Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #10

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
k-mac said:
its incorrect and its wrong
you don't own the thread and your NOT family.
you are a former suspect.
its a farce.
Click to expand...
It doesn’t say “victim’s family member” does it? It says “Verified Family Member Springfield Three Case”. As much as I wish I wasn’t, I am connected to the Springfield Three case. My wife is too. Get over it.
 
MooseMeMuch said:
Irish...don't take the bait that some people keep tossing out.
I am personally tired of reading about the GR angle.
Who's this Jamie person that keeps popping up? JW....how involved was she? Who did she date after Dusty? Who were her close friends? Did SPD look into her background?
Did Garrison live with her mom? Or 'just' date?
Click to expand...

Jaime was Dusty’s old gf. They dated 2-3 months. Have no idea who she dated after. Yes, the SPD did look into her and her mom. I don’t know if they ever lived with Garrison, but don’t think so. I know they lived for a bit with Rusty. We think her mom dated him.
 
cherrymeg said:
See if this works. It's the article you chose.
Click to expand...
First point of concern under Concerns for further investigation: They seem to focus on Levitt and her finances, and include the possibility that she was living beyond her means of support. Her home repair expenses, the allegations that she used money orders instead of checks, aligations that she was a silent partner the hair salon she worked at, travels she could have had that could have linked her to illegals groups or illegal activities, a past bankrupsy and her insurance policies. "Worsham said there no signs her finances were out of order".

So they take the time and effort to print all that stuff, only for "Worsham" to say "There's no signs her finances were out of order". I had already told you this information number one. And number two, it just buttresses my point. They were printed under, "Concerns for further investigation". But then at the end of that concern for further investigation you have Worsham saying, "Hey, its nothing". "I'm not concerned". I mean, come on man. You cant negate what he did here. Worsham also said the same thing about MH's alibi, if you read the article further. States that there are inconsistencies and things unsettled about MH's alibi, and then at the end of the paragraph, he acts the same way, like its been all worked out and it's no big deal.

Worsham was full of it!
 
irisheyesofblue said:
If the target was just Suzie I don’t get why anyone would pick that night. She was going to be everywhere and was not planning on going home. It would make far more sense IMO that they would pick a night she was working.
Click to expand...

Because none of the kids' movements were predictable on graduation night, that seems a better argument for a random crime of opportunity. The girls, for example, coming to someone's attention, or someone noting Stacy's car at Delmar. I posted about a home invasion by teenagers the other day in which local, related people were originally suspected. There's a bias in law enforcement (and human nature) for things that can be explained within the universe of knowns. That's why they start investigations by looking at intimates, family members, friends, colleagues, etc. It's worth noting that focus shifted to guys like Cox and Garrison, who might have had no real relation to any of the women.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
Because none of the kids' movements were predictable on graduation night, that seems a better argument for a random crime of opportunity. The girls, for example, coming to someone's attention, or someone noting Stacy's car at Delmar. I posted about a home invasion by teenagers the other day in which local, related people were originally suspected. There's a bias in law enforcement (and human nature) for things that can be explained within the universe of knowns. That's why they start investigations by looking at intimates, family members, friends, colleagues, etc. It's worth noting that focus shifted to guys like Cox and Garrison, who might have had no real relation to any of the women.
Click to expand...
True. It could have been a couple of Henry Lee Lucas/Otis Toole types cruising cross-country in a hot van. LE doesn't seem to think so, however. The lack of evidence would suggest organized offenders, but those offenders might have been strangers on the prowl. Still, killers with no connection to the victims don't usually bother to conceal bodies. Perps weren't worried about DNA back then.
 
I dunno about not concealing bodies. There are many people who have "disappeared" or gone missing whose bodies have never been found. And these cases remain unsolved, to the point where there are questions about if they were even murdered. In the Natalie Holloway case, the father of the likely perpetrator famously said no body, no case. Even in pre-DNA days, murdering 3 people in their own home is going to leave evidence. For people NOT connected to the victims, moving them to a second location is a way to avoid leaving evidence. Assuming that none of the people who made themselves at home at Delmar the day after the abduction were themselves involved, the killer(s) got very lucky with a contaminated abduction scene.

It's also worth remembering the commonplace that when criminals move victims to another location, it's because that location in safer for whatever they have in mind. That is one assumption I think it is safe to make in this case. The women were killed elsewhere because it was safer for the killer(s) and/or the killers couldn't take the risk of being caught in the home when it would soon be daylight (e.g., a strange vehicle would be seen at Delmar in daylight).
 
The women were killed elsewhere because it was safer for the killer(s) and/or the killers couldn't take the risk of being caught in the home when it would soon be daylight (e.g., a strange vehicle would be seen at Delmar in daylight).[/QUOTE]

There was already one 'strange' vehicle in the driveway and as far as we know, nobody noticed.

There were businesses to the east and one south of the house and the neighbor on the west side was MIA that wknd. People traipsing through the first 'crime scene'......how lucky could a perp get?

Actually, the perp(s) could have run a bit late and would anyone have noticed?
 
pittsburghgirl said:
I dunno about not concealing bodies. There are many people who have "disappeared" or gone missing whose bodies have never been found. And these cases remain unsolved, to the point where there are questions about if they were even murdered. In the Natalie Holloway case, the father of the likely perpetrator famously said no body, no case. Even in pre-DNA days, murdering 3 people in their own home is going to leave evidence. For people NOT connected to the victims, moving them to a second location is a way to avoid leaving evidence. Assuming that none of the people who made themselves at home at Delmar the day after the abduction were themselves involved, the killer(s) got very lucky with a contaminated abduction scene.

It's also worth remembering the commonplace that when criminals move victims to another location, it's because that location in safer for whatever they have in mind. That is one assumption I think it is safe to make in this case. The women were killed elsewhere because it was safer for the killer(s) and/or the killers couldn't take the risk of being caught in the home when it would soon be daylight (e.g., a strange vehicle would be seen at Delmar in daylight).
Click to expand...

This would suggest that the killers were able to take their time disposing the bodies. I commented before about the location of the house, and the fact that Suzie's bedroom was just feet away from a dark alley. I consider the van sightings in the neighborhood to be suspicious. My only question at this point is where and when did the perpetrator(s) begine stalking the house on Delmar.
 
I don't know that they needed to stalk the house. He/They might have just followed the girls back to Delmar and seen the dark alley. I question the idea that because the house was tidy that the killer was organized. Abducting people successfully doesn't require organization. It requires boldness and a place to take your victims. A practiced rapist or sex murderer might have anything from a hunting cabin to a basement. I'm just coming around to the idea that the maybe the killer or killers were not connected to the women's lives and may have had a record and so didn't want to risk blood or fingerprints. And then, as I said, got really really lucky when the scene was contaminated. But removing the women may have been a preference for the killer(s), especially if sexual assault was a motive. What we do know is that this person wasn't a home invasion rapist/murderer who leaves his victims.

It's hard to imagine someone committing this crime and then "going straight." So I think it's likely that the if it was one person, he's in prison. If it was two or more, the primary is either dead or in prison. The subordinates may not want to continue with such crimes.
 
I agree. I think the crime being so high profile would have deterred the perpetrator(s) from committing another crime in the same manner. I will say though, if you look at the Carrey Stayner case; he committed a crime almost identical in 1999.
 
pittsburghgirl said:
Because none of the kids' movements were predictable on graduation night, that seems a better argument for a random crime of opportunity. The girls, for example, coming to someone's attention, or someone noting Stacy's car at Delmar. I posted about a home invasion by teenagers the other day in which local, related people were originally suspected. There's a bias in law enforcement (and human nature) for things that can be explained within the universe of knowns. That's why they start investigations by looking at intimates, family members, friends, colleagues, etc. It's worth noting that focus shifted to guys like Cox and Garrison, who might have had no real relation to any of the women.
Click to expand...

Isn't it true though, that killers 'work' in areas they are familiar with?
Thinking also of a recent situation where the murderer used one of his work sites to dispose of the bodies. He was definitely familiar with the area and related to his victims. People related to the victims might have the most to gain from their demise.
Another question pops up.....who close to the victims (any of them) would have the most to gain?
Besides Bartt. I can't think of anyone....
 
I don’t find it surprising that there wasn’t another similar crime. Look how long BTK stayed silent.

I also don’t think this required a criminal mastermind. With the terrain in that area the bodies could literally be under people’s noses. When Licas Hernandez was missing, I went around our small farmstead and took some pictures to help show people how many places a body could be just here around the house, and was shocked at how easy it would have been to hide him. I was also within a mile of his resting place (after he’d been found), and if she hadn’t led authorities to him I think he’d have been out there forever. And it’s flat here! Completely different from the Sgf area. Truly endless body dump potential there. (source is personal experience I lived in that area for 10 yrs, although I never hid a body).
 
Ibiz said:
Not always MooseMeMuch. Sometimes they travel around the country.
Click to expand...

True. Bundy, Larry D. Hall, Lynne Sells...
So we're thinking......serial killers could have done this? Anyone working this area in '92?
Larry D. Hall and his twin brother did travel to Civil War re-enactments but there wasn't one at 'Battlefield' that year, it was in '91.

There was some Civil War 'skirmish' re-enactment in Pleasant Hope, MO (north of Spfld about 20 off hwy 65) that very wknd.

I'd need to re-find the reference to the above but it was in The Fifth Missouri Messenger, Vol 3. Number 1 January 1992.
"June 6-7, Pleasant Hiope, MO. MCWRA LOCAL Skirmish about 20 mi N of Springfield"

SPD did look into Larry Hall who claimed he did this but he didn't pass a polygraph and was dropped as a suspect.
 
flute4peace said:
I don’t find it surprising that there wasn’t another similar crime. Look how long BTK stayed silent.

I also don’t think this required a criminal mastermind. With the terrain in that area the bodies could literally be under people’s noses. When Licas Hernandez was missing, I went around our small farmstead and took some pictures to help show people how many places a body could be just here around the house, and was shocked at how easy it would have been to hide him. I was also within a mile of his resting place (after he’d been found), and if she hadn’t led authorities to him I think he’d have been out there forever. And it’s flat here! Completely different from the Sgf area. Truly endless body dump potential there. (source is personal experience I lived in that area for 10 yrs, although I never hid a body).
Click to expand...

Glad you never hid a body! ;)

.....and dropped in a ie. 'sink hole' or lake.....one or 3.......would it make that much difference?
So gruesome to ponder.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 196 more.
Total: 1,570 (members: 197, guests: 1,373)

Online statistics

Members online
197
Guests online
1,373
Total visitors
1,570
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,773
Messages
17,958,632
Members
228,604
Latest member
leannamj
Back
Top