Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #9

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would have to rewatch to know what he said.

The newspapers misquoted many times and are not reliable.

It is a write up from the police with all the information they had on Joe. The paper that talks about the deal has a case file number.
Ah, I figured this was the case--those were the written statements.

Not grounded in truth and subject to cross-examination. So in fact, the cops saying he was believed to have been in town could have in fact been true. Going by the police both times here. The papers didn't misprint it.
 
While I agree that the behavior is odd, I think we also have to put ourselves in the mindset of an 18yr old in the 90s. We here are very in tune to safety & crime, so her actions seem questionable. But it’s probably just as likely that she got jealous/ticked off that the girls had seemingly taken off without her (especially if the overnight plans had changed unexpectedly) and just went on to do her own thing for the day. That was before we had continuous & instant communication capabilities, so not knowing where someone was wasn’t such the red flag that it is now.


See I would buy this as all teenagers are hot headed and get jealous. That’s perfectly normal.

But Janelle obviously knew (imo) those girls hadn’t gone off. The 3 cars in the drive way the first big clue and the fact Stacey’s clothing was all out in the open in Suzie’s room. They let themselves in to look around to see where the women were and obviously they checked the bedrooms. That’s place number 1 and with all the cars outside they expected them inside.

That’s why Janelle’s story has more holes than a colander.

Stacey’s mum even said the first thing she noticed when she walked into suzies room was Stacey’s clothes laid out. So is Janelle registered blind?
 
The behavior of Janelle doesn't even come remotely close to the behavior of those who were actual suspects, and stole skulls and lit them on fire to steal gold teeth from another skull for $30.

Have you heard of anything like that, and exactly that, before or since? And one of those dated a girl whose mom and her went missing months later?
 
The behavior of Janelle doesn't even come remotely close to the behavior of those who were actual suspects, and stole skulls and lit them on fire to steal gold teeth from another skull for $30.

Have you heard of anything like that, and exactly that, before or since? And one of those dated a girl whose mom and her went missing months later?


Yes, a really weird sick crime. I had never even heard of such a thing before.

How twisted and desperate would you have to be to rob off the dead. That’s why I have always said they needed looking into more. Anybody who has such a warped personality is certainly capable of murder.
 
The behavior of Janelle doesn't even come remotely close to the behavior of those who were actual suspects, and stole skulls and lit them on fire to steal gold teeth from another skull for $30.

Have you heard of anything like that, and exactly that, before or since? And one of those dated a girl whose mom and her went missing months later?

Yep, done. Gave you far more info than you deserve. I will only put a fact out if you tell something not true. Other than that I will not answer anymore of your questions because it won’t matter anyway.
 
I apologise I did not know the second phone call to Sherill that night was questionable.

I had just read that she had two phones calls that night and I assumed that this was corroborated by LE.

My 'theory' would be bolstered with a 2nd call.
Did you read about a 2nd call on here or do you have another source? (excluding Topix)
Thanks :)
 
“The crowd and the GJ3 suspects and the Garrison party where he heard about the burial--it's all part of this, isn't it?[/QUOTE]

What does this even mean?

Joe was not there. I know Dusty did not do it for one thing if he did everyone would of known it long ago because he likes to talk. Believe me they were questioned many times and Mike actually reached out to the police in April about someone on one of these pages. They never met or know the GJ3 and Mike only met Garrison once or twice.

Also motive? If you say Suzie’s statement and she was set to testify, I have the witness list, she is NOT on it. Plus both Joe and Dusty talked before her and Joe took a deal to testify against both Mike and Dusty. Suzie’s statement is just as good as the officers that took Dusty’s. I would think Joe would of been a little higher on the list if these people did not like people talking to police.
 
“The crowd and the GJ3 suspects and the Garrison party where he heard about the burial--it's all part of this, isn't it?

What does this even mean?

Joe was not there. I know Dusty did not do it for one thing if he did everyone would of known it long ago because he likes to talk. Believe me they were questioned many times and Mike actually reached out to the police in April about someone on one of these pages. They never met or know the GJ3 and Mike only met Garrison once or twice.

Also motive? If you say Suzie’s statement and she was set to testify, I have the witness list, she is NOT on it. Plus both Joe and Dusty talked before her and Joe took a deal to testify against both Mike and Dusty. Suzie’s statement is just as good as the officers that took Dusty’s. I would think Joe would of been a little higher on the list if these people did not like people talking to police.[/QUOTE]

Dusty was noted as being quite 'chatty'...not sure which LE rep. referred to them as being chatty and couldn't keep a secret.

It was on one of the first newscasts...it wasn't Asher. Darker hair, glasses and a mustache...everybody on the force except the females. :rolleyes:
 
What does this even mean?

Joe was not there. I know Dusty did not do it for one thing if he did everyone would of known it long ago because he likes to talk. Believe me they were questioned many times and Mike actually reached out to the police in April about someone on one of these pages. They never met or know the GJ3 and Mike only met Garrison once or twice.

Also motive? If you say Suzie’s statement and she was set to testify, I have the witness list, she is NOT on it. Plus both Joe and Dusty talked before her and Joe took a deal to testify against both Mike and Dusty. Suzie’s statement is just as good as the officers that took Dusty’s. I would think Joe would of been a little higher on the list if these people did not like people talking to police.

Dusty was noted as being quite 'chatty'...not sure which LE rep. referred to them as being chatty and couldn't keep a secret.

It was on one of the first newscasts...it wasn't Asher. Darker hair, glasses and a mustache...everybody on the force except the females. :rolleyes:[/QUOTE]

How is it that we know that Joeseph Riedel was NOT there that night the women were taken? I'm not clear on that.
 
Don't ask me to be specific but some of what has been written is asserted (off-site) to be of questionable validity and was itself hearsay since it was not personally known by the poster. Since I don't have contrary first hand information and I won't identify the poster. This is purely a FYI and my personal take. Treat as hearsay if you wish.

However, I can speak to the good friend of Sherrill. We have almost been on speed dial and he provided some very valuable information. According to him, Sherrill was not into dealing or having anything to do with drugs. To say that Suzie was is highly unlikely. So if that is true, drug dealing is not the motive unless it is the KNOWLEDGE of drug dealing that resulted in their demise. I have seen it asserted that Suzie would not have been called to the witness stand about the crypt vandalism. I rather doubt that. A mere statement that is unidentified is to my understanding not admissible at trial. So, I am advocating for the very strong probability that unless her statement was NOT going to be entered into evidence that she HAD to testify.

If anyone has contrary legal understanding, please so state. I was called to trial one time in my life, in a civil matter, and that was to authenticate a document. Since I had never seen it, it was dismissed as hearsay.

Dusty was not called and he too had a statement.
 
Dusty was noted as being quite 'chatty'...not sure which LE rep. referred to them as being chatty and couldn't keep a secret.

It was on one of the first newscasts...it wasn't Asher. Darker hair, glasses and a mustache...everybody on the force except the females. :rolleyes:

How is it that we know that Joeseph Riedel was NOT there that night the women were taken? I'm not clear on that.[/QUOTE]

He was in IL. They had where he worked and that he was staying with his mother. It is not hard for the police to look into these things.
 
The police also said Joe was believed to have been in town.

So the next question is this: why are the cops getting so many details wrong?
 
The police also said Joe was believed to have been in town.

So the next question is this: why are the cops getting so many details wrong?

Depending on when statements are said maybe certain statements were not verified yet. New evidence can change things. Also police are allowed to mislead to get information, it happens all the time. Sometimes they are stating what they thought is true until they find out different. Many reasons. All I know for sure is what is in the file.
 
Michelle, if this case was the vandal case, then why are 3MW alibis confirmed or denied in it?

That makes no sense. Different cases and investigations.

That is not in the file. That is from a phone call to the police dept.
 
Depending on when statements are said maybe certain statements were not verified yet. New evidence can change things. Also police are allowed to mislead to get information, it happens all the time. Sometimes they are stating what they thought is true until they find out different. Many reasons. All I know for sure is what is in the file.
This was July 1,1992 when they said that.

What is the date on your statements?

Also your statement is just what he said. Not what actually happened. That is key here. And there's still many questions.......

Why did Mike decide to come back? Why did Mike go with Joe to IL? If he was running from the vandal case, that makes sense, but why did he come back? And why would he be around Garrison after Garrison just got out of jail (rhetorical)?

If cops questioned Mike (and they did in June) why did they announce that Joe was believed to have been in town on July 1?
 
See I would buy this as all teenagers are hot headed and get jealous. That’s perfectly normal.

But Janelle obviously knew (imo) those girls hadn’t gone off. The 3 cars in the drive way the first big clue and the fact Stacey’s clothing was all out in the open in Suzie’s room. They let themselves in to look around to see where the women were and obviously they checked the bedrooms. That’s place number 1 and with all the cars outside they expected them inside.

That’s why Janelle’s story has more holes than a colander.

Stacey’s mum even said the first thing she noticed when she walked into suzies room was Stacey’s clothes laid out. So is Janelle registered blind?
Good points, and I should have made more clear that I do find her actions to be questionable & puzzling. I was just trying to look at it from a moody teenager in that era viewpoint. I was only a few years older than that at the time, and I’m not sure my mind would have immediately gone to abduction/missing the way it would now. Especially if I had been (speculating) coming off a big night of partying and (speculating again) already jealous/mad about Suzie choosing to spend the night with Stacy at the last minute. So yeah maybe a little blind/oblivious to what the situation actually was.

I definitely do not think she handled it well, regardless of the reasons behind the way she acted.

MOO
 
How is it that we know that Joeseph Riedel was NOT there that night the women were taken? I'm not clear on that.
We're supposed to believe he was in IL for some reason.......
Yet the cops say on July 1, 1992 he was in town.

"Riedel left town for Illinois shortly after the women vanished from
Levitt's 1717 E. Delmar St. house on June 7. He was arrested there,
and returned to Springfield a month ago. He remains in jail in
connection with the Feb. 21 mausoleum break-in at Maple Park
Cemetery.
Police Sgt. David Asher would not say Wednesday whether Riedel has
been questioned about the women. End quote. News-Leader, Sept. 17,
1992."

So Riedel left after they were VANISHED. It means he came back from the time Mike and he left town.

That article is from September 17 1992. If we're to believe Michelle that the cops "got all that right and checked those things" then why are they saying this as late as September? As well as on July 1.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
183
Guests online
2,053
Total visitors
2,236

Forum statistics

Threads
589,973
Messages
17,928,555
Members
228,027
Latest member
Sarahlm8627
Back
Top