared
    ...

    (Snip)


    Media Links NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
    Last edited by KateB; 04-08-2015 at 10:05 PM. Reason: repair url tag.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,414
    Did Suzy have a birthmark on her face? That is significant, if true.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    Did Suzy have a birthmark on her face? That is significant, if true.
    From the "Charley Project" site:

    "She has a small tumor on the left corner of her mouth which gives the appearance of chewing tobacco."

    http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/...r_suzanne.html

    I'm speculating but I would think this was what was observed and although I have no way to know for certain, I imagine that the van pulled in the driveway just due west of where the eyewitness saw the van. As I recall, this particular side of the street (the south) which I believe likely the van turned around had smaller homes on smaller lots than on the north side of Grand. (Perhaps some local resident could drive by that approximate area to confirm that) If that is the case, the eyewitness most probably had a reasonably close-up view of Suzie. In any event she would have had to have viewed this characteristic from the left side.
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 07-24-2009 at 05:17 PM.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    That article is so exact that I am wondering how valid it is. I mean the report of that van was not given for 2-3 weeks after the abduction. I will have to look the date up, but then it sat in the pile of tips until August I believe. Maybe she saw her close enough to notice the tumor, I guess I did'nt realize it was that pronounced.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,798
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooogrit View Post
    That article is so exact that I am wondering how valid it is. I mean the report of that van was not given for 2-3 weeks after the abduction. I will have to look the date up, but then it sat in the pile of tips until August I believe. Maybe she saw her close enough to notice the tumor, I guess I did'nt realize it was that pronounced.
    I concur with your thinking. This was news to me. I know I never saw anything in the local newspaper or news about this as you say that exacting.

    Perhaps this explains it:(from the article. The article is from Oklahoma. It was written just prior to the airing of "48 Hours.")

    "Nancy Clymer of north Oklahoma City is the aunt of Stacy McCall, 18, who has been missing since early June. Clymer said officials from the CBS news magazine show "48 Hours" have told family members of the missing woman that the story will air next Wednesday."
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    Clymer is Stacy's Aunt and lives in Oklahoma. The article just quotes what she said. So, IMO the Aunt was probably told this, perhaps by her sister, who heard it from SPD? (Maybe what was truly said was lost in translation?) SPD must have put a lot of stock into it, as there was a mock up green van displayed. I guess it just depends on whether one thinks the porch lady is considered credible or that sighting is valid. IMO, there isn't enough public information out there to decide one way or the other.

    Trooogrit, I also thought the tumor was not that pronounced. However, maybe when Suzie talked it pronounced it? Or maybe its something hard to notice in just a picture?


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Indianagirl View Post
    Clymer is Stacy's Aunt and lives in Oklahoma. The article just quotes what she said. So, IMO the Aunt was probably told this, perhaps by her sister, who heard it from SPD? (Maybe what was truly said was lost in translation?) SPD must have put a lot of stock into it, as there was a mock up green van displayed. I guess it just depends on whether one thinks the porch lady is considered credible or that sighting is valid. IMO, there isn't enough public information out there to decide one way or the other.

    Trooogrit, I also thought the tumor was not that pronounced. However, maybe when Suzie talked it pronounced it? Or maybe its something hard to notice in just a picture?
    It is my opinion that a van was used and I tend to believe the porch lady sighting is valid. Having said that however there has always been two points of contention for this:

    *Could she have heard the unseen male voice instructing Suzie? I guess it is possible during the quiet time at 6:30 a.m. and if perhaps the male sat on the floor of the van behind the doghouse (engine). Everything would have to be just right.

    *Could she have seen the small birthmark and/or fatty tumor near Suzie’s lip? That is a little harder for me to get around and accept.

    Suzie’s friends are on record as saying that Suzie was very self-conscious about herself and she did an excellent job at disguising them with makeup. So if it is true that the porch lady was able to see them then there is no doubt that the girls were in the house and that the damp wash cloths were theirs from when they removed their makeup. That would also eliminate any plans that they might have had of going back out that night.

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Indiana
    Posts
    1,263
    The Kansas City Star
    September 2, 1992
    Edition: MID-AMERICA
    Section: MID-AMERICA
    Page: C3

    Van could draw abduction clues Replica vehicle used in Springfield, where women still missing.
    Author: The Associated Press
    Article Text:
    SPRINGFIELD - A moss-green 1964 Dodge van was parked outside police headquarters Tuesday as authorities urged residents to examine the replica of a vehicle that may have been used June 7 to abduct three women.
    Police said the panel van, with no license plates, a white front grill and its back windows painted over, matched a witness's description of a van seen early on the morning the women disappeared.
    The replica was fashioned from a van found at an auto salvage yard. Authorities said the actual van could range from a 1964 model to a 1970 model.
    Lt. Mike Brazeal said the van would be on display at police headquarters for a couple of weeks and would then be moved to shopping malls around town.
    "This appears to be the best lead that we have at the present time," Brazeal said.
    Officials said they hoped someone else would remember seeing the actual van and provide new information on what happened to the women - Sherrill Levitt, 47, her daughter Suzie Streeter, 19, and Streeter's friend, Stacy McCall, 18.
    A witness told police she saw the van in eastern Springfield about 6:30 a.m. on June 7 - the morning the women disappeared.
    The women vanished from Levitt's home, leaving their cars, keys, purses, makeup and cigarettes behind. The case has baffled investigators, who received thousands of leads but said they didn't have any solid clues.
    The witness told investigators the van's driver looked like Streeter.
    "We're comfortable enough that what (the witness) saw and what she described could have been Suzie Streeter, so we've got to find that van," said Sue Schofield, the department's supervisor of crime analysis.
    "It may be disposed of. It may be in a junk yard or a lake," Schofield said. "But somebody has seen a van that looked like that van. " The witness told police she heard a male voice from inside the vehicle telling the driver to turn around and warning her against any "silly or stupid" moves. The witness said she didn't see the man.
    Copyright 1992, 1996 The Kansas City Star Co.

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,798

    If I may suggest something.

    Prior to the airing of the "48 Hour" piece the SPD was rather open about the case which I believe might explain why Clymer was provided this information. After the "48 Hour" piece both Mountjoy and Moore hit the roof over the lack of proper procedures as they saw it as it would hinder their prosecution. After that, as I recollect, the information came out in dribs and drabs and is today effectively non-existent.

    My opinion: Any information provided to the public, including Clymer, prior to the "48 Hour" piece is probably the unvarnished truth as the police knew it up to that point. Because of the "48 Hour" piece it is probable that the public, being starved for information, developed the view that the police were indifferent to the investigation. And, not to make it personal, may explain why I received the rather unusual response when I called in an identical white van. It had probably already been checked out and eliminated. I can remember to this day as I worked from the 7th Floor of the Springfield State Office Building a similar van was seen in the parking lot across Olive Street and was called in. The police in plain clothes actually showed up almost immediately, looked inside the van with flashlights and determined it was not the vehicle.

    And finally, it was not until I read this article that it became clear, in my opinion, that the van sighting was more likely than not valid, that Suzie was more likely than not driving the van heading east out of town. There are several possible routes from Delmar. Turn left from the driveway to Glenstone, left, up one block to Grand, turn east. Or turn right from Delmar to Kentwood, one block north, turn right on Grand (entailing a traffic signal). Or drive to Cherry via Glenstone entailing traffic signals. If, however, she went onto Grand she may have simply overshot Oak Grove going north to Cherry, necessitating the turnaround. The Cherry Street route, to 138 and out of town is much less well traveled, fairly direct and much quicker and probably the logical route traveled. Cherry would intersect with FR 197, south, then back east on FR 138, then going all the way out to MO125. A further indicator this was the probable route is it is also approximately around the area of Cherry and 138 where I understand the "screams" were heard that night further indicating this was the route taken. (If someone knows that exact location, please correct me.)

    Please allow me to offer another thought. I have wondered how and why Sherrill's vehicle came to be parked all the way in the garage as it is my understanding that it normally was parked half way in and half way out. Perhaps Suzie asked her mother to move the vehicle; perhaps after a trip to George's, into the garage so she could drive forward out of the driveway the next morning. If Sherrill's vehicle was blocking the driveway, it would require the rather awkward act of backing both Stacy and Suzie's cars out of the driveway in order to exit the residence on their trip to Whitewater, unless Sherrill moved it the next morning. I think it would be worthwhile to recheck the time line even more closely and see if the George's sighting was feasible. It has been my understanding that this was a favorite eatery for Sherrill and that the waitress knew her on sight. If she said she saw her, she probably did. I can imagine Sherrill greeting both girls when they arrived, realizing they needed some food to help them recover from the night's festivities, taking them down to George's and then all returning in her vehicle. Sherrill merely drove her car into the garage so Suzie could leave in the morning. Since the keys were in Sherrill's purse it may be because Sherrill simply put them there after returning from George's, if that is what took place. This is only a hypothesis but it makes reasonably good sense to me. What came afterward from that time forward until sometime around the approximately 6:25 AM departure from Delmar is open to conjecture.
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 07-25-2009 at 01:22 PM. Reason: Clarity
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  14. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    37
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    From the "Charley Project" site:

    "She has a small tumor on the left corner of her mouth which gives the appearance of chewing tobacco."

    http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/...r_suzanne.html

    I'm speculating but I would think this was what was observed and although I have no way to know for certain, I imagine that the van pulled in the driveway just due west of where the eyewitness saw the van. As I recall, this particular side of the street (the south) which I believe likely the van turned around had smaller homes on smaller lots than on the north side of Grand. (Perhaps some local resident could drive by that approximate area to confirm that) If that is the case, the eyewitness most probably had a reasonably close-up view of Suzie. In any event she would have had to have viewed this characteristic from the left side.
    Suzie did have a small tumor on the left side of her face, approx. the size of a dime to quarter size. She was anticipating getting it remove early fall after graduation in Little Rock. It did not affect her speech, beauty, etc. but might have made her somewhat self-conscious. What teenager doesn't have those moments of angst about their appearance?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,414
    I checked out Google Earth and there are two blocks on E Grand (just east of S. Oak Grove) where houses are close enough together so that it is possible that Van Lady saw and heard what she claimed. (this area is 15 blocks from the Delmer house and just past the "left turn" on S. Oak Grove that one would need to take to get to the 65.) I hope the SPD did an effective job of checking out the line of vision between where she sat and where the Van was stopped. (and not just take her word for it).

    The issue of the "birthmark is very important. It does not show up on any of the photo's I've seen. She was apparently able to cover it up with make-up, which, it is known, she had removed before any of this went down.

    My questions are:
    1) Was the "birthmark" reported as part of Suzie's description in the media coverage of the early days of the investigation?
    2) Did Van lady's vantage point permit identifying this "birthmark"?

    If the "birthmark" wasn't reported but the Van lady saw it, Bingo, her sighting is pretty much verified and we have an important lead. If the "birthmark" was reported, the big question is: could Van Lady really identify it as such, from where she sat? If that appears doubtful, Van Lady's credibility is shot.

    I wonder how thoroughly the story was checked out. I get the impression that a tremendous amount of effort was spent trying to find the van yet, years later, detectives on the case have indicated skeptitism that it ever existed.

Page 3 of 70 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 53 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #6
    By SheWhoMustNotBeNamed in forum The Springfield Three
    Replies: 1022
    Last Post: 07-05-2016, 10:44 AM
  2. 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
  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