pittsburghgirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 30, 2005
- Messages
- 3,520
- Reaction score
- 8,864
The DUI? I am having a hard time making any connection, or thinking how to find out more.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where did the call come from during "America's Most Wanted" program? The DUI is not in and of itself necessarily significant but it indicates a troubled individual. And I don't know of anyone else who has a daily count of the number of days they have been gone as was posted on another website.pittsburghgirl said:The DUI? I am having a hard time making any connection, or thinking how to find out more.
I agree completely.liz325 said:That's right, the call to AMW came from Florida and it would make sense why the call was disconnected if the caller had second thoughts and hung up...and also why they never called back. I saw the DUI and lawsuit too but can't make a connection either about what the motive might have been for this person to be involved. I agree he sounds like a disturbed individual. But I can't come up with the motive.
pittsburghgirl, I think I read somewhere that it was Debbie Schwartz, Sherrill Levitt's sister who had them declared dead but I am not absolutely sure about that.
I would certainly be interested in reading that lawsuit. If you happen to come up with any details or a link, please post. It should be public information. Offhand, I don't know how to get to it, short of going to the courthouse in Florida and asking to see it. And I'm a fer piece from there.pittsburghgirl said:The question that comes to my mind is: who had Sherrill and Suzanne declared dead 5 years after they disappeared? And why? The point of having someone declared dead is usually to settle some estate business or claim some property like insurance.
I tried googling the individuals listed in the Charley Project article, but only turned up a recent law suit in Florida. I couldn't get into Lexis-Nexis tonight so that is as far as I got.
Missouri Mule said:Where did the call come from during "America's Most Wanted" program? The DUI is not in and of itself necessarily significant but it indicates a troubled individual. And I don't know of anyone else who has a daily count of the number of days they have been gone as was posted on another website.
The thing to concentrate on here is the motive. Ultimately I am convinced that is the key to the case.
Impressive post. You'd make a good investigator yourself. That's what I did for 30 years (but not in law enforcement) and was there in Springfield shortly after the abduction. To answer some questions you pose...pittsburghgirl said:Duh. I tell my students all the time that in research, you dont look just at the content, you look at the patterns and connections and gaps. I had forgotten that the AMW call came from Florida. (And, by the way, does anyone recall a source for that? The Charley Project article just references a call without specifying where it came from.) And I will do some research on the court case next week when I can access Lexis-Nexis, I promise.
You inspired me to re-read the thread and all the pertinent linked materials. In terms of motive, I found this statement in a News-Leader article: Officers say key suspects who investigators believed had a motive to abduct the women were ruled out by the police chief himself. OK. So that tells us that the investigators, at least, had key suspects with a motive. (And clearly, based on what the News-Leader says, you are right about the need for a clean start here; the investigation didnt proceed from following leads and developing evidence. Never mind why that happened; the point now would be to start over and sort out what is there.) So your questions about how key suspects with a motive were cleared is at the heart of the matter.
Next observation: The abductions occurred on the girls graduation night. The News-Leader tells us that only Sherrill attended Suzies graduation. Now, that raises some questions. Certainly, Sherrills family (sister, father, uncle and presumably others) lived at some distance from Missouri and any number of factors might prevent them from attendingmoney, health, even family custom. But where was her older brother Bartt?? In a family of three, a high school graduation might be the kind of event you just wouldnt miss. Note that Suzie planned to go to beauty school as her mother did, not college, so this would have been a big milestone, THE graduation. Related question: I havent seen any comments in news articles from Bartt. Has anyone else seen anything? One would think he would take a lead role in pushing for resolution and answers on this case. His whole family had disappeared. There is coverage about and comments from Stacys parents, Sherrills sister, and her father and uncle. At the very least, reporters as good as that one with the News-Leader should have been turning the world upside down to find Bartt to get his reaction. And for that matter, the father and stepfather. The father appears to have dropped out of their lives entirely, and evidently Sherrill was trying unsuccessfully to find her ex Don Levitt because his creditors were after her to pay his debts.
That brings us to money. Sherrill had a nice client base and probably did well enough to manage as a single mother. She apparently also had good sense, since she had just moved into a smaller house as a result of the divorce. Did she rent that house? The News-Leader article didnt say she bought it.
Stranger vs. Familiar attacker: The window for the abduction is fairly narrow. The one citation I could find was that the girls got to the house around 2:15. Janelle started calling around 7:30 and got no response. So there was about 5 hours, but in reality probably less, because people start stirring around by 5:30 or 6 (newspaper delivery, people going to work, early risers.) Because the girls were ready for bed, but there weren't signs they were in bed, it's likely to be even smaller because they were supposed to meet Janelle so early. Given teenage girls, say between 2:30 and 4:30. That's a guess, but it makes sense to me.
If they were all three in the house when the trouble started, that would mean a random attacker would be breaking into a house with three cars visible outside, on a graduation night when he couldnt be sure that Sherrill didnt have a partner/friend staying over. How would a stranger know how many people were in the house? Why wouldnt a stranger get the dog out of the way, either by letting it out or shutting it into a room or disabling it? Three upset women and a yappy dog would be a lot for even two assailants to handle. So I think either Sherrill or Suzie had to know the attacker(s).
The Front Door: One News-Leader article describes Janelle as opening the front door a crack to see if Sherrill or the girls was inside. So either she found the door open (i.e., unlocked) or knew where there was a key. Either would be very interesting. If the door was unlocked, who unlocked it? Did the girls forget to lock it when they got in? Did they lock it, but later someone opened it to let a familiar person inside? Or did someone know where a key was hidden outside?
Other reasons I think they knew the killer: If the motive was stranger rape or multiple murder, that could have happened at the house. A stranger would multiply risks by transporting 3 grown female rape victims, whether alive or deadand as I say above, it was clear that more than one person was home. The motive clearly wasnt robbery. The personality, if you will, of this event is orderly and methodical and oddly respectful of property. The shattered porch globe was likely something that happened at the last moment, perhaps when someone was being carried out to a vehicle. Breaking the globe would have made noise and he/they might not have had time to clean it up. And of course, the dog was alive and well and running loose in the house. Since nothing was missing but the women, the motive had to require making at least one or all of them disappear without signs of violence. She had something he/they wanted, or knew something, or stood in the way of something. And maybe the killer(s) needed a window of time before the bodies would be discovered for some reason--to fabricate alibis and/or to make sure that the bodies would never be found.
If drugs were involved, there would have to be a whole lot of money in it for a group to risk abducting three people from a nice residential neighborhood in a town, transporting them somewhere, murdering them and disposing of them without being seen--in a small town that would certainly get turned upside down when these 3 were found to be missing. The drug dealers I read about in the paper just shoot each other and leave the bodies behind. The crack epidemic started around 1985 and was in full swing into the early 90s. Now, crackheads would be cognitively and rationally and emotionally impaired enought to cook up a stupid plan and then fail to abort the mission when something unexpected happened. But it is hard for me to see Sherrill or Suzie involved in crack.
Questions: Was the door locked? Was there an outside key? Did she own the house or rent it? Who were the last occupants? Where were Sherrill and Suzies male relatives? Why wasn't Bartt at the graduation? Who were the two suspects seen being polygraphed? Who were the key suspects cleared by the police chief? How were they cleared? And why did the investigators think they had a motive to abduct or kill these women? And if the motive was money, where would it have come from, since clearly Sherrills ex wasnt a Donald Trump type and she was a hair stylist who had just moved to a smaller house to economize?
Forgive the long post. As a newbie to this case, I hope I am not just rehashing old ground. On some threads, I see complaints about that. But I am starting to agree with Missouri Mule that the facts needed to clear this thing are already there.
And liz, thanks so much for posting all the links to the News-Leader articles. I had to go back and forth so much I finally bookmarked them. Thanks too for the info on the family having to close Sherrill's estate. Did she, in fact, own the home?
Yes. Some of which I know from personal knowledge but also what I have been told by credible sources. And I hate to be coy about it but I cannot say more. I really can't. With any luck the truth will eventually be known and the pieces will all fit together nicely. But that is by no means a certainty unless the case is solved. And that's anyone's guess. You cannot imagine how frustrating this has been for everyone; most especially the families.laini said:This is all very interesting. Missourri Mule, what do you believe the motive was? Do you know more but can't say? I am confused.
thanks
I don't believe it was a prank and I don't believe anyone ought to be invited to join the discussion here unless it is of their own free will. Anyone with internet access should have been able to find this site as I did myself. I just had long ago given up on the case for numerous reasons, which I won't go into here.Jade said:Ok, from the guest book it appears that the rumor was that Bartt was expelled from the home for his drug use. Bartt has two posts expressing his grief and denouncing the website but doesnt confirm, deny or convey any theories. Bartt does list his email address and invites correspondence perhaps should be invited to join this discussion?
Maybe a prank but another guest book entry is someone claiming to have witnessed the crime.
The RC victim family member is from Florida as was the disconnected call ?
Wondering about the ex husband/ step father because he would seem to have financial motive ..
IMO the perp would not have to be some one known to the girls if he/she had a gun. D. Radars victims cooperated because he assured them they would be ok if they did. Now we know to fight the perp before being abducted and the odds for survival plummet.
Questions:
*How is it known that the cars in the driveway had been moved?
*Whose pictures were in the empty frames? It must be known that they contained pictures or it could be assumed they were empty to start with.
Thank you in advance for reading and replying.
If I still had my copy of the "48 hours" tape I would send it to you. Unfortunately I packed up about four pounds of material including the tape and shipped it off to a nationally syndicated columnist a number of years ago as her own housekeeper had suddenly dissappeared and never to be found. I never heard anything further. I also had all of the newspaper clippings. I had simply burnt out on the case. I would at one time have given my right arm to have investigated the case. I would have worked for free.Jade said:Thank you M. Mule for your reply.
Follow the money hmmm apparently Sherrill made good money at the salon .
I sure hope someone followed up on the poster claiming to have witnessed the crime.
You are right about Bartt being able to find us on his own. I have come here since the Laci case and it seems like a little family so I forget how attainable the site is.
It may be a red herring but I find the empty picture frames fascinating.
http://unsolvedblog.com/archives/25
A crime blog suggests that the light fixture was broken so Sherrill or who ever came to the door could not see who was there. A poster on the site says the rumor was a family member did it. Another poster tells a chilling tale of an attempted abduction by two men in a van a few weeks after.
Wish I had seen the 48 Hours. Maybe I can find a transcript.
Missouri Mule said:Yes. Some of which I know from personal knowledge but also what I have been told by credible sources. And I hate to be coy about it but I cannot say more. I really can't. With any luck the truth will eventually be known and the pieces will all fit together nicely. But that is by no means a certainty unless the case is solved. And that's anyone's guess. You cannot imagine how frustrating this has been for everyone; most especially the families.
My belief of the motive: Remember Watergate's admonition. Follow the money.
Unless I am greatly mistaken about the links, this is only a small smattering of the total number of news articles that dominated the newspaper and television news of that year. I would estimate there were perhaps 50-60 in all. A person wishing to read them all will probably have to go to the reference room of the Springfield library. The reference room is in the lower level and the articles will probably be on microfiche. If someone here is nearby the library perhaps he or she might wish to review the articles and report back to the folks here. I'm too far away to go or I would go myself to rereview the material. I wish I had retained the articles but as I said, I passed them along years ago along with the tape. I supposed I might contact the columnist and see whether she still has the items. That just now occurred to me. We've communicated via e-mail several times. I might do that. But meanwhile anyone else could read the newspaper articles at the library. It is quite extensive. Note: I just sent the columnist an e-mail and will advise if she responds affirmatively.liz325 said:{And liz, thanks so much for posting all the links to the News-Leader articles. I had to go back and forth so much I finally bookmarked them. Thanks too for the info on the family having to close Sherrill's estate. Did she, in fact, own the home?}
pittsburghgirl, you're welcome...I have been interested in this case for about the past 3 years now. I usually check once every 1 or 2 weeks for new info but Missouri Mule has got me thinking about it all the time now!
Regarding the motive: If it wasn't drugs and it wasn't money it seems that it almost had to be something personal possibly regarding a family member. I'm almost positive that they knew their abductor (s) too. The entry in the guestbook at airalex.com regarding Bartt being thrown out of the house for drug use was the first I had heard that. The only thing I remember reading about him in the News-Leader articles was that he had been ruled out as a suspect. And I didn't even know he was in the Springfield area because in the article on Charley Project it says that Sherrill and Suzanne came to Springfield from Seattle in 1980. I just assumed Bartt, who would have been about 16 then, stayed with his father. Of course, that was 12 years before the disappearance and he certainly could have moved to Springfield since then but I just didn't fit him into the picture until I started reading the guestbook at the airalex website. And also, it said in many of the articles that Sherrill and Suzanne lived at the residence alone. But I also wondered if he was at Suzanne's graduation. And speaking of the guestbook, I don't know what to make of the entries by "Thomas" who says he witnessed the murders.
I did not suspect either of Sherrill's ex-husbands. Even though it said her second husband, Don Levitt wanted her to pay his bills, it also said in the Charley Project article that she hired an attorney to try to locate him but he couldn't be found anywhere. It sounded like he was too lazy to have been involved.
I wish I had seen the 48 Hours program too. 48 Hours needs to go Springfield to do sort of an update and reshow the episode as a 15 year anniversary broadcast. With that anniversary looming, there needs to be more media attention about this case again to get it heated up.
Missouri Mule, you have made some excellent points as well and, although I don't know near as much about this as you do, things are starting to make a little more sense in my mind.
Wow! You are getting into an area that I'm going to have be weasel worded. Let's just say there could be both a direct and indirect motive involving money. You'll just have to interpret that as best you can. You might say that I am under a sort of "gag" order in a manner of speaking. On the other hand, it might amount to nothing at all but I did give my word.laini said:Thanks for replying MMule. I am happy this case is so active here on websleuths right now. Lots of great posts by you and others. Hopefully this will be solved someday.
(follow the money. do you mean, not who commited the crime but who PAID them to commit the crime?)
Missouri Mule said:Wow! You are getting into an area that I'm going to have be weasel worded. Let's just say there could be both a direct and indirect motive involving money. You'll just have to interpret that as best you can.
Oh, you're good! Very good. And so close to my scenario, which unfortunately I cannot post here both because I have given my word and because it might conceivably be defamatory to innocent people.pittsburghgirl said:I was tempted to reproduce your whole thought-provoking post, but in doing so, your challenge above will be lost. Thanks, first, for the nice compliment above as to my potential as an investigator. I did a 7 year tour as a welfare caseworker, mostly in intake which involved extensive interviewing and the need to ferret out things people want to keep secret--like money and its sources. However unpractical a Ph.D. in English might seem, it can produce a trained professional reader and interpreter. (As my husband notably said on our first official date, "If I need an interpreter, I'll let you know.") So let me take a shot at interpretation here.
"There could be both a direct and an indirect motive involving money." A direct motive might be: commit this crime and you get money now. Since ordinary robbery was not the motive (unless these were the stupidest robbers of all time), then either something was taken that no one knew about outside the family and/or this was murder for hire.
Let's think about Sherrill, a hairdresser. In my college days as a waitress, I always had cash and usually never put much in the bank. Sherrill would get a check of some kind from the salon for her cut of what her customers brought in. That check might logically go straight to the bank to cover her bills. The cash would go in her purse, and then into wherever she kept cash in the house. It might be that she had quite a bit of it in the house, not in her purse but just stashed in a shoebox or something. If tip money in 1992 went into the bank, a nice chunk of it would have to go to the IRS as well. Today the rules are a lot tighter on tips. That might give us two direct motives involving money: Someone knew Sherrill had a nice stash of cash and could as a result afford to pay accomplices in either cash or drugs. The killers (hired and otherwise) could afford to leave the cash in the purses to make it NOT look like a robbery. Leaving the cash in the purses (so conveniently displayed on the stairs) points to sex crime, serial killer, or "totally inexplicable disappearance."
An indirect motive might be insurance, the liquidation of the estate, etc. It would be interesting to know if she owned the larger house she lived in. If she did, had that house been sold? If so, did she roll all of the profit into the new house? Or did it go into what we would think now of as her estate--bank accounts, bonds, an IRA?
Or you might mean that this crime involves a debt of some kind that was not repaid--either Sherrill owed money or someone owed her money. Maybe someone had already stolen a large amount of money and was under pressure to return it.
Thinking along these lines suggests some possibilities for why the killings didn't happen in the house--murder sort of messes up the resale prospects and also offers way too much opportunity to leave evidence. If the killer had been in the home before, there would be no reason to worry about fingerprints or other signs of his presence. But shooting, stabbing, strangulation is a bigger risk for someone who DID have reason to be in the house and would be leaving traces that were NOT explainable. For that same reason, "disappearing" the bodies would be necessary. The killer was too close to the crime and couldn't afford to leave the "best evidence" in any killing, the body. Perhaps more signficant, someone who KNEW these women and had cared about them might find it impossible to make this look like a serial killing or sex crime in any other way. And if this isn't a sex crime or a serial murder, sooner or later the money will be the focus.
It might be possible for such a person to give hired killers access, get whatever property he wanted from the home (money, pictures), make sure the women were loaded in the van, and then watch it drive away. He could get the pictures and shut the dog inside. No need to lock the door--he wants people to go in the house, find the purses, start looking for women who might well still be alive. The pictures might be a way of remembering the victims as they were before the murder.
He might never have seen the final deeds, whatever they were. Either a drug user or sex offender might be a good choice of accomplice.
Missouri Mule, if you get your materials back, please send me a copy of the 48 Hours video, too. It drives me crazy that I haven't seen it. I might not be able to get to it until Tuesday, but I will ask our college librarian to see if we can get these docs from interlibrary loan, much easier than trekking to Springfield. Librarians are the greatest.
And Jade: Bartt is living in Florida. See MM's earlier post to me about googling those involved in the case.