1285 users online (288 members and 997 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 5 of 70 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 1036
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    842
    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?
    I don’t think there is a significant difference in the reported sightings from the witness at 4:30 a.m. and the porch lady at 6:30 a.m. that can’t be explained away by the lighting conditions. At least SPD didn’t think so:

    “Investigators are asking for help in locating a brown, possibly 1967-70 model Dodge van with rust along the bottom sides and no side or back windows. The van was seen parked on the west side of Kentwood Avenue, near Delmar Street around 4:30 a.m. on Sunday, June 7, when the women disappeared. A van matching that description was stopped in Branson on Monday night, but two men were released after being questioned. No individual is being associated with the Dodge van in question.”
    N-L, June 17, 1992.

    “Police had long suspected the van they are seeking was brown after a witness reported seeing such a van parked near Levitt’s 1717 E. Delmar St. home about 4:30 a.m. on June 7.”

    “It was dark outside then. But a few hours later, as the sun was rising, another witness in east Springfield saw a green van with a woman driving.”

    “The color discrepancy could be explained by the differences in lighting. Both witnesses recalled a similar year and make.” N-L, Aug 27, 1992.

    I believe that we can safely assume that the dark blue 1985 Dodge motor home type van was properly eliminated. It was stolen from a car lot in Springfieldsometime between 4 p.m. last Saturday (June 6th) and 2 p.m. Sunday” (June 7th). N-L, June 13, 1992.

    It wasn’t recovered until late October 1993 in Indiana:

    “A van that disappeared about the same time last year as three Springfield women was found in Indiana last week. But police do not believe it is linked to the still unsolved abduction case.” N-L, Oct. 31, 1993.

    In this edition it was reported that the van was stolen sometime between June 4th and June 9th, 1992. The man who witnesses said had been living in it for some time was nowhere to be found. However the van was processed by the Indianapolis Police for SPD so I have to assume no forensic evidence leading to any of the 3MW or a suspect was found.

    “Indianapolis police will check the van for evidence and forward their findings to Springfield police.” N-L, Oct. 31, 1993.

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    The Georges sighting could be a case of mistaken identity, much like the convenience store sighting. There were several days that passed before the waitress even reported it. One thing that I found interesting is the LACK of people who reported seeing them at George's. This was a big deal, the waitress didnt come forward for 2 weeks or more. Why didnt anyone else who apparently saw them there?

    "The waitress is the lone witness to this apparent sighting, and investigatores are asking that anyone else who may have seen them contact the departement.
    "She seems like a credible witness one investigator said. Streeter appeared giddy, perhaps intoxicated. The older woman tried to calm her down." THe other woman described only as a brunette apparently did not draw much attention to herself. There was no indication of trouble. The waitress told police she saw people pass and wave, but apparently no one stopped to talk. Webb said he did not know why it took so long for this information to come forward" NL JUNE 24, 1992.

    I find it unusual that no one came forward before this, I mean if there were people waving, (which in my opinion is acknowledging them personally) how come no one is coming forward the first week of the crime? I mean that would be fresh in your mind if you saw them early sunday morning and then you see them on the news tuesday when the media started covering it. I guess anything is possible, but seems like an awful long time had passed when the waitress came forward. If they were in a public place many others would have seen them as well.
    Last edited by Trooogrit; 07-27-2009 at 11:57 PM.

  3. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by gaia227 View Post
    What reasons would the perp(s) 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.
    I agree. The perp(s) could have easily tied up all three instead of just two while making the third one drive. Of course, if the other two weren't tied up, then the perp would have to let one of them drive.

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,414
    I did a little research on vans. The 1964-1970 Dodges were quite distinctive and a skilled interviewer might be able to get a good witness to nail it down. If there were only 450 registered in the whole state, then less that 100 were anywhere near Springfield. Every owner/driver could have been checked out. Any owner/driver who could not be located or one who could not account for what happened to the van in question should have been of particular interest. (I wonder if any owner/drivers who had clean criminal records in 1992 have have had trouble since.)

    If they are not so sure about the make/model/year then the search becomes much more complicated. Vans became very popular in the early 1970's so there would be far more still on the road, perhaps thousands. Anyone who owned an older van would be a suspect. I'm sure that SPD was inundated with reports of neighbors, co-workers and ex-boyfriends who drove old vans. The FBI has methods of narrowing down this kind of information. A decision would have to be made on how to deploy liomited resources.

    I thought the "Georges" lead was pretty well debunked. If there was any chance these men were with the women, every effort to find them should have been undertaken. Composites should have been published and everyone who was at Georges that night should have been asked to be interviewed by the police. If these men did exist, they were almost certainly involved. Otherwise they would have come forward, I would think.

  5. #65
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Indiana [USA]
    Posts
    1,811
    http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=9122848

    If we could learn more about this case, perhaps we could get a better mind set of the PsOI.......and where the women maybe...............ALL MOO. and speculation.

    :+: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:+:




  6. #66
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,630
    Quote Originally Posted by gaia227 View Post
    What reasons would the perp(s) 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.
    I agree. If there was more than one perp, there would be no reason for Suzie to be driving. In this case though, I have always felt that more than one person was involved. Maybe there was just one perp in the van or whatever vehicle was used to abduct the women, but it's possible there was one or more involved who were at the site where the girls were eventually taken.

    I've said it before and I'll say it again, I NEVER rule out a one perp theory after what Joseph Duncan did to the Groene family in Idaho in 2005. If one man can subdue five people on his own, especially with one of them being a large man over 6 feet tall, then certainly one person would have no trouble incapacitating Suzie, Sherrill and Stacy.

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by Trooogrit View Post
    The Georges sighting could be a case of mistaken identity, much like the convenience store sighting. There were several days that passed before the waitress even reported it. One thing that I found interesting is the LACK of people who reported seeing them at George's. This was a big deal, the waitress didnt come forward for 2 weeks or more. Why didnt anyone else who apparently saw them there?

    "The waitress is the lone witness to this apparent sighting, and investigatores are asking that anyone else who may have seen them contact the departement.
    "She seems like a credible witness one investigator said. Streeter appeared giddy, perhaps intoxicated. The older woman tried to calm her down." THe other woman described only as a brunette apparently did not draw much attention to herself. There was no indication of trouble. The waitress told police she saw people pass and wave, but apparently no one stopped to talk. Webb said he did not know why it took so long for this information to come forward" NL JUNE 24, 1992.

    I find it unusual that no one came forward before this, I mean if there were people waving, (which in my opinion is acknowledging them personally) how come no one is coming forward the first week of the crime? I mean that would be fresh in your mind if you saw them early sunday morning and then you see them on the news tuesday when the media started covering it.
    I guess anything is possible, but seems like an awful long time had passed when the waitress came forward. If they were in a public place many others would have seen them as well.
    I agree. It has to be a case of mistaken identity. None of the other waitresses or cooks who were there that night back up her statement. The three "clean cut men" probably didn't even recognize themselves and then come forward. And the friends or acquaintances of the women who were seen waving and acknowledging them certainly would have come forward the following week because this event would have been the biggest thing to happen in their lives; to see someone you know who ends up being abducted and possibly murdered that same night. Then take that thought and multiply it by three. I can't think of any reason that they would not have come forth to report what they saw.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,796

    What is one to make of 2003 summary of the case facts?

    It appears that we have a divergence of opinions on whether or not the waitress was the only person to have seen the women at Georges. This is a requote from my earlier post. Why does Mooore want it reinvestigated?

    I'm not necessarily wedded to the idea that this is proven fact but in the summary report written 11 years later it implies that the earlier "debunking" must have been not altogether reliable and that two additional witnesses confirmed the waitress's account. Perhaps I am not reading this correctly but the assertion that the waitress was the only witness does not square with the "three calls" in the 2003 summary report in the News-Leader. Am I wrong? Thoughts?


    "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/specialreports/threemissingwomen/0608-Cassvilleb-115439.html
    Last edited by Missouri Mule; 07-28-2009 at 11:35 AM.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  9. #69
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    373
    Quote Originally Posted by Missouri Mule View Post
    It appears that we have a divergence of opinions on whether or not the waitress was the only person to have seen the women at Georges. This is a requote from below. Why does Mooore want it reinvestigated? This comes from the 2003 summary report written by the primary reporter from the Springfield News-Leader. It would appear to be the latest available information some 11 years after the report was supposedly debunked? Thoughts?

    I'm not wedded to the idea that this is proven fact but if the report written 11 years later it implies that the earlier "debunking" must have been not altogether reliable or that additional witnesses confirmed the waitress's account.


    "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
    Well I believe that there were two others who say they saw the girls at Georges. My biggest problem is no one came forward before the waitress who saw them, none of the other employees saw them, none of the patrons saw them, immediately following the abductions. With that said I am skeptical about 2 other witnesses who say that they saw them AFTER the waitress went public, 10-14 days later. Just seems like it could be false information or a prank, as there were a few others durng this time.

  10. #70
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    I did a little research on vans. The 1964-1970 Dodges were quite distinctive and a skilled interviewer might be able to get a good witness to nail it down. If there were only 450 registered in the whole state, then less that 100 were anywhere near Springfield. Every owner/driver could have been checked out. Any owner/driver who could not be located or one who could not account for what happened to the van in question should have been of particular interest. (I wonder if any owner/drivers who had clean criminal records in 1992 have have had trouble since.)

    If they are not so sure about the make/model/year then the search becomes much more complicated. Vans became very popular in the early 1970's so there would be far more still on the road, perhaps thousands. Anyone who owned an older van would be a suspect. I'm sure that SPD was inundated with reports of neighbors, co-workers and ex-boyfriends who drove old vans. The FBI has methods of narrowing down this kind of information. A decision would have to be made on how to deploy liomited resources.

    I thought the "Georges" lead was pretty well debunked. If there was any chance these men were with the women, every effort to find them should have been undertaken. Composites should have been published and everyone who was at Georges that night should have been asked to be interviewed by the police. If these men did exist, they were almost certainly involved. Otherwise they would have come forward, I would think.
    This is a subject I wrestled with in the early days of the investigation. In fact I scoured the countryside looking for such a van with binoculars. But it was hunting for a needle in a haystack. I did some extrapolating using statistical spotting of similar vans on my drives and extended it to include the possible number of such vans throughout the United States. As I recall, these many years later, it was about 23,000 possible vans.

    But that's not really the problem. Even if all of these possible 23,000 vans were found, it is still possible that no forensic evidence would be found that would say definitively that this was THE van in question. There have been many cases in which the cleaning of vehicles was so good it took the entire dissassembly of the vehicle to find any usable material. And then sometimes the forensics people can't find anything.

    As I recall this gargantuan task was left to one officer. I don't think it was possible to either find them all or ensure they were not involved. In hindsight, I think it was a wild goose chase although I understand why it was done at the time. What could he do really? Contact the owner and ask them if they parked their van at the Levitt home that night? And expect a truthful answer? They could have assigned the entire police department to trying to find that van and it would have been a dry hole.

    I think the importance of that van was in its unique design. If one will look at that van they will find one thing that is not found in modern vans. The engine is INSIDE the van between the driver and the passenger. (I'm assuming the engine was installed from beneath the vehicle at the factory.) Why is this important? It explains how one individual armed with a weapon would be sitting on the floor facing the hostages, Sherrill and Stacy and ordering Suzie to drive and obey his instructions and to conceal him behind that engine that came up to about seat height. That would have put a lone gunman out of the line of sight.

    "The A100 (or Forward Control) line was a family of
    compact vans and trucks produced by Chrysler and sold under the Dodge and Fargo brands from 1964 through 1970, competing with the Ford Econoline and Chevy Van, all inspired by the Volkswagen Type 2. It included a pickup truck and van, both with a "cab forward" design unusual in passenger vehicles. The nose was flat, with the engine placed between the driver and passenger, who sat above the front axle. These unibody vehicles used a short, 90-inch (2,286 mm) wheelbase. An A108 was also available from 1967 to 1970, with a longer 108 inch wheelbase. The A108 was very popular with camper conversion companies."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_A100

    Oddly enough, this particular van is still highly popular among auto enthusiasts and car collectors.

    I've seen some beautifully restored Dodge vans of this era frequently on ebay. They have one right now with some 24 shots if anyone is interested in seeing it close-up.

    And perhaps more oddly, an almost identical van, even in color, was seen in some recent William Shatner commercials for Priceline kidnapping a couple as "The Negotiator."

    http://www.bestads.tv/view/2445/pric...gotiator-van-/
    Last edited by KateB; 04-23-2015 at 06:34 PM. Reason: repair url tags.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra




  11. #71
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    1,414
    If there was any reasonible chance that the women were with three men at Georges that night and SPD did not move heaven and earth in an attempt to identify them, then this has got to be one of the biggest screw-ups in criminal investigative history. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the real story of the Georges sighting is hidden along with everything else in the post 48 hours news black-out.

    The vehicles are very significant because they can be used for a "data mining" operation. While it was probably feasible to intrview every local owner of a 66-70 Dodge van, it would not be feasible to interview every "older van" owner. It would be feasible to check thousands of DMV records against names that have come up in the investigation, sex ofenders, neighbors of Sherill, classmates of the girls. etc. Inevitably, names will come up an a decision would have to be made how to approach it.

    If Van Lady is credible, I think it comes very close to establishing that there is only one perp. It is not unusal for a single perp to have a hostage/victim drive, (this happens a lot when bank robbers flee with a hostage). It is hard to control one hostage (much less three) and drive at the same time. If there are two or more perps, then it would seem obvious that one drives, one controls the victims. It just doesn't make sense any other way..

    Am I the only one who finds it "odd" that the perp would have Suzi drive (if, in fact that is what happened). Old vans were big and difficlt to drive, (thinking like a perp now) I would want the hostage with the most driving experience to drive. I wouldn't want a frightened teenager who may never have driven anything larger than a Toyota driving. (all I would need is to attract LE attention with erratic driving) It would seem that Sherrill would have been the logical choice to drive. There a lot of big "Ifs", but it makes me wonder, again if the Perp knew Suzi and Sherrill and, for whatever reason, "trusted" Suzi.

  12. #72
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    842
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post
    If there was any reasonible chance that the women were with three men at Georges that night and SPD did not move heaven and earth in an attempt to identify them, then this has got to be one of the biggest screw-ups in criminal investigative history. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and assume the real story of the Georges sighting is hidden along with everything else in the post 48 hours news black-out.

    The vehicles are very significant because they can be used for a "data mining" operation. While it was probably feasible to intrview every local owner of a 66-70 Dodge van, it would not be feasible to interview every "older van" owner. It would be feasible to check thousands of DMV records against names that have come up in the investigation, sex ofenders, neighbors of Sherill, classmates of the girls. etc. Inevitably, names will come up an a decision would have to be made how to approach it.

    If Van Lady is credible, I think it comes very close to establishing that there is only one perp. It is not unusal for a single perp to have a hostage/victim drive, (this happens a lot when bank robbers flee with a hostage). It is hard to control one hostage (much less three) and drive at the same time. If there are two or more perps, then it would seem obvious that one drives, one controls the victims. It just doesn't make sense any other way..

    Am I the only one who finds it "odd" that the perp would have Suzi drive (if, in fact that is what happened). Old vans were big and difficlt to drive, (thinking like a perp now) I would want the hostage with the most driving experience to drive. I wouldn't want a frightened teenager who may never have driven anything larger than a Toyota driving. (all I would need is to attract LE attention with erratic driving) It would seem that Sherrill would have been the logical choice to drive. There a lot of big "Ifs", but it makes me wonder, again if the Perp knew Suzi and Sherrill and, for whatever reason, "trusted" Suzi.
    Even though SPD’s mockup was of a Dodge van it cannot be established as fact that it was one. If you google for pictures you will see that the Dodge vans and the GMC/Chevrolet vans of that era are very similar in the looks of the grill and headlights, doors and window designs. The Ford vans of that era are quite different looking. Even though the porch lady and her husband owned a used car business she was unsure of the make and model.
    SPD used the Dodge in their mockup because that was what was available from a local salvage yard, but they were still open to the possibility of it being a GMC or Chevrolet. After the mockup appeared on SPD’s lawn the N-L from then on referred to the van being sought as a Dodge.

    “In both sightings the van appeared to be an older model – mid-1960’s to early 1970’s. Police are keying on a Dodge. They do not rule out Chevrolet or General Motors.”
    N-L, Aug 17, 1992.

    Officer Dove was able to eliminate many vans during his trace of such vehicles probably because many had been legally scrapped and disposed of by 1992. And some were never found:


    ( Officer Gerald Dove) “He was pulled off his street beat six months ago, and has since spent long days devoted to tracking the strongest lead: an older Dodge van suspected as being used to take the women away.”
    “Dove’s eliminated hundreds of vans. He has hundreds more to get to. Others he is unable to find.”
    “As time passes, though, Dove fears it will be more difficult to find the one van “that’s not being seen anymore.” News-Leader, Dec. 6, 1992.

    I don’t find it odd that multiple perps would have one of the women drive. What better way to control her than put her behind the wheel? It is my opinion that Sherrill was most likely unconscious or worse because by taking out the adult that would certainly neutralize her and bring the girls under control. By staying low in the van the perps would minimize the risk of being seen, especially if they had been working as day laborers in the neighborhood for several weeks leading up to the abduction. If the van had been recently repainted as the porch lady believed then the reason why was probably because it had been seen in the neighborhood while they were on the job.

  13. #73
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by kemo View Post

    (Snip)

    Am I the only one who finds it "odd" that the perp would have Suzi drive (if, in fact that is what happened). Old vans were big and difficlt to drive, (thinking like a perp now) I would want the hostage with the most driving experience to drive. I wouldn't want a frightened teenager who may never have driven anything larger than a Toyota driving. (all I would need is to attract LE attention with erratic driving) It would seem that Sherrill would have been the logical choice to drive. There a lot of big "Ifs", but it makes me wonder, again if the Perp knew Suzi and Sherrill and, for whatever reason, "trusted" Suzi.
    One of the first rules to follow during abductions is never to go willingly with the abductors believing he will release them when it is over. Sherrill would have known that. I doubt Suzie would. She would have been more likely to be concerned for the welfare of her mother and Stacy. I think it is entirely logical that Suzie would be the one selected to drive. Somehow I imagine that Stacy was near a catatonic stage during this period. She had been sheltered most of her life and probably had never locked horns with someone as evil as who took them.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



  14. #74
    "The waitress is the lone witness to this apparent sighting, and investigators are asking that anyone else who may have seen them contact the department.

    "She seems like a credible witness", one investigator said. "Streeter appeared giddy, perhaps intoxicated."
    Has it been determined from the other partygoer's statements the level of Streeter's intoxication when she left the party? If she only had a few beers and you coupled that with the fact that she was a teenager and was able to drive her car home AND wasn't feeling well, it would be unlikely she was the same girl seen "giddy" or "intoxicated" at the restaurant. It appears that Stacy was a pretty responsible person and wouldn't have allowed Suzie to drive drunk.

    Throw in the fact the girls had set plans to get up early in the morning and there was evidence that both they and Suzie's mother had already retired for the evening and the mother wasn't much of a socializer, it's even more unlikely.

    Most of the late-night crowd at the restaurant were also probably in different stages of intoxication and wouldn't have been very good witnesses, which is why not many of them came forward.

    I'd rule the George's sighting out.

  15. #75
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Arkansas
    Posts
    1,796
    Quote Originally Posted by tangledweb View Post
    Has it been determined from the other partygoer's statements the level of Streeter's intoxication when she left the party? If she only had a few beers and you coupled that with the fact that she was a teenager and was able to drive her car home AND wasn't feeling well, it would be unlikely she was the same girl seen "giddy" or "intoxicated" at the restaurant. It appears that Stacy was a pretty responsible person and wouldn't have allowed Suzie to drive drunk.

    Throw in the fact the girls had set plans to get up early in the morning and there was evidence that both they and Suzie's mother had already retired for the evening and the mother wasn't much of a socializer, it's even more unlikely.

    Most of the late-night crowd at the restaurant were also probably in different stages of intoxication and wouldn't have been very good witnesses, which is why not many of them came forward.

    I'd rule the George's sighting out.
    Each person is free to draw their own conclusions about the validity of the alleged George's sighting. You have a view as do I.

    My rule of thumb is that nothing can be ruled in or out until it is an established fact. To paraphrase Yogi Berra, "It's not over until it's over."

    And not to put too fine a point on this, the prosecuting attorney, Darrell Moore was insufficiently satisfied with this aspect of the investigation he wanted this alleged sighting to be rechecked again and the individuals located. While I have been critical of him and the police department on this subject, I believe he is dead on correct in calling for a reinvestigation of this alleged incident. Briefly stated, until it is resolved, it is unresolved and unproven.
    "Never answer an anonymous letter"

    "I didn't really say everything I said"

    Yogi Berra



Page 5 of 70 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 15 55 ... 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