Suspect: Robert Craig Cox

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why all these secretive posts in this thread too?

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

I've already explained why.

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

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

If anyone wants to know how things could actually occur, suggest looking at the old Robert Redford movie "Three Days of the Condor." He works for the CIA as a researcher and he stumbles onto something he didn't even know meant anything. But it was sufficiently concerning to the powers that be that several people were murdered in cold blood to keep the truth from emerging. Some will say this is just a movie. Well, movies often mirror reality. And let us not forget Churchill's famous admonition,"Truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."
 
MM, when you say this theory involves the girls being outside for a period of time, does this mean they never went inside or they came back outside after entering the home? I'm interested in hearing this theory.

It had more to do with them being outside of the home for a period of time. At one time one of them went into the home and this is how entry was eventually gained.

Believe me, when I was in college I had more good times than were healthy and everyone was my buddy or so I thought. Inhibitions are thrown out the window. I suspect the girls were in similar circumstances. But the difference with me is that no one was going to abduct me. But the girls; well that's a whole different ball game. Predators are always on the prowl and what better time to hook up with someone than when the booze and drugs are flowing freely?
 
It had more to do with them being outside of the home for a period of time. At one time one of them went into the home and this is how entry was eventually gained.

Believe me, when I was in college I had more good times than were healthy and everyone was my buddy or so I thought. Inhibitions are thrown out the window. I suspect the girls were in similar circumstances. But the difference with me is that no one was going to abduct me. But the girls; well that's a whole different ball game. Predators are always on the prowl and what better time to hook up with someone than when the booze and drugs are flowing freely?

I agree, if someone is under the influence, a predator does have an advantage. My question is, LE reported that both girls had washed up, so wouldn't this indicate both were inside the home at some point? I'm wondering if they washed up and then went back outside? Perhaps to talk and enjoy the summer night? I've always thought it was possible that Suzie stepped outside to smoke. Since Stacy didn't smoke, perhaps Suzie stepped outside to smoke as a courtesy to Stacy?

ETA: Cigarette smoke does give some non-smokers a headache and Stacy was prone to migraines. So, maybe Stacy requested Suzie to smoke outside?
 
I agree, if someone is under the influence, a predator does have an advantage. My question is, LE reported that both girls had washed up, so wouldn't this indicate both were inside the home at some point? I'm wondering if they washed up and then went back outside? Perhaps to talk and enjoy the summer night? I've always thought it was possible that Suzie stepped outside to smoke. Since Stacy didn't smoke, perhaps Suzie stepped outside to smoke as a courtesy to Stacy?

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

I've thought about that. I see no reason why they couldn't have simply gone in and cleaned up and came back outside to chat some with their new found "friends." I would doubt anyone would be putting a searchlight on their faces to check for makeup at that hour of the night.

What I like about this theory is that this would explain how entry was gained. And knowing what I think I know about kids of that age, I'll bet they were all over town having a good old time and the girls were revved up as well. And their guard was down. And this is when the predator(s) would be most likely to strike, especially if it had been planned out in advance. That might explain why there was no DNA or fingerprints in the home. The girls could have been outside, called back in for "Mom" to come to the door and they grabbed her and off they went. The porch globe was knocked off and it's over. The perp(s) may never have gone into the home at all.
 
I've thought about that. I see no reason why they couldn't have simply gone in and cleaned up and came back outside to chat some with their new found "friends." I would doubt anyone would be putting a searchlight on their faces to check for makeup at that hour of the night.

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

Do these new found "friends" include Cox as one in this theory?
 
Do these new found "friends" include Cox as one in this theory?

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

This is why I have many times insisted that until the possible friends, acquaintances, and family of the victims are all eliminated, we are casting about in a large ocean of possible scenarios. If all of those could be eliminated it certainly points strongly at someone like Cox who had no reliable alibi. In my view he didn't even have a alibi plus he concocted a false alibi needlessly if he already had another provable alibi. He had to believe his fall back alibi was near worthless. Bottom line is that he can't be eliminated as a suspect.
 
Without question. I imagine he was hanging around and perhaps had befriended some of the girl's friends. I still put him up right at the top of the suspect list. If he wasn't actually in that circle he may have been watching at a distance for a good time to make his move. He probably had at least one helper. That helper could have also met an untimely end to tie up any loose ends. As I said in an earlier post, any number of possible theories might be right. But I want to emphasize that this offers the best of all of the theories why his DNA or forensic evidence was not found in the house.

This is why I have many times insisted that until the possible friends, acquaintances, and family of the victims are all eliminated, we are casting about in a large ocean of possible scenarios. If all of those could be eliminated it certainly points strongly at someone like Cox who had no reliable alibi.

Or perhaps Cox and a buddy were out cruising the streets looking for a victim and noticed the girls outside?
 
Or perhaps Cox and a buddy were out cruising the streets looking for a victim and noticed the girls outside?

Not inconceivable.

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

If we just look to the facts, which is that the car was inside the carport, which has been stated to be unusual, we know it didn't park itself and the keys were in Sherrill's purse and that there was evidently no fingerprints or DNA of the perp(s) (if they didn't come from the people to the home), then it is as probable as anything that the perp(s) never went into the home. That argues for the girls being approached while outside the home. The mother comes out to check on them and they are all snatched up and taken. But was it her usual custom to park half way in and half way out? It does not necessarily follow that because Suzie reportedly parked in an easterly direction that it was because she couldn't access the driveway as Sherrill's car blocked entry from the eastern side of the driveway. Maybe she liked to park facing east where the sun would melt the frost off her windshield in the wintertime and this was just her usual custom regardless. Maybe Sherrill did park all the way in. Where is it established that she didn't?
 
We actually had a pretty spirited discussion here on WS about the possibility that the girls didn't stay in the house, or the possibility that the abductor(s) got them coming out of the house to get things from the car. One of the biggest sticking points in the whole case is the issue of how the abductor(s) got into the house and control of the women, when (so far as we know, and this is a big caveat) there isn't a sign of forced entry or other indications of a break in. If the women were inside, either someone in the house (the women or a guest) let the abductor(s)/accomplice(s) in or the women did or someone failed to lock a door. If Suzie and Stacy were outside, even just to go to the car, things become much easier.

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

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

I seem to recall the same thing and had the same thought about Cox as well. At that time he wouldn't have been that old and not bad looking so he could easily have fit that description. With he and two other "clean cut" fellows they could have followed the women back to the home. Sherrill went inside and the girls stayed outside to shoot the breeze. After a while, Sherrill comes outside to check on their delay and they are all scooped up and taken away. More than plausible. With no DNA or forensic evidence it is highly likely. If Sherrill pulled in her car all the way into the garage to accomodate these "clean cut" fellows it answers two questions of how did there get room to pull the van up to the porch and how did the keys get in her purse? And it also answers a third question. If these "clean cut" guys never even went into the home, they wouldn't even have known about that money in her purse. They just wanted one or more of the women.
 
Then the case become far less mysterious in a way. It's all about abduction, rape and murder. The "outside" scenario might also explain why the TV was left on. The girls turned it on when the came home, washed their makeup off, and then decided to sit outside. Suzie might have wanted a cigarette before bed, or maybe one or both of them was too keyed up (or a little drunk) too sleep. Maybe Stacy borrowed some sweatpants to wear outside.

The only thing I can't figure is how Sherrill's purse would have gotten into the pile with the others and Suzie's overnight bag.

This scenario takes a hit if there was bleach or some other stuff in the drains, but wouldn't we know if there was SOME "signs of foul play" at the scene? That would have tipped the investigation toward abduction/murder from the get-go.
 
Then the case become far less mysterious in a way. It's all about abduction, rape and murder. The "outside" scenario might also explain why the TV was left on. The girls turned it on when the came home, washed their makeup off, and then decided to sit outside. Suzie might have wanted a cigarette before bed, or maybe one or both of them was too keyed up (or a little drunk) too sleep. Maybe Stacy borrowed some sweatpants to wear outside.

The only thing I can't figure is how Sherrill's purse would have gotten into the pile with the others and Suzie's overnight bag.

This scenario takes a hit if there was bleach or some other stuff in the drains, but wouldn't we know if there was SOME "signs of foul play" at the scene? That would have tipped the investigation toward abduction/murder from the get-go.

Excellent point. This plays into "Hurricane's" scenario where all the women were rounded up in Suzie's bedroom and promised or enticed to leave the premises unharmed, although I can't imagine what that might be. We have the matter of her vehicle all the way into the carport and the keys in her purse.

Perhaps this could be explained by examining two factors. One would be the matter of the answering machine. What do we really know about that and was there an attempt at obscuring the time line? Secondly it might be explained if one or more of the perp(s) were among the group that went to the home that fateful day. Someone may have placed the purses there deliberately for some unknown reason; dare I say "undoing" the crime?

I really don't have a good explanation about the stacking of the purses. I've always believed it was more likely than not the process of staging the crime scene. But if it was not done by any of the known people who entered the home that day, how did outsiders manage not to leave any DNA, fingerprints or other identifying material behind? Somehow I'm having trouble imagining bumbling burglers and chronic jailbirds being that careful. We know the purses didn't move themselves and we know the keys didn't return themselves to Sherrill's purse. Beats the heck out of me.
 
Excellent point. This plays into "Hurricane's" scenario where all the women were rounded up in Suzie's bedroom and promised or enticed to leave the premises unharmed, although I can't imagine what that might be. We have the matter of her vehicle all the way into the carport and the keys in her purse.

Perhaps this could be explained by examining two factors. One would be the matter of the answering machine. What do we really know about that and was there an attempt at obscuring the time line? Secondly it might be explained if one or more of the perp(s) were among the group that went to the home that fateful day. Someone may have placed the purses there deliberately for some unknown reason; dare I say "undoing" the crime?

I really don't have a good explanation about the stacking of the purses. I've always believed it was more likely than not the process of staging the crime scene. But if it was not done by any of the known people who entered the home that day, how did outsiders manage not to leave any DNA, fingerprints or other identifying material behind? Somehow I'm having trouble imagining bumbling burglers and chronic jailbirds being that careful. We know the purses didn't move themselves and we know the keys didn't return themselves to Sherrill's purse. Beats the heck out of me.

How in the world does Cox being your primary suspect tie in with a perp being in the house the next day? Maybe I'm reading your post the wrong way, but this seems wildly inconsistent.
 
How in the world does Cox being your primary suspect tie in with a perp being in the house the next day? Maybe I'm reading your post the wrong way, but this seems wildly inconsistent.

I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if Cox were to be eliminated, it narrows the suspect list down. Logically, an investigator checks out the alibis of those who last had contact with the victims. knew them or may have some unknown motive. Since we can't say with absolute certainty that Cox did it, and if there is no forensic evidence showing he was in the home, we have to go back to those who we do know were in the home as a first option, should he be eliminated.

In the absence of forensic evidence that Cox was in the home, who had the opportunity to place the purses on the steps? Obviously any of those in the home that day could have done that. Why would they do that? I'd say that would be suspicious; wouldn't you?
 
I'm not saying that. What I am saying is that if Cox were to be eliminated, it narrows the suspect list down. Logically, an investigator checks out the alibis of those who last had contact with the victims. knew them or may have some unknown motive. Since we can't say with absolute certainty that Cox did it, and if there is no forensic evidence showing he was in the home, we have to go back to those who we do know were in the home as a first option, should he be eliminated.

In the absence of forensic evidence that Cox was in the home, who had the opportunity to place the purses on the steps? Obviously any of those in the home that day could have done that. Why would they do that? I'd say that would be suspicious; wouldn't you?

The 18 people who entered the home that day have been cleared as suspects. I understand you don't feel this was done to your satisfaction, but they were investigated and cleared so you shouldn't post as if that didn't happen.
 
The 18 people who entered the home that day have been cleared as suspects. I understand you don't feel this was done to your satisfaction, but they were investigated and cleared so you shouldn't post as if that didn't happen.

You're entitled to your opinion as am I. I'm not satisfied with the time line nor the explanations given. We'll have to agree to disagree.

I don't really understand the "faith" that says the police are incorruptible or incapable of incompetence. It happens all the time. What makes this case any different than numerous other cases? The prisons are full of ex cops who had their palms greased or were on someone's payroll.

Does this sound like an investigation to you? Oh, and BTW, I rechecked this today. I believe this is a highly reliable report.

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"AROUND THE TIME OF THE CRIME, SCREAMS WERE HEARD IN EASTERN GREENE COUNTY. IT WAS REPORTED IN THE MEDIA IN THE EARLY DAYS OF THE INVESTIGATION. WE APPEALED FOR INFORMATION ABOUT IT AND RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM A PROPERTY OWNER WHO TOLD US THEY SAW HEADLIGHTS AND HEARD A WOMAN SCREAMING ON THEIR PROPERTY. THEIR HOUSE IS 1/2 MILE FROM THE ROAD, SO IT WAS TOO FAR TO SEE WHAT WAS GOING ON. THEY CALLED THE COPS BACK THEN,
[/FONT]
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]WITH NO RESPONSE OR VISIT FROM AN INVESTIGATOR.
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]A DISPATCHER TOLD HER THERE WERE A LOT OF PARTIES GOING ON, AND THE HOMEOWNER RE-EMPHASIZED THAT THE SCREAMS WERE [/FONT][FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]BLOOD-CURDLING.
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]AFTER SPEAKING WITH US, THE PROPERTY OWNERS WALKED OUT TO THE SPOT AND THERE THEY FOUND A 5 x 5 FOOT SQUARISH-SHAPED DUG HOLE, WITH SOME DIRT IN A PILE TO ONE SIDE. RECOVERED FROM THE AREA WERE FRAGMENTS OF DENIM-TYPE CLOTH, AND DUCT TAPE. THE DIRT REMAINING IN THE HOLE LOOKS LIKE THE HOLE WAS DUG AND SOMETHING WAS BURIED. THEN, SOME OF THE DIRT WAS DUG OUT AGAIN, AND SOMETHING WAS REMOVED.
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]THE HOLE IS WELL WEATHERED AND FULL OF LEAVES ETC FROM THESE MANY YEARS.
[/FONT]​
[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]LAST WE HEARD, THEY ARE STILL WAITING FOR THE COPS."

http://www.airalex.com/PETITION.html

Cox reportedly had a "kill kit" in his vehicle and surprise, surprise, it included duct tape. Why wasn't this investigated?

Someone please construct an argument how so obvious a clue as duct tape in the middle of a field would be ignored. I can't think of one.

[/FONT]
 
You're entitled to your opinion as am I. I'm not satisfied with the time line nor the explanations given. We'll have to agree to disagree.

You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
The problem is you are never satisfied with any explanation of anything, but you don't offer up any evidence to back it up or you support it with irrelevant quotes or facts.

Case in point:
Your quote about screams in Greene County is totally unrelated to the investigation into the 18 people that entered the house. Cherry picking quotes, and applying them to another aspect of the case altogether isn't proof of anything. All that quote says is that a police dispatcher didn't handle a call very well before anyone even knew a crime of this magnitude occurred.
Implying that somehow proves the police didn't properly investigate the 18 people that entered the crime scene is superfluous and irresponsible. And someone with your background in investigation ought to know better than that.
 
You are absolutely entitled to your opinion.
The problem is you are never satisfied with any explanation of anything, but you don't offer up any evidence to back it up or you support it with irrelevant quotes or facts.

Case in point:
Your quote about screams in Greene County is totally unrelated to the investigation into the 18 people that entered the house. Cherry picking quotes, and applying them to another aspect of the case altogether isn't proof of anything. All that quote says is that a police dispatcher didn't handle a call very well before anyone even knew a crime of this magnitude occurred.

Implying that somehow proves the police didn't properly investigate the 18 people that entered the crime scene is superfluous and irresponsible. And someone with your background in investigation ought to know better than that.

Let me say this. I followed this case from early in the investigation to the current time. That scream on the outskirts of the Springfield was reported very early in the investigation but according to the actual property owners was never even investigated with so much as a telephone call.

As to the 18 people, we ALREADY know that the Chief of Police took it upon himself to exonerate viable suspects on his own judgment without proper vetting. Why should I or anyone believe anything they have to say? How many times do I have to repeat that when I reported an identical van to the department that NO interest was given it? Does that sound like an investigation to you? Explain that to me please.

Yes, I do have 30 years of investigative experience. The ONE thing I learned in those 30 years and which I practice even today is never to take anything for granted. Assuming anything is a very dangerous and highly costly practice to fall into. Ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff.

BTW, I'm not under any obligation to offer up any evidence. I'm not with the police department. And I'm not in a position to find any as I have no police powers to investigate. I am just an ordinary American citizen who expects professionals in the police departments to honor their pledges to "protect and serve." I don't believe that is too much to ask. And just like "Joe Friday" used to say, "Just the facts." I'm looking at the facts and when facts are obviously ignored anyone should be equally concerned.

What we have here is analogous to a baseball manager who has managed for 17 years without a success. At what point does the manager get fired and new management be brought in, like a proven crime organization, the Missouri Highway Patrol. It took them but one month to solve a 20 year old crime in the Ozarks. It may take them less time to solve this case if only given the chance.

And let me add one other thing since you have chosen to make this personal. It is not irresponsible to ask questions or expect the police department to act professionally. They are not to be put on some pedestal as though they are beyond reproach. If they can't handle the heat they should get out of the kitchen to quote Harry Truman.
 
Let me say this. I followed this case from early in the investigation to the current time. That scream on the outskirts of the Springfield was reported very early in the investigation but according to the actual property owners was never even investigated with so much as a telephone call.

As to the 18 people, we ALREADY know that the Chief of Police took it upon himself to exonerate viable suspects on his own judgment without proper vetting. Why should I or anyone believe anything they have to say? How many times do I have to repeat that when I reported an identical van to the department that NO interest was given it? Does that sound like an investigation to you? Explain that to me please.

Yes, I do have 30 years of investigative experience. The ONE thing I learned in those 30 years and which I practice even today is never to take anything for granted. Assuming anything is a very dangerous and highly costly practice to fall into. Ask anyone who invested with Bernie Madoff.

BTW, I'm not under any obligation to offer up any evidence. I'm not with the police department. And I'm not in a position to find any as I have no police powers to investigate. I am just an ordinary American citizen who expects professionals in the police departments to honor their pledges to "protect and serve." I don't believe that is too much to ask. And just like "Joe Friday" used to say, "Just the facts." I'm looking at the facts and when facts are obviously ignored anyone should be equally concerned.

What we have here is analogous to a baseball manager who has managed for 17 years without a success. At what point does the manager get fired and new management be brought in, like a proven crime organization, the Missouri Highway Patrol. It took them but one month to solve a 20 year old crime in the Ozarks. It may take them less time to solve this case if only given the chance.

We are getting off topic here.
If you want to quote Joe Friday, then you should be more accepting of the facts that we do have.
And the fact is that those 18 people were investigated and cleared. To imply they weren't is irresponsible.
If you think they somehow tie to Cox, I'd like to know what points to that.
If not and it's just a matter of you thinking some one or more of those 18 might be involved I'd be curious to know who and why, but that would be a discussion for the main board.
 
And let me add one other thing since you have chosen to make this personal. It is not irresponsible to ask questions or expect the police department to act professionally. They are not to be put on some pedestal as though they are beyond reproach. If they can't handle the heat they should get out of the kitchen to quote Harry Truman.

I'm sorry if you feel this is personal, it's not. But you spend so much time tooting your own horn about being an investigator and you have all this experience and inside knowledge of which you can't share or divulge so that when you play fast and loose with the facts it has to be noted.
If you are going to talk so much about yourself and experience you too should be able to handle the heat.

Nobody is putting the police on a pedestal. You have intermittently accused them of ineptitude and corruption without any real proof of that.
I completely disagree, and am just as free to offer a defense of that as you are to say it in the first place.
If you take that as personal maybe you are placing too much emphasis on yourself, and I'm sorry you feel that way.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
97
Guests online
811
Total visitors
908

Forum statistics

Threads
589,927
Messages
17,927,758
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top