1577 users online (280 members and 1297 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 4 of 70 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 1036
  1. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    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.
    Well the birthmark was reported as early as June 10th, claiming it was the right chin, later it moved to just the chin, not sure when it moved to the left corner of her lip. It has also been reported as not visible in photos, but with that being said I question the description given by the porch lady.

  2. #47
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooogrit View Post
    Well the birthmark was reported as early as June 10th, claiming it was the right chin, later it moved to just the chin, not sure when it moved to the left corner of her lip. It has also been reported as not visible in photos, but with that being said I question the description given by the porch lady.
    I agree. I have wondered if she didn't embellish a little bit on her sighting, assuming it is valid and since she didn't come forward until around the first of August. SPD believed that it was a valid sighting. After reading and seeing the news coverage she could have picked up details that ended up in her report. But it seems to me that if she was being totally untruthful and made a false report then she would not have let it go so far as to let herself be hypnotized.

  3. #48
    I'd have a hard time of mistaking a tumor for a birthmark since a tumor is a growth under the skin while a birthmark is a discolored blemish on the skin.

    The van had to have been quite close to the porch for the lady to recognize it as a birthmark. Since it was stated that the lady was too scared to report the sighting for a couple of days, it leads me to believe that there's more to what the lady saw and heard that made her so scared and that the police haven't released for some reason. I doubt seeing a driver being scared and a voice telling her to don't be stupid would have made the witness so afraid to have have not report the sighting for a couple of days. She had to have seen something else.

    It's also possible it was a recent bruise that the porchlady saw that appeared to be a birthmark, or, as mr. electric (from Missouri) stated in thread #2, post #109, "Maybe the girl driving was not one of the 3MW. Maybe a girl that did not like Suzanne or Stacy. may be."

    And, as a side note, if this was such a well-planned operation, why did the abductor(s) have to enlist the help of Suzie to drive the vehicle? And, if there were more than one abductor, they wouldn't have needed (or risked) having Suzie drive the van, which tells me it was only one abductor. (One abductor, who, Suzie, if it was Suzie driving, knew what he was capable of if she didn't comply with his orders).

    One would also have to wonder how Suzie (a fighter) morphed from being carried struggling from the home to being a driver?

    A moss-green van

    The woman was sure of what she saw on June 7, the day the women vanished. She was on her porch in east Springfield, enjoying the morning sunrise. She saw an older-model Dodge van, of moss-green color, pull into the driveway next door.

    A young blonde was driving — she looked just like Suzie Streeter, whose picture had been in the newspaper and on television — and she looked scared. The woman on her porch could hear a man’s voice say, “Don’t do anything stupid.”

    She didn’t report it for several days because she was too scared to come forward. And by the time she had, police were working other sightings of an older-model Dodge van. Sometimes the color was dark blue or a dirty brown, depending on the time of day.

  4. #49
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by tangledweb View Post
    I'd have a hard time of mistaking a tumor for a birthmark since a tumor is a growth under the skin while a birthmark is a discolored blemish on the skin.

    The van had to have been quite close to the porch for the lady to recognize it as a birthmark. Since it was stated that the lady was too scared to report the sighting for a couple of days, it leads me to believe that there's more to what the lady saw and heard that made her so scared and that the police haven't released for some reason. I doubt seeing a driver being scared and a voice telling her to don't be stupid would have made the witness so afraid to have have not report the sighting for a couple of days. She had to have seen something else.

    It's also possible it was a recent bruise that the porchlady saw that appeared to be a birthmark, or, as mr. electric (from Missouri) stated in thread #2, post #109, "Maybe the girl driving was not one of the 3MW. Maybe a girl that did not like Suzanne or Stacy. may be."

    And, as a side note, if this was such a well-planned operation, why did the abductor(s) have to enlist the help of Suzie to drive the vehicle? And, if there were more than one abductor, they wouldn't have needed (or risked) having Suzie drive the van, which tells me it was only one abductor. (One abductor, who, Suzie, if it was Suzie driving, knew what he was capable of if she didn't comply with his orders).

    One would also have to wonder how Suzie (a fighter) morphed from being carried struggling from the home to being a driver?
    If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully. I still dont see how one person could do this though. IF one abducter did this, then we have no clue who it is. IF it were one abductor where did he get the van? Borrow it from someone? That means it was a local vehicle? and this van was his means of transportation to the crime scene? How did he get them out to that van? How did he get in the house? Did he pull up in the driveway with his van and use a ruse to get the door opened?
    To me I think the bigger question would be where else did they go after the abduction. This sighting states it was 6:30 in the morning. It was daylight and had been for quite some time (almost an hour) 15 blocks away from the house? That is about 5 minutes or less from the house. 1.25 miles. So does it make sense to do an abduction at that hour? DId they go to another location? Say where other participants had vehicles parked? Was there somewhere in the vicinity of the Porch Lady that they had stopped off? I dont know, but the timeline doesnt jive well for an abduction and escape from town in a hurry.

  5. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,414
    "Witnesses" lie. It's a fact LE has to deal with. People read about high profile crimes and want to "get in the act". They come forward with "information" based on what they know from the media or rumors that have circulated. Most of the "thousands of tips from the community" are of this nature.

    Some witness who really do have information relating to the investigation embellish, exagerate or "add" to what they really know or saw in order to make themselves more credible or more valuable to the investigation. They will make up details or say they are certain of things they are not. Witnesses must be interregated as thoroughly as suspects. If someone claims to have seen or heard something (like our Van Lady) LE needs to go to the exact spot the witness was at and verify that what was seen and heard was actually possible. This sort of thing is used to destroy the credibility of witnesses at trial all them time.

    I suspect that it is commen for drivers who are heading out of Springfield east or north, to miss the turn at S. Oak Grove continue down Grand, where they ultimately use a driveway to turn around. I am sure people who live there see it happen all the time.

    I think it unlikely that some random Blonde with a birthmark was driving around East Springfield having a fight with her boyfriend at 6:30 AM that day. (if one was, she would have come foreard) If Van Lady saw what she says she saw, It is almost certainly related to the crime and it became the lynch-pin of the investigation. If she made it up, she may have totally derailled the investigation.

  6. #51
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    If Van Lady saw what she says she saw, It is almost certainly related to the crime and it became the lynch-pin of the investigation. If she made it up, she may have totally derailled the investigation.
    So, if LE determined that the report was false would they not have made an announcement to that effect? I'd doubt LE would leave everyone hanging for 16 years with false information. Or would they?

  7. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooogrit View Post

    If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully. I still dont see how one person could do this though. IF one abducter did this, then we have no clue who it is.
    THe FBI profiler said it was someone familiar with the comings and goings of the people at the house. A trusted individual or a previous acquaintance would fit that bill. As far as getting them out to the van, you answered that question with "If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully."

    If the patio doors in Suzie's room didn't have the broomstick in the door guide, they could have gotten in that way or because the odor of varnish was so strong, Mrs. Levitt left a window open or the girls opened one when they got there. I noticed in one of the videos that there was an open window and a fan was in it.

    Maybe someone had a key from the previous owner and the locks hadn't been changed. There's any number of scenarios.

    To me I think the bigger question would be where else did they go after the abduction. This sighting states it was 6:30 in the morning. It was daylight and had been for quite some time (almost an hour) 15 blocks away from the house? That is about 5 minutes or less from the house. 1.25 miles. So does it make sense to do an abduction at that hour?
    I don't think there's any set time to do an abduction. There's no logic to anything when you're dealing with sociopaths or psychopaths and I'm generalizing here and not pointing to anyone specific.

    (The psychopath is defined by a uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions.)

  8. #53
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    "Witnesses" lie. It's a fact LE has to deal with. People read about high profile crimes and want to "get in the act". They come forward with "information" based on what they know from the media or rumors that have circulated. Most of the "thousands of tips from the community" are of this nature.

    Some witness who really do have information relating to the investigation embellish, exagerate or "add" to what they really know or saw in order to make themselves more credible or more valuable to the investigation. They will make up details or say they are certain of things they are not. Witnesses must be interregated as thoroughly as suspects. If someone claims to have seen or heard something (like our Van Lady) LE needs to go to the exact spot the witness was at and verify that what was seen and heard was actually possible. This sort of thing is used to destroy the credibility of witnesses at trial all them time.

    I suspect that it is commen for drivers who are heading out of Springfield east or north, to miss the turn at S. Oak Grove continue down Grand, where they ultimately use a driveway to turn around. I am sure people who live there see it happen all the time.

    I think it unlikely that some random Blonde with a birthmark was driving around East Springfield having a fight with her boyfriend at 6:30 AM that day. (if one was, she would have come foreard) If Van Lady saw what she says she saw, It is almost certainly related to the crime and it became the lynch-pin of the investigation. If she made it up, she may have totally derailled the investigation.[/quote]
    The SPD was looking for a van long before the porch lady came forward. It was reported on the 15th that they were looking for a blue Dodge van which may have been used in the abduction, that was stolen earlier from a used car lot. On the 17th the witness sighting of a van parked at 4:30 a.m. on S. Kentwood Ave was reported. The porch lady didn't come forward until early August, first reported in the N-L on the 3rd. Even if her sighting is a total fabrication it would only through off the assumed direction in which the perps were attempting to leave town by.

  9. #54
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,414
    The Van reported on S. Kentwood was significantly different from Van Lady's van.. Certainly, people's power of obsevation and memory isn"t perfect and they could very easily have been the same van. From what I can gather, it was Van Lady's description that was accepted as "accurate" (she saw it in daylight, the "frightened blonde" would make the sighting more significant, and Van Lady worked in the Used Car industry and would, presumably, have a better eye for the details of a vehicle). I recall reading that a "lead ivestigator" refered to Van Lady's sight as "the best lead we have". It was a replica of the Van Lady van that was parked outside City Hall. (to me this would be very poor police proceedure unless they were very confident, bordering on positive, that that was the vehicle). We know that a great deal of effort went in to identifying the van. There were probably thousands of older American vans in the extended Greene Co area (mostly driven by men 18-45) but very few would fit Van Lady's description. We do not know what methods were used to identify the van; how closely they stuck to Van Lady's description.

    I am inclinded find the Kentwood sighting more credible than Van Lady, but the only valid judge would be the interviewing officers. If I was satisfied that Van Lady was telling the truth howerver, I would have more confidence in the accuracy of the details of her van description. Thus, if as I suspect, Van Lady was accepted as credible, then the search for the van would focus on her description. I think it is reasonable that every van that fit this description in the area could have been located and the driver fairly well checked out. It would not be possible to do this with all "older American made" vans; but their are some profiling techniques that could have been used. We don't know how the investigation was conducted.

    Hurricane, was the staus of the van, stolen from a lot, resolved?

  10. #55
    gaia227's Avatar
    gaia227 is offline I have never taken any exercise except sleeping and resting - M. Twain
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    New York City
    Posts
    3,742
    What reasons would the perp(s) have to make one of the girls drive? It takes a certain amount of control out of their hands - Suzi could purposefully crash the van, she could flash the lights, draw attention to herself, etc.

    One of the few reasons I can think of is there was only 1 and they felt like they needed to be in the back with the other two women to keep control of them. I have a hard time believing that if there were two perps or more they would put Suzi in the drivers seat so they could control the other two women who were most likely bound at that point and didn't pose much of a threat. Once you get your victim into your car, into your space you take hold of almost all the control over those victims and it doesn't seem feasible to me that he would take that control and hand a little bit to Suzi for really no good reason. Someone who has just kidnapped three women does not want to be in a position where they are not in control of where that vehicle is going.
    Last edited by gaia227; 07-28-2009 at 02:34 PM.
    'The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated'
    --Ghandi



  11. #56
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    The Van reported on S. Kentwood was significantly different from Van Lady's van.. Certainly, people's power of obsevation and memory isn"t perfect and they could very easily have been the same van. From what I can gather, it was Van Lady's description that was accepted as "accurate" (she saw it in daylight, the "frightened blonde" would make the sighting more significant, and Van Lady worked in the Used Car industry and would, presumably, have a better eye for the details of a vehicle). I recall reading that a "lead ivestigator" refered to Van Lady's sight as "the best lead we have". It was a replica of the Van Lady van that was parked outside City Hall. (to me this would be very poor police proceedure unless they were very confident, bordering on positive, that that was the vehicle). We know that a great deal of effort went in to identifying the van. There were probably thousands of older American vans in the extended Greene Co area (mostly driven by men 18-45) but very few would fit Van Lady's description. We do not know what methods were used to identify the van; how closely they stuck to Van Lady's description.

    I am inclinded find the Kentwood sighting more credible than Van Lady, but the only valid judge would be the interviewing officers. If I was satisfied that Van Lady was telling the truth howerver, I would have more confidence in the accuracy of the details of her van description. Thus, if as I suspect, Van Lady was accepted as credible, then the search for the van would focus on her description. I think it is reasonable that every van that fit this description in the area could have been located and the driver fairly well checked out. It would not be possible to do this with all "older American made" vans; but their are some profiling techniques that could have been used. We don't know how the investigation was conducted.

    Hurricane, was the staus of the van, stolen from a lot, resolved?
    Actually the van described on S. Kentwood was different in color than the one the van lady saw, but it was the same in vintage and age (dodge 67-70). There was a photo of one in the NL June 17, 1992. There was an attempt to locate vans of this description, but not all were accounted for and I believe they said there were 450 registered in Missouri alone of that model.
    Last edited by Trooogrit; 07-27-2009 at 06:35 PM. Reason: wording

  12. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    [quote=tangledweb;3989724]THe FBI profiler said it was someone familiar with the comings and goings of the people at the house. A trusted individual or a previous acquaintance would fit that bill. As far as getting them out to the van, you answered that question with "If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully."

    I am familiar with what the FBI profiler said and to some degree that is useful information, but the FBI also believed more than one person took part in this crime.
    " The FBI theorizes at least two people took the women, and at least one of the women knew one of the men who lured them out of the house on false pretext.
    But with little hard evidence from the crime scene, the scenario is very general and mainly focuses on the type of people who may have done this. Said FBI spokesman Max Geiman in Kansas City" NL July 8,1992

    "Wright said the leader likely was an acquaintence who may have known their comings and goings.
    He said the person may have been someone that one of the women trusted. But it's others involved, who may not have known the women, that the FBI and Springifield police hope to reach." NL July 19,1992

    "With all this experience more that 22 years with the FBI---Wright admits, this case is not easy. "Unfortunately there's not a whole lot to look at here, and unfortunately, we don't see crimes like this very often. We dont have a great deal of insight." NL July 19,1992
    quote]
    Last edited by Trooogrit; 07-27-2009 at 08:04 PM.

  13. #58
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana [USA]
    Posts
    1,811

    Just speculation...

    Quote Originally Posted by Trooogrit View Post
    Actually the van described on S. Kentwood was different in color than the one the van lady saw, but it was the same in vintage and age (dodge 67-70). There was a photo of one in the NL June 17, 1992. There was an attempt to locate vans of this description, but not all were accounted for and I believe they said there were 450 registered in Missouri alone of that model.

    There are some postings here that contain a wealth of information to help one see things more clearly.......and wanted to say thank you for being so in-dept with your postings...
    I'm speculating of course, but i wondered if by chance, the location the women ended up at, was a predetermined site........perhaps used before, it seems maybe, if most of what was to occur had been put in motion earlier, then the two POI could act more on instincts, then try and THINK of what to do at the time, there adrenaline had to be soaring through there bodies, at the time, so to have preplanned the location/locations to take the women to would have made it easier so not to THINK so much about what to do next?..............perhaps after leaving, they went to two different locations, for two different reasons, before leaving it all behind somewhere.
    I don't see them trying to take them very, very far from the house, they did it at that time, perhaps with less traffic, less traffic on the highway perhaps? being so early in the morning.
    the two places, one would have been the BEFORE ground, and the other the AFTER ground.........and i always thought perhaps, they were taken from the home around 1am-4am, but more then likely between 3 and 4 am.....And not still being in the area, at daybreak
    to be seen pulling into some woman's drive way, seems careless and reckless after abducting 3 women at once, seems they would have taken them and then got the hell out of there, as quickly as possible.
    All just MOO, nothing for certain and or factual.

    :+:Anneliese Michel:+:

    [21 September 1952–1 July 1976]

    [Second chapter twelfth verse of [
    :+:Philippians:+:]
    [Work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling]
    :+:Emily Rose:+:




  14. #59
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,798

    Just plowing some old ground.

    I wonder why these callers were never found and interviewed more thoroughly and why these male subjects could not have been identified or offered to come forward.

    This appears that at least three (two besides the waitress) contacted the police to report this sighting. This lead was dropped in the early part of the investigation but it would go a long way to explaining how Sherrill's car was found all the way in the carport. Evidently Moore believed it had legs.

    A hypothesis: These individuals were stalking the young women and followed them back to the home. They parked the van across the street from the Levitt home and when they all went down to George's the van followed them. They went into the restaurant where they struck up a conversation with the women and were seated with them. When the meal was completed they followed them back to the Levitt home. What might have happened after that time is clouded in mystery. There are some problems with the theory and the crime scene. In any event this account appears credible and written by an experienced reporter for the N-L.

    Here is what might account for some of these gaps. Three men went to George's where they met up with the women. Two of them have clammed up since 1992, moved on or have died. They may not have been Springfield natives. The other was Robert Cox, a Springfield native. As the other two realized what a psychopath Cox was they ran for the tall grass because they realized they had gotten in over their heads and departed the scene. The lone abductor remaining was Cox which would account for the lone male voice in the van and why Suzie had to be driving the car. Perhaps it was one of the other two individuals who placed the call from Florida to AMW.

    As to the motive: I don't think there was one as we would commonly understand. Cox is likely a serial killer who wanted to pattern himself after Ted Bundy. The motive for such serial murderers is the act of killing itself. Not to put too fine a point on it, some of these serial murderers kill their victims in order to have sex with them after they are dead (Necrophilia).

    http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/necro.htm

    http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/s.../bundy/16.html

    (Snip)

    "An FBI violent crime specialist theorizes that three missing women were abducted by someone at least one of them trusted, and the abductor probably had help from one or more others.
    Authorities want to talk with people who may unwillingly have become involved in a possibly unplanned abduction, said James Wright of the bureau's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime.
    "I think they (other people) were brought into this not knowing what was going to happen. It's quite possible that the primary person did not know what was going to happen," Wright said.
    "There are people that have knowledge who don't feel good about the knowledge they have. They may not be the primary person. " Wright spoke after a call-in television show about the case that aired Sunday night on KOZK-Ozarks Public Television."


    (Snip)

    The Kansas City Star
    July 21, 1992

    Edition: MID-AMERICA
    Section: MID-AMERICA
    Page: B6

    "Back in 1992, three calls came in to police that the three women were seen in the early morning hours at George's Steakhouse. The callers said they also saw three men with them.

    Moore wants to know who those three men are, and if they could be related to suspects developed in Barry County.

    "I want some people found and interviewed again," Moore said. "I want to know who those guys were.

    "If anyone from the McCall family or the Levitt or the Streeter families asked me to my face if every possible thing that could have been done was done, I want to be able to say yes," Moore adds. "And at this point I can't say that."

    http://springfield.news-leader.com/s...eb-115439.html
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 07-27-2009 at 11:28 PM.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  15. #60
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana [USA]
    Posts
    1,811
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    I wonder why these callers were never found and interviewed more thoroughly and why these male subjects could not have been identified or offered to come forward.

    This appears that at least three (two besides the waitress) contacted the police to report this sighting. This lead was dropped in the early part of the investigation but it would go a long way to explaining how Sherrill's car was found all the way in the carport. Evidently Moore believed it had legs.

    A hypothesis: These individuals were stalking the young women and followed them back to the home. They parked the van across the street from the Levitt home and when they all went down to George's the van followed them. They went into the restaurant where they struck up a conversation with the women and were seated with them. When the meal was completed they followed them back to the Levitt home. What might have happened after that time is clouded in mystery. There are some problems with the theory and the crime scene. In any event this account appears credible and written by an experienced reporter for the N-L.


    (Snip)

    "Back in 1992, three calls came in to police that the three women were seen in the early morning hours at George's Steakhouse. The callers said they also saw three men with them.

    Moore wants to know who those three men are, and if they could be related to suspects developed in Barry County.

    "I want some people found and interviewed again," Moore said. "I want to know who those guys were.

    "If anyone from the McCall family or the Levitt or the Streeter families asked me to my face if every possible thing that could have been done was done, I want to be able to say yes," Moore adds. "And at this point I can't say that."

    http://springfield.news-leader.com/s...eb-115439.html
    ............perhaps, the van was already there, at the restaurant.....they Saw the women entered, or the POI were already inside before the chatting be-gain.......and for one reason or the other, they followed them back to the house, and the one vehicle that was mentioned, that was pulled up farther into the carport then usually , could it be that was the plan??, she pulled up farther so the van could park behind her??......if they all did leave around the same time, if confirmed by anyone there, that saw them all leave around, or at the same time..............
    .......... that could be very well, where they were spotted and followed?
    .........they could have even just followed them out, of the resturant, and pulled guns on one or more of the women, and made them all drive back to the house, and to make room for the fouth vehicle, the one in front parked futher up and into the carport???
    .................ALL JUST SPECULATION, AND ASSUMPTIONS ON MY PART.....

    but on this link that follows, it is what i think may have been the last event , or something similiar, but still just speculating.
    http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=9122848

    :+:Anneliese Michel:+:

    [21 September 1952–1 July 1976]

    [Second chapter twelfth verse of [
    :+:Philippians:+:]
    [Work out your own salvation, with fear and trembling]
    :+:Emily Rose:+:




Page 4 of 70 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 14 54 ... 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