The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5

Status
Not open for further replies.
A few points:
1) We know that there was no sign of forced entry but do we (sleuthers) know if any means of entry to the house (doors, windows etc) were unlocked other than the front door? I would assume that if any means of entry or exit were used during the "event", no effort would have been made to lock it again. I would think that if the front door was the only means of entry that was unlocked the next day that would have been the only one used. The Case File would certainly have this information.

2) My understanding is that the "globe" was broken but the light bulb was still intact and was "on" the next morning. What we do not know (because the glass had been cleaned up) is whether it had been broken by someone trying to get at the light bulb to turn if off by unscrewing it or if it was broken during a struggle or by someone carrying something out of the house.

3) There have been several references to a bare footprint, believed to be Stacy’s that either was in the living room pointing towards the front door or the porch pointing away from the door. (I believe the former but I may be wrong). Either way, the significance of it was that it seemed to indicate that Stacy left the house through the front door on her own volition while barefoot. I am not aware that there was any evidence that she had cut her foot on glass from the light.

4) I am not aware that any DNA was ever tested. At the time (1992) only bodily fluid type samples would have been used. Apparently there were no suspicious fingerprints but we don’t know what they found. If there were lots of useable prints but none belong to any "unknowns". It would suggest that the perps spent very little time there while evidence of selective "wiping" would tell us something else again. It is possible that so many people in and out during the day hopelessly corrupted the scene.

5) Any serious struggle between three woman and one or more men would leave some sort of evidence. (Whether it was inside the house or outside) The fact that there was no indication of any struggle suggests that the perp(s) was able to establish control very quickly and easily. This would suggest confidence, planning or criminal sophistication and very likely a firearm. (I suppose any "mess" could have been cleaned up, but why?)

If anyone can correct or elaborate on the above, please do. We all need to get our facts straight.

For #3: I think that it has been assumed the footprint was a bloody footprint because the footprint was attributed to Stacy and the only way to verify that it was her footprint would be through DNA. But we still don't know if this is true or not, so I am not sure about any of it. I suppose there could have been a dirty or muddy footprint from someone being in the yard (I am not sure when the last rain event had happened so I don't know if this could even be the case) and there was enough of a print to be able to size the foot (like in the O.J. case). If each of the three women wore a different size shoe, it would be evident whose footprint it was. I'd also like to add that if it was a muddy footprint, then it means that we still don't know if Stacy ever exited the front door where the broken glass was...

These are just my thoughts and opinions and not fact.
 
While we're on the topic of forensic evidence, here's something I've always wondered about......Did police do any ferensic tests looking for various tire tracks, and shoe or bare foot prints in the area where the van would have been up by or under the carport....as well as the rest of the driveway? I also wonder if they did tests on the seat placement of all off the women's cars to varifly that they were the last ones to have been driving their cars. I've also wondered how deep they searched in the yard and behind and under the buses looking for discarded cigerettes, poss. not easliy seen blood trace evidence that may have gone unnoticed if they didn't look at the yard closely. Just some thoughts. I've always thought at th very least they would be able to have pulled all the tire prints off the driveway and compaired them to all the known vehicles that had been at the house prior to the police being called, and seen if there were any that didn't fit that criteria, thus creating a suspect tire track that can me investigated or at least logged as evidence, and possibley used later if a vehicle in quistion ever surfaces for comparison. I know that the retrival of tire prints off of pavements couldn't have been a miricle of ferensics for that time period, they shouldn't have had any problems acoomplishing this. The MSHP and FBI were involved......Im sure they had to have thought of checking for the tire prints in the driveway, as well as shoe prints on the conceret. It would just be nice to beable to know what the findings of those tests were.
 
Hummmwhoknows, I have asked the waterbed delivery question for over a year and no one has answered it, I would like to know the answers to these questions too, anyone? I have often wondered if the van was a work van used in such things as deliveries, lawn service? Its worth looking into.
 
I’d like to know if I have the following straight.

1) Robert Cox, Gerald Carnahan, and Stephen Garrison served at the same time in the same prison facility? and were also out and living in Springfield at the time of the 3MW crime? If they did not already know each other and this is true, what is the first thing you talk about when you meet someone for the first time? Where you’re from, your age…They would have a lot in common to quickly become buddies.

2) In letters to the News-Leader, Cox references someone believed to be Garrison? I have not read these letters and would like to. The links to the letters in the media links post send me to the News-Leader’s home page. Can someone please help me access the letters?

3) Cox worked for City Utilities at that time and was a utility locater in south-central Springfield—the same neighborhood as 1717 Delmar? Also, did he work outside this specific house?

4) Robert Cox’s parents with whom he visited or lived (not sure about this either) were in the same neighborhood or less than a mile away? I understand Cox has said he knows the women were killed and buried within a mile from where they were abducted.

5) An eye witness sketch of a man seen near the house that prior week looks very similar to Garrison?

6) Sheryl had recently dated Carnahan? Even if this is a rumor, did it come from a relative, friend or coworker who would likely know? And Carnahan was at least one of Sheryl’s customers at her hair salon? This has been asked about recently, but has been mentioned in older posts as well.

7) Garrison or someone with ties to Carnahan was a security officer at Cox Hospital? I’m not finding that in my notes now and cannot remember where I read this. I understand there have been tips leading to this property as a possible burial site and they have not all come from psychics.

I still think it’s likely the girls with or without Sheryl stopped by George’s Steakhouse after the parties and were noticed and stalked by someone. Georges was the only open 24hrs restaurant in the area and right up the street from 1717. Not so much anymore, but at the time, George’s was a major social hub for up-all-night college students and the after bar closings crowd. I too graduated in 1992 and lived in that neighborhood. I remember the Springfield culture of that time and age group.

I appreciate any clarification on the above. I feel so badly for these women and their families and wish we had answers and justice.
 
Hi, Esperanza, For a long time, the letters were on the News-Leader website,mwhich were available on our media links thread. Don't be surprised if the links don't work, though. You might also check Bartt's blog.

Hi, MM. You guys are having a great discussion. I want to think it is unlikely that any of the women would have opened a door in the middle of the night to someone they don't know, but then I ask myself what I would do if someone kno ked on the door and said something plausible. I've thought about the dog; LE suggested that the perps might have claimed to have found the dog, but all it would take would be to see Suzie let the dog out before she went to bed and then wait until she let the dog back in--or just walk in the unlocked door. Same deal if Stacy walks out to her car (barefoot) for something. It's a great observation about the forensic evidence--either there was evidence and the herd of people obliterated it, or the perps were either lucky or good, or they were never in e house. I've always thought that the piled up purses pointed to the abductors being inside, especially since Stacy was likely to keep her purse with her because of her meds. But who knows They could have been moved my anyone who walked in the open door.
 
Unfortunately, I believe Bartt pulled down all his blog sites and the links probably are broken. It is possible that a google search might turn them up and readable in the cached section.

Cox, Garrison, and Carnahan were not in the same facility. It appears to me that Cox was referring to Garrison. At some point, the words used by both Cox and Garrison were nearly identical. I suspect they knew one another. I have hard copies of his letters.

I believe that it has been asserted that Carnahan and Sherrill were on the same cruise together but there is no evidence I have seen that links them in any manner.

Since we learned recently that the dog had a "doggy door" to come and go I am wondering if it led to a fenced yard in the back and to the side of the house. It seems unlikely the dog would have been allowed to run loose in the neighborhood. Perhaps someone who has been to the house can speak to the subject.

On the purses, I wonder if they weren't moved by the people who came later. There seems to be some question about this since I have read somewhere that items were "rolling" out of the purses. Perhaps the purses were searched prior to the police arrived and simply stacked up. I'm thinking the perps didn't go into the house at any time.

I'm thinking that if the van were pulled into the driveway and just had its motor idling and perhaps a "beep" on the horn, it led to Suzie cracking the blinds. She is wondering and goes to ask Sherrill who in turn goes to the door, opens it to inquire and then she and in turn Suzie are taken. That is where I think Stacy believes there is danger and attempts to escape to the side and rear of the house explaining her lack of clothing. Unfortunately I don't believe there was an exit to the rear of the property so she had no choice but to come back to the front of the house to attempt to escape but was also taken.

We need someone to tell us exactly what the layout of the house, yard and fences were. At this point I think it is pure speculation.

I think the George's sighting is unlikely due to timeline constraints and lack of corroboration by others in the restaurant.

Carnahan was not a security officer at Cox. SPD officers were allowed to work off-duty to supplement their income. I doubt any connection.

Garrison with a full beard does not appear to my eye to resemble the sketch of the mystery man seen prior to the abduction.
 
Kathee, please if you could answer one more thing for me for the rest of your life, can you please answer my question:

Were there any males that were known to have been at the 1717 house since Sherrill bought it to the abduction? And who were they?

Also do you know if they hired anyone to do lawn service? Waterbed delivery guys? Moving men?
 
Unfortunately, I believe Bartt pulled down all his blog sites and the links probably are broken. It is possible that a google search might turn them up and readable in the cached section.

Cox, Garrison, and Carnahan were not in the same facility. It appears to me that Cox was referring to Garrison. At some point, the words used by both Cox and Garrison were nearly identical. I suspect they knew one another. I have hard copies of his letters.

I believe that it has been asserted that Carnahan and Sherrill were on the same cruise together but there is no evidence I have seen that links them in any manner.

Since we learned recently that the dog had a "doggy door" to come and go I am wondering if it led to a fenced yard in the back and to the side of the house. It seems unlikely the dog would have been allowed to run loose in the neighborhood. Perhaps someone who has been to the house can speak to the subject.

On the purses, I wonder if they weren't moved by the people who came later. There seems to be some question about this since I have read somewhere that items were "rolling" out of the purses. Perhaps the purses were searched prior to the police arrived and simply stacked up. I'm thinking the perps didn't go into the house at any time.

I'm thinking that if the van were pulled into the driveway and just had its motor idling and perhaps a "beep" on the horn, it led to Suzie cracking the blinds. She is wondering and goes to ask Sherrill who in turn goes to the door, opens it to inquire and then she and in turn Suzie are taken. That is where I think Stacy believes there is danger and attempts to escape to the side and rear of the house explaining her lack of clothing. Unfortunately I don't believe there was an exit to the rear of the property so she had no choice but to come back to the front of the house to attempt to escape but was also taken.

We need someone to tell us exactly what the layout of the house, yard and fences were. At this point I think it is pure speculation.

I think the George's sighting is unlikely due to timeline constraints and lack of corroboration by others in the restaurant.

Carnahan was not a security officer at Cox. SPD officers were allowed to work off-duty to supplement their income. I doubt any connection.

Garrison with a full beard does not appear to my eye to resemble the sketch of the mystery man seen prior to the abduction.

I also want to add that I think it is highly probable that Sherrill knew that she would be going outside. I think this is why the shoes were messed up in her closet. It shows that she quickly grabbed some shoes to put on to go outside.

Stacy didn't have time to do that, and I believe that Suzie also didn't have time to do that. So this makes me wonder if Sherrill went outside first to investigate a noise.

Most of us wouldn't put our shoes on to answer the front door, but we would if we thought we needed to go outside. I also don't think Sherrill would have taken the time to find her shoes and put them on if she knew that one of the girls was being attacked.

I am not sure where I am going with this, but it has been a nagging thought of mine for a couple of days now.

Just my thoughts and speculation (again).
 
I also want to add that I think it is highly probable that Sherrill knew that she would be going outside. I think this is why the shoes were messed up in her closet. It shows that she quickly grabbed some shoes to put on to go outside.

Stacy didn't have time to do that, and I believe that Suzie also didn't have time to do that. So this makes me wonder if Sherrill went outside first to investigate a noise.

Most of us wouldn't put our shoes on to answer the front door, but we would if we thought we needed to go outside. I also don't think Sherrill would have taken the time to find her shoes and put them on if she knew that one of the girls was being attacked.

I am not sure where I am going with this, but it has been a nagging thought of mine for a couple of days now.

Just my thoughts and speculation (again).

Makes perfect sense to me. Good thoughts! That would tie up the loose end about the shoes. Sherrill was likely the person to open the door first. She could have been annoyed that some "kids" were over there to get Suzie to come on out (or so she thought) and she was going to give them a piece of her mind. Unfortunately it appears possible she fell into their trap not realizing they were not her classmates and had nefarious things in mind she couldn't have imagined at the time.
 
Makes perfect sense to me. Good thoughts! That would tie up the loose end about the shoes. Sherrill was likely the person to open the door first. She could have been annoyed that some "kids" were over there to get Suzie to come on out (or so she thought) and she was going to give them a piece of her mind. Unfortunately it appears possible she fell into their trap not realizing they were not her classmates and had nefarious things in mind she couldn't have imagined at the time.

The only problem with that theory is that, do you really think that Sherrills closet would have become that noticeably discombobulated/disorganized due to one random event of her quickly searching for a pair of shoes.

And, wouldn't you think that she would have reached for the shoes or house slippers she had been wearing last, prior to her climbing into bed, where it is assumed that Sherrill had been at the time of the start of the abduction.

I'd say it is more likely that:

1.) Sherrills closet was just naturally cluttered.

2.) Someone had gone through the closet looking for something.

-OR_

3.) Someone had hidden in the closet at some point....either Perp. or Victim.
 
The only problem with that theory is that, do you really think that Sherrills closet would have become that noticeably discombobulated/disorganized due to one random event of her quickly searching for a pair of shoes.

And, wouldn't you think that she would have reached for the shoes or house slippers she had been wearing last, prior to her climbing into bed, where it is assumed that Sherrill had been at the time of the start of the abduction.

I'd say it is more likely that:

1.) Sherrills closet was just naturally cluttered.

2.) Someone had gone through the closet looking for something.

-OR_

3.) Someone had hidden in the closet at some point....either Perp. or Victim.

I suppose that anything is possible but I go back to the lack of forensic evidence from people known not to have had a legitimate reason to have been in the home at any time. The alternative is that the forensic folks did not do a very good job because of all of the places in the home that was the least likely to have been disturbed by those known to be in the home especially being her bedroom. The forensic folks spoke upon leaving that they hoped Sherrill would be upset with them for doing such a thorough job. I'll take them at their word.

We don't really know the condition of her closet as we have never seen any photographic evidence of the condition of the closet. If the shoes were scattered everywhere, then I would surmise that someone was going through her shoes. But as speaking as someone whose home was burgled in Springfield, burglars do not normally straighten up after they have been there. For all we know a couple of pair of shoes were not in their regular place and that was the extent of it. Perhaps she was looking for a specific pair of shoes to go outside as she merely had her house slippers by her bed and she wanted something more substantial. There is no further information given by the police that I am aware. I go back to the lack of forensic evidence. Absence of any leads me to believe any disorganization of her shoes was by her own hand. But that is just my personal opinion. I don't know.
 
Accounts I have read describe the house as basically neat except for Sherrill's closet where the shoes were described as "scattered". Pictures of the house suggest that it was basically neat and orderly but evidence of having been lived in (as one might expect if 18 people had been in and out that day). The specific reference to the closet being an exception to the rest of the house suggests that the "scatter" might have been connected to the abduction. This raises all kinds of questions but, since we don't have pictures or any description of this scatter, it is hard to speculate.

If the “scatter” indicated either the possibility that someone had been hiding in the closet OR someone was looking for something in the closet, it would tell us a lot.

My ex-wife kept the house looking “perfect” but threw things into the closet (and drawers and cupboards) pretty much at random. That was her housekeeping “style”. Maybe that was Sherrill’s as well.
 
Accounts I have read describe the house as basically neat except for Sherrill's closet where the shoes were described as "scattered". Pictures of the house suggest that it was basically neat and orderly but evidence of having been lived in (as one might expect if 18 people had been in and out that day). The specific reference to the closet being an exception to the rest of the house suggests that the "scatter" might have been connected to the abduction. This raises all kinds of questions but, since we don't have pictures or any description of this scatter, it is hard to speculate.

If the “scatter” indicated either the possibility that someone had been hiding in the closet OR someone was looking for something in the closet, it would tell us a lot.

My ex-wife kept the house looking “perfect” but threw things into the closet (and drawers and cupboards) pretty much at random. That was her housekeeping “style”. Maybe that was Sherrill’s as well.

I certainly would agree that if someone had been hiding in the closet or looking for something in the closet it would tell us a lot in that it would show someone unfriendly was up to no good. But the problem as I see it is that there was no forensic evidence we have ever been told of that anyone else other than those known to be in the house that day (or previously known to be in the house) was found in the home.

Let me put it differently. If the forensic crew was totally competent and complete, the previous occupant should have left some of her DNA or other material behind as would be expected. For example, we moved into this house about three months or so ago. I would bet my life that the previous owner would have something left behind to link to that person even though we have vacuumed as thoroughly as we could and cleaned every nook and cranny. If the previous occupant of Sherrill Levitt's home could be identified, as I believe she was (likely), then certainly more recent DNA, hair, prints, etc., would certainly have been found on the shoes and around the shoes. If it were someone unknown to that house they could not possibly and credibly argue that their DNA, etc., was in that home, except by illegal means. They would have immediately been suspect #1, 2, etc., especially if it were linked to the GJ3.

Now it is not impossible that this is what did link them to the home. And perhaps this is why they were the subjects of the grand jury. But it begs the question. Why weren't they indicted? It seems to me that would have been a slam dunk. Would you disagree?
 
In 1992 DNA was only beginning to be used. There was no way to test for "touch" (or "trace")DNA which has only been used in the last 5 years or so. If no "bodily fluids" such as blood, semen, or saliva was found, probably no DNA testing was done.

The existence of fingerprints proves someone was there; the lack of prints doesn't prove the opposite. It is quite common for no useable prints to be found at a crime scene. There are many reasons why touching a particular surface does not leave a useable print. Overlapping prints, smeared prints, rough surfaces, oil or soap or other contaminates on surface are just a few.

Hair comparison is pretty much "junk" science. Everyone has multiple "types" of hair; different colors, different thicknesses, etc and it is very common for two people to have strands of hair that are "indistinguishable". Finding a hair that is "indistinguishable"from that of a particular suspect is comprable to having a witness who saw someone "about the same height".

 
I wish to amend my post #572 where I said the "porch lady's" account could only be true if just one perp was involved. I was simply wrong. What could have explained more than one perp was involved is if we go on the GJ3 theory, it helps to understand that they were just out of prison, convicted felons, and the mere possession of a handgun would have sent them immediately back to prison since they would have broken their parole. Being caught on abduction and assault would undoubtedly have sent them back as well but not until after a new trial was held. The gun charges were a go directly to jail and do not collect $200 certainty. They would have had to physically restrain the women and that would have required two additional people.

Therefore they may have been unarmed and in the back subduing both Sherrill and Suzie. So I was wrong to make the assumption it required a single perpetrator. Alternatively it might have been. Neither scenario can be ruled out.
 
Going to post this YET AGAIN.

Kathee, TG, Hurricane, anyone, Do you guys have a list of all of the males that had access or came to the house from when the home was purchased to the abduction?

Moving men? (Who moved Mama and Daughter's stuff???)
Waterbed delivery guys?
Lawn service men?
Cleaning men?
 
Accounts I have read describe the house as basically neat except for Sherrill's closet where the shoes were described as "scattered". Pictures of the house suggest that it was basically neat and orderly but evidence of having been lived in (as one might expect if 18 people had been in and out that day). The specific reference to the closet being an exception to the rest of the house suggests that the "scatter" might have been connected to the abduction. This raises all kinds of questions but, since we don't have pictures or any description of this scatter, it is hard to speculate.

If the “scatter” indicated either the possibility that someone had been hiding in the closet OR someone was looking for something in the closet, it would tell us a lot.

My ex-wife kept the house looking “perfect” but threw things into the closet (and drawers and cupboards) pretty much at random. That was her housekeeping “style”. Maybe that was Sherrill’s as well.

Just going on the theory that the perps did not enter the house, I feel as though Sherrill most likely rummaged through her shoes quickly to find
slip-ons that she could wear outside.

I understand that people have their own ways of staying neat and tidy (my closets look horrible, but the rest of my house is pretty much kept neat and tidy even with two sons), but Sherrill was a cosmetologist, right? All of my friends who were big (and by big I mean that it was their #1 priority) on fashion and make up made sure that their clothes and especially their shoes were in perfect order :) I think that Sherrill might have been the same way, but that is just conjecture of course.

If the perps did not enter the house, I don't think anyone was hiding in that closet because they wouldn't need to hide in the closet. If the perps did come into the house, that is a different story...but there was no sign of struggle IN the house and the only sign of anything happening is outside the house.

Just speculation, not facts.
 
This thread seems to have died. Let me throw out something which I have to wonder about. See what you think.

Stacy did not have an overnight bag. Suzie did. That would mean that Stacy would necessarily have had to come home to her parent's home to get one. It is inconceivable she would have traveled to Branson and the water park clad only in her street clothing from the day before but without a bathing suit and clean, dry clothing, makeup, etc.

Her family reportedly went to the miniature boat races, as scheduled, that afternoon (time is unknown) without hearing anything from Stacy since the previous evening at about 11 PM. Mrs. McCall first became aware that Stacy had not stayed at Jannelle's home as planned at about 10:30 AM Sunday morning when she called Jannelle's home. The reports were that Mr. McCall stated in one article that Stacy had permission to be at Jannelle's home but not in the Levitt home. I'm not entirely sure what that is supposed to mean.

I don't understand this. Can someone help me out?
 
Mule,
I recall reading some interview with Mrs. McCall where she made a real point of saying that she had not given Stacy Permission to stay at Suzie's house. The implication was that she never would have allowed her to stay there; presumably because she didn't feel comfortable with the people Suzie and Sherrill associated with. I got the impression that the McCalls considered themselves of high Social Class than the Sherrill and Suzie and were convinced that what happened that night involved the sketchy characters that traveled in their circle.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
2,520
Total visitors
2,717

Forum statistics

Threads
589,955
Messages
17,928,293
Members
228,017
Latest member
SashaRhea82
Back
Top