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

[Hurricane]

I don't think predators like Cox need a motive. The crime itself is the motive.

I have said the same thing many times and so I am in agreement with you 100%. Any of the usual suspects mentioned could have abducted these women without a motive in mind; the fate of the women was decided later. Yet we are told repeatedly that Cox had the means, the motive and the opportunity only to be reminded a few posts later that we don't have a motive. I don't get it? In 5 yrs or more no one has come forth with any verifiable information or circumstantial evidence pointing towards Cox. I don't look at my time spent on this case as playing some sort of board game, but maybe we all should. Then maybe we could all declare the Cox advocates as the winners and get on with our lives. Without real evidence this case will never be closed even if it is already solved.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I have said the same thing many times and so I am in agreement with you 100%. Any of the usual suspects mentioned could have abducted these women without a motive in mind; the fate of the women was decided later. Yet we are told repeatedly that Cox had the means, the motive and the opportunity only to be reminded a few posts later that we don't have a motive. I don't get it? In 5 yrs or more no one has come forth with any verifiable information or circumstantial evidence pointing towards Cox. I don't look at my time spent on this case as playing some sort of board game, but maybe we all should. Then maybe we could all declare the Cox advocates as the winners and get on with our lives. Without real evidence this case will never be closed even if it is already solved.

Since this was apparently directed at my comments, I would like the opportunity to respond. When I say that Cox had the means and the opportunity, that is uncontested to my knowledge (he had no alibi; and worked the area) and his motive is that he like Bundy enjoyed their "trade." The "motive" was the act itself. We can also look to other cases for examples such as the BTK killer, Dennis Rader. What was his motive? Same deal. So, in my opinion, the triple principles of murder are still applicable.

And I have asked on other forums and I will ask it here if I haven't already done so. Has there EVER been any other suspect who has garnered as much attention as has Robert Cox? Somehow, this gives a clue (to my mind) that he might be the best suspect. If there is another out there who has been given this kind of play, I don't know who it would be.

We may never hear of Cox again in our lifetimes but this in no way exonerates him or should take the light of suspicion from him. If he is not talking and there is no new evidence forthcoming, what is there to say?

 

[CaliMama]

Yes, thank you. I got my hospitals mixed up (I used to work for Cox). I didn't realize that information came from a psychic. There was also a lead that the individuals who did this frequented, what used to be, Jamaica's nightclub (a nightclub that I went to on many occasions). I guess that was from a psychic, also? Are these leads mentioned in the Vanished and/or Disappeared episodes? I will try to watch these tonight. I do remember the rumor around town at the time was that Stacy and Suzie were together that night because one of them had drug connections (I can't remember which one).

 

[Hurricane]

Since this was apparently directed at my comments, I would like the opportunity to respond. When I say that Cox had the means and the opportunity, that is uncontested to my knowledge (he had no alibi; and worked the area) and his motive is that he like Bundy enjoyed their "trade." The "motive" was the act itself. We can also look to other cases for examples such as the BTK killer, Dennis Rader. What was his motive? Same deal. So, in my opinion, the triple principles of murder are still applicable.

And I have asked on other forums and I will ask it here if I haven't already done so. Has there EVER been any other suspect who has garnered as much attention as has Robert Cox? Somehow, this gives a clue (to my mind) that he might be the best suspect. If there is another out there who has been given this kind of play, I don't know who it would be.

We may never hear of Cox again in our lifetimes but this in no way exonerates him or should take the light of suspicion from him. If he is not talking and there is no new evidence forthcoming, what is there to say?

It seems to me that his mode of transportation might be an indicator of means, yet you have no idea what vehicles he owned or were at his disposal to use. What if it was a VW Beetle? It seems to me that would be important information to develop that could possibly be called circumstantial evidence.

His parents testified that they heard him come home and go to bed at approximately midnight, and I know you don't believe that. Do you even know where he normally lived and slept at night? Did he live with his parents full time? With his girlfriend, perhaps? Either of them rent a place to live either on North or South Clay? Again, it seems to me that information might lead to some circumstantial evidence.

You offer as evidence that he worked in the area of 1717 doing utility locates when in fact what he said is that he did locates all over town and was familiar with the area. His employer did not keep those kinds of records so it is impossible to know where exactly he did work.

You say that his motive was like Bundy; the thrill of the crime. Am I to believe that is a motive that would not also apply to any ex convict? That is nothing that is unique to Cox.

You say that Cox received more attention by LE and the media than any other suspect. How would you know that? Unless someone is on the inside of LE it is impossible to know what suspects have drawn attention and which ones haven't. LE is under no obligation to publish their daily activities in the N-L.

I could go on but let me just say that I don't understand the continual brow beating we all have to take concerning your suspect when a little evidence presented by someone could go a long way in convincing us all.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

It would be possible for Cox to come home at midnight, leave an hour or so later and still commit the crime. The question of what vehicle Cox was using is an interesting one; presumably LE would know what he was driving or what other vehicles he mightnhave access to.

 

[Hurricane]

It would be possible for Cox to come home at midnight, leave an hour or so later and still commit the crime. The question of what vehicle Cox was using is an interesting one; presumably LE would know what he was driving or what other vehicles he mightnhave access to.

I agree; it certainly would be possible to sneak back out after coming home. But my point is was it even normal for Cox to sleep at his parents house in June 1992? If he normally lived somewhere else than what was he doing there? Were his parents lying about that? Did he have a fight with his girlfriend or get in trouble in some other fashion, getting mad before going to his parents house? That is the kind of research and information which could develop some circumstantial evidence rather then continually telling us that he studied at the feet of the all masterful Ted Bundy. My point is if I was all fire & brimstone on Cox I would be wanting answers to such questions and looking into his activities. And most of that can be gained thru public records. For Pete's sake, spend some time developing evidence instead of telling stories.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

What doesn't add up about Cox to me is the van sitings. Cox would have had to have an accomplice or family member aide him if he did this crime. From some "inside sources" I've been told the police could never link Cox to any van, let alone a Dodge Panel van from the late 60s. I've just been told he's had a truck. Which yes, is all he'd need technically. However, what are we to do with these van tips? Which are to be taken seriously?

Again, you guys are saying "Cox is capable, therefore he probably did it" and working from him back to the women. You can't force the shoe to fit. If you had a case with Cox, they would fall right into place. Cox said something about bodies, and he's a murderer, so of course he's taken more seriously than say a Steve Garrison.

What about Gerald Carnahan? Guilty of abduction and was known to have been ready for his crimes ahead of time (hired a driver and got a rental car for the attempted Starkey abduction). Then you have the siting on North Clay Ave. from the Barbara Highton book. Carnahan owned a property right around the corner from there. (And many properties around the area). Why would Cox implicate himself? Why would he lead police on? Guilty people don't tend to do this unless they are psychotic, and I'm sorry but, Cox is not. He knows what he's doing. At worst, I can see him playing a game to cover for someone. He may possible know the perp(s). Who knows? My point is that the case doesn't make sense from the crime scene outward.

You have to list Bartt Streeter as the top suspect right out of the gate. Then you look into Janelle Kirby and Mike Henson. Then you look at anyone who came near the women the last day, last week, last month. The clues are 99% always in the events leading up to the disappearance. You have an alcoholic brother with violence and rage issues. You have potentially a jealous friend. You have questionable people in the girls' circle of friends and boyfriends to look at. I would think that would be the best place to explore before the "last resort" checking into the database of ex-cons.

Then you rule out greed as a motive (all the money left behind in the purses and the surrounding houses being much nicer, plus why Stacy?). You can rule out "random robbery" as the motive for the same reasons above. So you're left with jealousy, anger, thrill, and revenge. I can think of one guy that fits that description...

 

[Missouri Mule]

It seems to me that his mode of transportation might be an indicator of means, yet you have no idea what vehicles he owned or were at his disposal to use. What if it was a VW Beetle? It seems to me that would be important information to develop that could possibly be called circumstantial evidence.

His parents testified that they heard him come home and go to bed at approximately midnight, and I know you don't believe that. Do you even know where he normally lived and slept at night? Did he live with his parents full time? With his girlfriend, perhaps? Either of them rent a place to live either on North or South Clay? Again, it seems to me that information might lead to some circumstantial evidence.

You offer as evidence that he worked in the area of 1717 doing utility locates when in fact what he said is that he did locates all over town and was familiar with the area. His employer did not keep those kinds of records so it is impossible to know where exactly he did work.

You say that his motive was like Bundy; the thrill of the crime. Am I to believe that is a motive that would not also apply to any ex convict? That is nothing that is unique to Cox.

You say that Cox received more attention by LE and the media than any other suspect. How would you know that? Unless someone is on the inside of LE it is impossible to know what suspects have drawn attention and which ones haven't. LE is under no obligation to publish their daily activities in the N-L.

I could go on but let me just say that I don't understand the continual brow beating we all have to take concerning your suspect when a little evidence presented by someone could go a long way in convincing us all.

I was unaware that I was brow beating anyone about Cox. All I am doing is to refer to the news reports of his possible involvement and the play given to his background. Personally I think that is suggestive of his being involved.

I have on many occasions discussed what I know of Carnahan and that I saw him on many occasions and was introduced to him in the office elevator and many people wanted to believe he was involved, I never heard anyone actually say they had heard or any evidence he had any relationship to Sherrill Levitt. While we can all agree he is no saint we can probably agree that he didn't commit all the crimes in the Ozarks.

We can look to the GJ suspects. But there is a problem there immediately that comes to mind. They were allegedly big into burglary and it is difficult to believe that they would have left so much cash behind in Sherrill's purse.

My suggested scenario is that someone known to Sherrill or Suzie was able to talk his or her way into the home. A conversation and/or argument ensued leading Stacy, in the bedroom to attempt to leave via the side entrance but she was seen and recaptured. It was on the front porch where the globe was knocked loose and broken.

It is my opinion that there were five things that should not have been left unattended to and this suggests a lone perpetrator. 1) The purses with the money was left behind. 2) The TV/VCR was left on. 3) The door was left open and unlocked. 4) The porch light was left burning, and 5) the broken glass was left on the front porch which should have led to the impression that something was amiss that morning. If we eliminate those five "mistakes" it would have allowed the perp or perps to have virtually unlimited time to make his or their getaway. Since there is no law requiring grown adults to consult with the legal authorities and their parents they could have been gone for days before anyone entered the home. It is not logical to assume the police would have forcibly entered the home on the basis that no one could be reached at home. Summing up, the perp or perps acted on an ad hoc basis due to circumstances which spun out of control. This suggests the act of abducting the women came as a result of an argument and/or physical violence and there was never the intention to take the women. Many crimes take place in the absence of logic but because of emotional reactions by people who didn't plan on what would happen.

As to the van, I see no reason why someone providing a ride to the home or that it was borrowed was driven to the residence. I don't see the fact (if it is a fact) that Cox did not have such a van as particularly important. He certainly can't be ruled out by the absence of owning such a van.

While LE is under no obligation to publish the results of their investigation, all we have really been told is that a number of suspects remain; last I heard there were 12 people under consideration by four separate agencies who had seen the case. The only difference is the order of suspected involvement. We could probably arrive at the 12 suspects by process of elimination such as the GJ3, Cox, and others and get to 12 people fairly quickly. It is noteworthy that the SPD has made no attempt to knock down suggestions that Cox is not the leading suspect.

P.S. I think the single perpetrator is bolstered by the fact that when more than one person is involved they tend to see mistakes and correct those whereas a single person is concentrated on one objective and in this instance it was to get out of Dodge in a hurry.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

The FBI (and these are REAL investigators, not cops from SGF) believes that one or more people involved had a relationship with one or more of the women and gained their trust.

This rules Cox out instantly. Also Mule, I don't buy that Cox planned on subduing two women then asking one of them politely to drive. That makes no sense. "Hey drive to your death okay" I don't care if a gun is pointed at her, that's not going to end "cleanly" the way I look at it. One man subduing three women is a difficult task for neighbors not to hear. The house next door is within 10-15 feet away. Someone they trusted entered.

The police have also never said "Cox is our number 1 suspect." Only the media has. The media also hypes the garage theory too. So who cares?

The more I look at this, the more Bartt looks guilty. Bartt, if you're reading this, come tell us what you were doing that night. I can't find one blurb about what his actual alibi was. I'm curious to why he's always singled out and not in the loop. Bartt pushing for something as irrational as the garage theory makes me really question him. You'd think someone who lost his mother and sister wouldn't buy into a psychic tip. Hell I wouldn't. I want hard facts. Something is fishy about that. Bartt shows jealousy in such a simple way on his blog and on Facebook. If something is done about the 3MW without his knowledge, he instantly screams about not being involved. Hmmm...

Everyone on this board is too afraid to admit to either Bartt having involvement or they are automatically assuming 18-21 year olds couldn't have done this. That's a big mistake in solving a crime like this. It's easy to blame every murder on a random guy in the database of ex-cons. This case isn't EASY though...

 

[Missouri Mule]

I don't believe there was anyone home next door so any noise would not have been heard by any neighbors. Additionally, the house was reportedly surveiled for some period of time and if no one was seen coming and going from that house it was reasonably safe to assume no one was home.

I suppose we will have to agree to disagree about Cox.

 

[CaliMama]

I watched the disappeared episode tonight and found some things to be quite disjointed. However, the one thing that struck me was the RC was just speaking in a hypothetical manner and it truly appeared that he enjoyed the attention. At first, I was struck by the coincidence that RC had worked for SM's father, but that really isn't odd, because Springfield is not a big city. When I look back on the six years that I lived in Springfield, I have realized that almost everyone I knew also knew someone else that I knew and we were all kind of connected in a strange, but meaningful way. It isn't like that in L.A....Springfield is different and people are always connected somehow. Although I believe RC could have killed someone in Springfield or the surrounding areas, I don't think he was the one in this case, but I think he WISHES he was the one.

 

[CaliMama]

And...please don't bash me for not having facts or links or whatever. This is just my opinion.

 

[CaliMama]

After watching this tonight with my husband, I turned to him and told him that someone they knew came into the house that night. Why? First of all, there weren't any cell phones and Sherill would have probably have already gone to bed. She thought Suzie was going to be spending the night elsewhere. I wondered aloud if they had invited someone over that they had met at the last party they were at...to continue the party. It might have been more than one guy. However, it doesn't make sense that they would have taken off their make up etc. I wonder if they waited up for them, but they didn't come by until a lot later? Remember, neither girl was supposed to be there that night. Did they go to a party at the SMSU campus...was it revealed exactly where they went that night?

 

[CaliMama]

My thoughts are that why would they make plans to stay at JM's house if she knew it was already going to be full. Teenagers do things like this all the time, I get it...but I wonder if the girls also may have met up with a couple of new guys that night and they knew that Suzie's mom would be fast asleep...? I am basing my thoughts on what happened to me in 1989...it was never reported because I was too young and naive to know that it was a crime (age 18).

 

[CaliMama]

By the way, I think some of you need to relax. Jeez, I am sorry I called it and ultrasound...I was basing my words on ancient memories. I have lived inn L.A. for almost 12 years now and gave up on this case until now. Please don't discourage other people from this discussion. I was THERE when this happened AND I am from Missouri!

 

[Hurricane]

I watched the disappeared episode tonight and found some things to be quite disjointed. However, the one thing that struck me was the RC was just speaking in a hypothetical manner and it truly appeared that he enjoyed the attention. At first, I was struck by the coincidence that RC had worked for SM's father, but that really isn't odd, because Springfield is not a big city. When I look back on the six years that I lived in Springfield, I have realized that almost everyone I knew also knew someone else that I knew and we were all kind of connected in a strange, but meaningful way. It isn't like that in L.A....Springfield is different and people are always connected somehow. Although I believe RC could have killed someone in Springfield or the surrounding areas, I don't think he was the one in this case, but I think he WISHES he was the one.

Don't take offense to this correction, but Cox never worked for Stu McCall, or vice versa. For a short period of time they both worked at different locations for Reliable Chevrolet, that's all. There would have been no reason for them to have ever met and in fact both have said on record that they did not know each other and had never met.

 

[CaliMama]

Don't take offense to this correction, but Cox never worked for Stu McCall, or vice versa. For a short period of time they both worked at different locations for Reliable Chevrolet, that's all. There would have been no reason for them to have ever met and in fact both have said on record that they did not know each other and had never met.

No offense taken at all and thank you for clearing that up. I am sure that this was covered previously (by you) and I am sorry for jumping in. My personal experience with Springfield leaves me to the conclusion that whatever happened that night could have been a rape (by a guy and his friends who were unfortunately invited)(because the mom was at home sleeping...never thinking that the girls were coming home that night)...and and the mom interrupted what was supposed to happen to the girls. What happened to me and my best friend was confined to SMSU...byt fraternity guys. That is why I was wondering if they had partied near the SMSU campus that night.

 

[Hurricane]

No offense taken at all and thank you for clearing that up. I am sure that this was covered previously (by you) and I am sorry for jumping in. My personal experience with Springfield leaves me to the conclusion that whatever happened that night could have been a rape (by a guy and his friends who were unfortunately invited)(because the mom was at home sleeping...never thinking that the girls were coming home that night)...and and the mom interrupted what was supposed to happen to the girls. What happened to me and my best friend was confined to SMSU...byt fraternity guys. That is why I was wondering if they had partied near the SMSU campus that night.

I am a proponent of the KISS principle in this case and actually think along similar lines as your's. Only I think Sherrill was a spur of the moment target of a rape and the two girls happened to come home while the perp(s) were in the house. If the girls had not shown up I believe all 3 of them would be alive today. One thing we know for sure is that Cox is not a rapist and gets upset and offended at the mear question. Garrison, among others is a rapists.

I'm sorry for your experience at SMSU. It's hard to know what to say under the circumstances.

 

[Hurricane]

I was unaware that I was brow beating anyone about Cox. All I am doing is to refer to the news reports of his possible involvement and the play given to his background. Personally I think that is suggestive of his being involved.

I have on many occasions discussed what I know of Carnahan and that I saw him on many occasions and was introduced to him in the office elevator and many people wanted to believe he was involved, I never heard anyone actually say they had heard or any evidence he had any relationship to Sherrill Levitt. While we can all agree he is no saint we can probably agree that he didn't commit all the crimes in the Ozarks.

We can look to the GJ suspects. But there is a problem there immediately that comes to mind. They were allegedly big into burglary and it is difficult to believe that they would have left so much cash behind in Sherrill's purse.

My suggested scenario is that someone known to Sherrill or Suzie was able to talk his or her way into the home. A conversation and/or argument ensued leading Stacy, in the bedroom to attempt to leave via the side entrance but she was seen and recaptured. It was on the front porch where the globe was knocked loose and broken.

It is my opinion that there were five things that should not have been left unattended to and this suggests a lone perpetrator. 1) The purses with the money was left behind. 2) The TV/VCR was left on. 3) The door was left open and unlocked. 4) The porch light was left burning, and 5) the broken glass was left on the front porch which should have led to the impression that something was amiss that morning. If we eliminate those five "mistakes" it would have allowed the perp or perps to have virtually unlimited time to make his or their getaway. Since there is no law requiring grown adults to consult with the legal authorities and their parents they could have been gone for days before anyone entered the home. It is not logical to assume the police would have forcibly entered the home on the basis that no one could be reached at home. Summing up, the perp or perps acted on an ad hoc basis due to circumstances which spun out of control. This suggests the act of abducting the women came as a result of an argument and/or physical violence and there was never the intention to take the women. Many crimes take place in the absence of logic but because of emotional reactions by people who didn't plan on what would happen.

As to the van, I see no reason why someone providing a ride to the home or that it was borrowed was driven to the residence. I don't see the fact (if it is a fact) that Cox did not have such a van as particularly important. He certainly can't be ruled out by the absence of owning such a van.

While LE is under no obligation to publish the results of their investigation, all we have really been told is that a number of suspects remain; last I heard there were 12 people under consideration by four separate agencies who had seen the case. The only difference is the order of suspected involvement. We could probably arrive at the 12 suspects by process of elimination such as the GJ3, Cox, and others and get to 12 people fairly quickly. It is noteworthy that the SPD has made no attempt to knock down suggestions that Cox is not the leading suspect.

P.S. I think the single perpetrator is bolstered by the fact that when more than one person is involved they tend to see mistakes and correct those whereas a single person is concentrate


d on one objective and in this instance it was to get out of Dodge in a hurry.

Since you did not address the salient questions am I to take it then that you don't know what vehicle was owned by Cox in jUNE 1992? His families vehicles? Girlfriends? Employers?

And that you are not aware of where he was living?

I have thought of another question that might be important to establishing whether the alibi provided by his parents is fact or fiction: where did his brother live?

It seems to me all the above points would be important in building a circumstantial case against Cox for this crime, or in ruling him out.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Since you did not address the salient questions am I to take it then that you don't know what vehicle was owned by Cox in jUNE 1992? His families vehicles? Girlfriends? Employers?

And that you are not aware of where he was living?

I have thought of another question that might be important to establishing whether the alibi provided by his parents is fact or fiction: where did his brother live?

It seems to me all the above points would be important in building a circumstantial case against Cox for this crime, or in ruling him out.

I'm not understanding why it is important to know where Cox lived or what he was driving as crucial to this case. For all we know he lived here and there with friends or relatives, borrowed their vehicles, or even stole a vehicle. And we don't know that he was driving the vehicle by himself that night if he was involved. It could have been anyone.

In my view, the only real question to be asked and answered is what he was doing that night? Was he available to have committed the crime? This is why I have long argued that his fictitious alibi of his girlfriend and church is in fact critical. He tells us in his letters that the police came to see him within two weeks of the case breaking. For one reason or another he showed up on their radar as a potential suspect. He said two uniformed officers showed up and he gave them his alibi. Evidently his girlfriend backed him up and he was ruled off the list of suspects. Had he not had that alibi he would have had to have proved he was otherwise unavailable to have committed the crime. And evidently he didn't believe he could establish that fact. And I also look to this. If he had nothing whatever to do with the crime what was he fearing might be found? Granted he has a sordid history but that won't bring a conviction. He could have simply told the police to take a hike and there isn't much they could have done about it. Now it could be that he has a natural aversion to the police and wanted to quickly be ruled out. Or it could be that he committed the crime and that the forensic people would find something to connect him to the crime scene. Then he would have been up the proverbial creek because he could never argue successfully that he ever had any business being in that house. One could always argue that the police could plant evidence. Yes, that is possible but that would be a weak circumstantial case if the police could not show he was available to have committed the crime. I doubt that he would even have been indicted on that thin of evidence.

As we go down the list of people there are about three or four people that stand out as high on the suspect list. I would place Cox near the top. And he can take him off the list (or move down the list) if he will at least deny the crime outright. Not that he was in his parent's home but he issues a flat denial of guilt. That would be a good start.