A Review of Case of the Springfield 3

[DrHog]

I have worked on a review of the case of the Springfield 3 for several weeks. I will copy and paste my review as a comment below. This review looks at publicly known facts in this case. Those facts came from police reports, print articles, television shows, websites, and various other sources. I also created a timeline, a logic model of the abduction, key questions regarding the case, and a discussion of the early analysis and profile of the case. Certainly there will be items I have missed or areas where you may disagree. I welcome the feedback. One of the things that became evident in reviewing various sources is how things have evolved over time. Where there was disagreement as to facts, I used the earliest recollections over later recollections. Where divergent views existed, I viewed first hand accounts as more likely to be true. I do believe there are a number of facts that police know that are not available to us. That is understandable but without those facts, it leaves us with much more speculation. No one can say how this abduction happened nor who took the 3 women as I make clear in my review. I also do not speculate as to who committed the crime. I do not think I can adequately do justice to that kind of endeavor when I do not know, nor have I interviewed any of the possible suspects. I'll leave that to law enforcement or Springfield based individuals.

 

[DrHog]

A Review of the Case of the Missing Springfield 3: Sherrill Levitt, Suzanne Streeter, and Stacy McCall

The purpose of this review is to aggregate publicly known information about this case. This includes all relevant facts at the crime scene, victimology, a logic model of the crime, investigative angles, and behavioral analysis.

Facts at the Crime Scene

1. Three women abducted (never recovered)
   
   
2. Suzanne had a key to the front door
   
   
3. No forced entry to the home
   
   
4. Front door left unlocked by abductor(s)
   
   
5. No evidence of any struggle inside or outside the home
   
   
6. No personal property was taken from the home
   
   
7. The home smelled of varnish or paint
   
   
8. One of Sherrill Levitt’s bedroom windows was open with the screen off
   
   
9. Broken glass on front porch steps, no globe on porchlight, but the bulb was intact
   
   
10. Porchlight left on by abductor(s)
    
    
11. House lights left off (in one account left on)
    
    
12. If a weapon was used by the perpetrator(s), the perpetrator(s) brought the weapon
    
    
13. The abduction (leaving the home) occurred between 2:45 and 5:00 AM
    
    
14. It appeared as if all three women had made it into bed
    
    
15. Sherrill’s bed had an open book turned face down and her reading glasses were next to the bed on a nightstand
    
    
16. The TV and VCR were left on in Suzie’s room, no sound
    
    
17. Open Coca-Cola can and cigarettes near Suzie’s side of the bed
    
    
18. Girls washed off makeup (washcloths or makeup removal tissue beside bathroom sink)
    
    
19. All 3 purses were side by side in Suzie’s room at the bottom of the steps
    
    
20. Several hundred dollars/checks were NOT taken from Sherrill’s purse
    
    
21. Sherrill and Suzie’s keys and cigarettes and Stacy’s keys and migraine medicine were in or near the purses
    
    
22. Stacy’s makeup bag, shoes, and shorts were left neatly by the bed, her bra and swimsuit were left at the residence
    
    
23. Apparently, Stacy left the residence without shoes or shorts on. likely only in her t-shirt and panties
    
    
24. The family dog was not harmed and was free inside the home
    
    
25. Obscene phone calls were made to the Levitt home following the abduction
    
    
26. A phone call of interest was left on the answering machine on Friday, June 5th, inadvertently erased on June 7th
    
    
27. All three victims’ vehicles were in the driveway or carport in a manner consistent with the day’s routine.
    

Crime Scene Description:

The 1700 square foot mainly wood-frame home is located at 1717 East Delmar St, Springfield, Missouri. It had a circle drive and a newly installed wood privacy fence on the east boundary. The house is located to the west of retail businesses that sit near the very busy Glenstone Avenue/65 Business. To the west of the crime scene sits another home that runs diagonally on its lot. The crime scene is nearly devoid of physical evidence indicating a crime occurred. The abductor(s) left the front door unlocked. There is no known evidence of forced entry or of a struggle. A Delmar Street-facing window of Sherrill’s bedroom was open, and the window screen rested against the house wall. Apparently no blood, hair samples, or semen was found in the home. There is evidence (bed turned down, book open and turned face down) Sherrill had gone to bed at some point and the two girls had prepared (clothes are taken off, makeup is taken off, the bed appeared slept in, TV/VCR on) for bed and likely made it into the bed. No weapons were found nor any evidence of the use of a weapon. Broken glass, apparently from a light globe, was on the front porch steps. The bulb itself remained intact and the abductor(s) left the light on. The women’s purses were side by side in Suzie’s room along with keys, cigarettes, money, and Stacy’s migraine medicine. The family dog was found in the home unharmed. The cars of all three victims were in common sense positions in the driveway and carport. Apparently nothing except the three women was taken from the home. The women apparently left in what they wore to bed which in Stacy’s case was only a t-shirt, panties, and no shoes.

Victimology:

Stacy Sherrill Suzanne

Pictures from The Springfield Three: Missing Without a Trace for 25 Years

Sherrill Levitt: White female, DOB 11/01/44, 5', 110 lbs., brown eyes, short bleached-blonde hair, naturally curly hair, longer on top and short in the back. Sherrill Levitt has a thin build and has freckles on her neck and upper chest area. (Springfield PD website)

Stacy McCall: White female, DOB 04/23/74, 5'3'', 120 lbs., blue eyes, dark blonde hair to the middle of her back with sun-lightened ends. She has freckles on her face and a dimple in the middle of her chin.(Springfield PD website)

Suzanne (Suzie) Streeter: White female, DOB 03/09/73, 5'2'', 102 lbs., brown eyes, straight bleached-blonde, shoulder-length hair, large teeth with no dental work. She has a 3-1/2'' scar on top of her right forearm and a small tumor in the left corner of her mouth which gives the appearance that she has something in her mouth. (Springfield PD website)

The three victims had no known criminal histories. Sherrill Levitt and Suzanne Streeter were mother and daughter and had lived for approximately two months in a recently purchased home in Springfield, Missouri at 1717 East Delmar St. Stacy McCall was a friend and classmate of Suzanne who made a last-minute decision to spend the night at the Levitt home. This decision followed an evening of fun and partying upon graduation from Kickapoo High School. Sherrill was 47, Suzanne was 19, and Stacy was 18. Sherrill was a successful hairdresser who had a large book of clients. She had no known issues at work but had recently divorced for the second time which left her responsible for debts incurred in the marriage. Suzanne was an average student in school and dated some boys who had gotten into trouble. Suzanne had made the decision to testify against one of her former boyfriends and his friends in an upcoming legal action, if necessary. She had a part-time job at a movie theatre and intended to go to cosmetology school. Stacy McCall was a good student who had done a little modeling for a wedding shop. She currently had a part-time job at a fitness center. Stacy had made plans to attend college in the fall. She had no known enemies and her home life appeared to be a good one. She did suffer from migraine headaches and depression.

Sherrill was last seen around 6:15 at the graduation ceremony which was held at nearby Southwest Missouri State University in the late afternoon/evening of June 6th. Sherrill had a phone conversation with a friend at approximately 11:15 PM that evening. Both Suzanne and Stacy had dinner with their respective families before heading out to graduation parties around 8-8:15 that evening. Original plans had the girls traveling later that night with friends to nearby Branson for fun at a waterpark the next day. During the late evening, the Branson trip was delayed until the next morning as the girls decided to spend the night with Janelle. Sometime around 2 AM, the second set of plans for both to spend the night with Janelle changed as the Kirby home was full of visiting relatives. Stacy made the fateful decision to spend the night with Suzanne. They each left the Kirby residence in their own cars at approximately 2:20 AM to go to the Levitt home which was about 9 miles away. It is not known if the girls stopped anywhere along the way to the Levitt home.

The area surrounding the Levitt home is described as low crime but their house is only about 200 feet from busy Glenstone Avenue/65 Business.



Forensics:

This case has no confirmed forensics. An unknown partial print may exist. There is an answering machine that may contain an erased message left on June 5th. It has been reported 20 of 21 polygraph tests were passed in the early stages of the case. It is unknown who failed the polygraph.


Preliminary Police Report (Page 1 only)

Timeline

Friday, June 5, 1992: A “message of interest” was left on the answering machine of Sherrill Levitt. This message was erased accidentally on June 7th.

Saturday, June 6, 1992:

=~ 4:00-6:00 PM Graduation Ceremony for Kickapoo High School at the Hammond Center on the campus of Southwest Missouri State University in Springfield.

=~ 6:15 PM Sherrill Levitt was last seen publicly following the Kickapoo graduation exercise.

=~ 6:30-8:00 The families each have their own dinner with family and/or friends.

=~ 8:15 Suzanne arrives at the Kirby House.

=~ 8:30 Stacy arrives at the Kirby House.

=~ 8:30-8:45 All three girls (Suzanne, Stacy, and Janelle Kirby) walk from the Kirby house to a party at Brian Joy’s at 5002 Coach Drive, Battlefield, MO.

=~ 10:00 Stacy calls her mom to tell her plans have changed and there is no trip that night to Branson. Stacy plans to spend the night at the Kirby home.

=~ 11:15 Sherrill and a friend have a phone conversation. Sherrill is stripping/varnishing/painting a chair/furniture and hanging wallpaper border.

Sunday, June 7, 1992:

=~12:45 AM Streeter and McCall leave the first party and head to a second party at 1535 E Hanover Street. The girls leave their cars at the Kirby home.

=~1:50 The girls decide to leave the second party to head back to the Joy home.

=~2:10 The girls arrive at the Joy home. Soon, they walk back to the Kirby home.

=~2:20 McCall follows Streeter away from the Kirby home, each in her own red compact car.

=~2:15-2:40 Various articles state the girls left the Kirby home anywhere from 2:00 to 2:20. The most specific and, therefore; the most predictive said Mrs. Kirby looked at her alarm clock at 2:20 AM and heard her daughter, Streeter, and McCall talking outside her home.

=~4:30 A Dodge van is seen near the Levitt home and a large brown vehicle is seen at Signal Food a few blocks away.

=~7:30-9:00 Janelle Kirby first began calling the Levitt home. (Various media and TV reports)

=~12:30 PM Janelle Kirby and Mike Henson arrive at the Levitt home and enter the residence.

=~12:45 Janelle Kirby answers two calls while at the Levitt home. Both calls are from the same “teenish” voice and are labeled “obscene calls” due to the content.

=~7:30 Kirby and Henson briefly return to the Levitt home.

=~9:00 Janis McCall enters the Levitt home. Others begin to join as well. The police are called soon thereafter.



The Abduction: How did it happen?

Sherrill Streeter had arrived home from attending her daughter’s graduation ceremony. She had been refinishing a piece of furniture and had spoken on the phone with a friend around 11:15 pm that evening. There is nothing to indicate that Sherill left the home again that evening prior to the girls’ arrival.

Suzanne Streeter and Stacy McCall left the home of their friend, Janelle Kirby, at 2:20 AM to travel to Sherrill Levitt’s home at 1717 East Delmar St. Each girl drove her own red compact car the 9 miles. It is possible the girls stopped for gas, cigarettes, or a drink along the way but, if they did, it is not known.

The girls likely arrived between 2:32 and 2:40 AM to the Levitt home. Suzanne was driving in the lead and drove to the second entrance of the circle drive. Stacy followed her and parked about 1/3 way of the circle drive while Suzanne was about halfway. Sherrill’s bedroom was on the west end of the home with two windows facing the street. One window was open, likely due to the fumes from some freshly painted/varnished/stripped furniture. The headlights and sounds of both vehicles would have filled her bedroom as they pulled in. Sherrill was known to be a light sleeper.

It is highly likely Suzanne led Stacy into the house by using her key to unlock the front door. They were probably greeted by the family dog, Cinnamon, and most likely also by Sherrill.

This is a decision point for most people who follow this case. Many believe Sherrill was already a victim of foul play at this point and was perhaps being held in her bedroom. It certainly is possible, but to me, it isn’t the most likely scenario. Suzanne was not supposed to be home that night. Sherrill would have been curious, worried, and perhaps a little scared for someone to enter the home at 2:40 AM. Add the second unfamiliar car (Stacy’s) to the mix, and it takes it even a step further. Even if Sherrill could have slept through all the noise (cars pulling in, Cinnamon barking, girls talking) and car lights, Suzanne would have wanted to tell her mother what was going on. It would have confounded Suzanne to try to rouse her mother and not hear a word of response or for her mother to refuse to come out and greet the pair. I believe it is highly likely all appeared to be just fine at this point.

I believe it is very likely the girls and Sherrill had a conversation in the living room area of the house. At some point, I believe the girls went about their business of getting ready for bed and Sherrill either returned to her room for the evening or followed the girls into Suzanne’s part of the house to continue girl talk. I feel very confident up to this point as to the basic facts of the evening. It is here that things begin to get more difficult to predict based on the few facts we know.

The second decision point is how did the abductor(s) get into the house and control the three women without a struggle. I see four realistic choices for gaining entry into the house:

1) He (They) came through the front door based on a ruse.

2) He (They) came through an unlocked front door.

3) He (They) was allowed through the front door because he (they) was known to Sherrill and Suzanne.

4) He (They) came through Sherrill’s bedroom window (perhaps while she was talking to the girls).

Let’s use the few facts we have to guide our thinking on this:

• All purses were in Suzanne’s room
  
  
• The women were very likely in their sleepwear as the abduction unfolded
  
  
• There is no evidence of a struggle
  

Imagine in each of the four choices how each woman would have reacted to that scenario:

In Number 1 (ruse) all the women would have been aware of a knock on the door at 3:00 AM (the time is just a guess). It would have been unsettling, to say the least. Each would want to be “more presentable” and “fully prepared” before any stranger(s) entered the house. All would have been very leery of the situation. We know Stacy did not put more clothes on.

In Number 2 (unlocked door) it is possible the front door had not been locked. This would have allowed an intruder to make his way into the home but not quietly. The screen door was a right-hand swing from the left and the front door was a right-hand swing from the left. It would be an awkward and likely very squeaky entry. Further, this type entry makes the situation much more unpredictable from an intruder point of view. People could have come at him or away from him in multiple directions upon entry to the home. However, if an entry were made quickly and all three women were together at that moment, it would be possible to maintain control. If he (they) could see inside the house from the outside, it would give this type of intrusion a greater likelihood of success.

In Number 3 (acquaintance) we have a known individual(s) arriving at the front door asking to come in. Clearly it could be an individual(s) known only to Sherrill or to Suzanne but more likely known to both. How many people did they know that they would let in at 3:00 AM? Of that group of people, how much smaller is the number they would allow in if not fully clothed (assuming he /they is male)? Who did the women trust to this level, but who were in reality cold, calculating sexual predators? Under these circumstances, the entry of acquaintances would have drawn both Sherrill and Suzanne to the living room. They might very well have both carried their purses with them if their lighters and cigarettes were inside. It would be possible to gain control of Sherrill and Suzanne very quickly under this scenario with only the need to subdue Stacy who probably remained in the back bedroom. The difficulty facing the abductors here is the concept of the unknown car out front. Unless the acquaintances knew whose car (Stacy’s) it was, the risk would have grown exponentially by adding unknown house guest(s) to the equation. Further, the abductor(s)/acquaintance(s) would have had to park in the driveway as well to avoid raising additional suspicions from Sherrill, yet no passersby observed anyone parked in the driveway. That would have placed four vehicles in the driveway/carport, and it was a fully lit area.

In Number 4 (open window) the situation is more a crime of opportunity. The window was open and presented entry to the house. Like Number 2 (unlocked door), if the intruder(s) could see inside the home or, in this case, hear inside the home, it would have made entry very easy with no doors to open nor occupant to immediately face. Entry through the window could have been gained when the women were in the living room or Suzanne’s bedroom. He (they) would have had choices with entry through the window. He (they) could have hidden and waited for the right moment, or, if the women were together, he (they) could have taken control in Suzanne’s Bedroom.

One thing for which I am fairly confident is that all three women ended up in Suzanne’s bedroom even if only briefly. I base this on the placement of all three purses in Suzanne’s room. Whether Sherrill had the purse with her in Suzanne’s room when the abductor(s) rushed them or whether the abduction started in some other part of the home and moved to Suzanne’s room, I can’t say, but either way that puts all three purses in Suzanne’s bedroom. The containment of the three women in the back corner of the house also allows for the greatest security and least outside scrutiny. (I realized it could have been the abductor who moved the purses but that seems unlikely if he was holding a weapon)

Ultimately, does it matter how the abductor(s) gained entry to the home? I think it does because each scenario potentially leads to a different type of perpetrator(s). For investigative purposes and narrowing suspect pools, it would be very helpful to know how it happened. Unfortunately, none of the four choices nor others not even discussed can be ruled out.

Another question that arises is how the abductor(s) removed the women from the home leaving neither a trace nor a clue.

The third decision point regards removing the women from the home. Could one person abduct three women and remove them from the home and transport them to another location? Does this require at least a partner? During the actual break-in, where was the vehicle used to transport the women? How was control maintained during transport? Did the abductor(s) plan all along to take the women away from the home? Although I think it is possible for one person to abduct three women and transport them, it certainly makes the process so much more difficult at every stage. I think it would be fairly easy to gain control within the home, but it would have been very hard to move a vehicle into place and move the three women from the home into the vehicle. It would be much easier to believe a second individual moved a vehicle into place following the containment of the women. Something as simple as flipping the light switch could have signaled to move the vehicle into place. However, it would also be possible to park on the east side of the new privacy fence and behind the business off 65B. At that point the abductor could maneuver the women from the house to a path along the east fence and into a waiting vehicle. Still, at that point, the abductor would have a tenuous situation whether he drove or had one of the women drive. Sheer percentages would point to there being more than one abductor, but there is no direct evidence to support one way or the other.

In the 27 years since the abduction, the case remains unsolved and the fate of the women is still unknown.

Investigative Points to Consider

Time of the Abduction:

If you agree with my assertion that nothing happened at 1717 Delmar until after the girls had been home long enough to prepare for and make their way to bed, then also consider my belief that the time of day of this abduction is one of significance. I think we can say with quite a bit of certainty this crime probably began between 2:45 and 3:30 AM. The sunrise that morning was 5:53, and there was a well lit morning sky by 5:30. Early birds would have been already roaming about, yet no one saw anything at the residence. My argument would be that the girls’ trip back to 1717 Delmar was the single most likely trigger for the chain of events that followed their arrival. As the following graph from the Department of Justice shows, violent crimes are rarely committed at this time of day. As a matter of fact, it is the least likely time for them to occur. I would argue that when an aberration does occur, there is usually an event, a trigger, which leads to a violent crime at an unusual time.

Many people believe this crime was planned and specific targets were chosen for that night. It is a viable hypothesis, but the late hour of the abduction is an argument against a long-term, premeditated and well-orchestrated abduction. If you believe Sherrill was the target, she had been alone all evening and presented the easiest opportunity possible to commit whatever crime was contemplated. If you believe Sherrill and Suzanne were targeted, you probably believe the abductor(s) was unaware Suzanne did not plan to spend the night at home but was so patient as to wait until 2:30 AM for her to arrive. When Suzanne does finally arrive, a complication arrives with her - a second person in a second car. If you believe Suzanne and Stacy were the targets, the time of the crime (likely between 3:00 and 3:30) makes the most sense.

I make no claim that this hypothesis is conclusive. As with everything about this case, there are not enough facts to make a solid case on this point or many others.

The Coke Can:

Next to Suzanne’s bed were a pack of cigarettes and a Coke can. Although seemingly unimportant except to indicate an intent by Suzanne to go to bed, where did the Coke come from? If the home refrigerator did not have Coke available, it could indicate she had stopped along the way home. It is possible it could have come from a party but unlikely since a lot of time had passed. The value gained from knowing the girls may have stopped to purchase the drink on the way home would be to increase the likelihood of having crossed paths with a predator(s).

The Workers:

The fence to the east of the Levitt home had recently been installed. Were the workers on that fence identified and interviewed? Further, in the crime scene photos of the front of the home, I do not see a lawnmower. Certainly, it could have been in the back of the home and out of sight, but what if they were hiring the lawn mowed? In the crime scene photos, the lawn appeared to have been recently mowed. Was that person interviewed?

The Broken Glass:

A note found in the Levitt home said, “Fix the light”. We know Sherrill was working on her home on the night of the abduction. Various reports indicate she worked on a piece of furniture, put up wallpaper border, and perhaps she worked on installing a new porch light globe. The original police report says, “Kirby and Henson state they found the front porch light globe broken on the front porch steps and the porch light on.” A lot has been made of the broken glass on the front porch. I’m not sure of the true importance of the broken glass, but its best use would be in potentially helping build a profile of the intruder. Did he/they use the light globe purposefully or was it an accident? As stated in at least one newspaper article, the globe had been broken or was missing previously. In fact, there is a picture with Sherrill and Suzanne standing on the front porch and the globe is missing. If this was, in fact, the broken glass from the porch light globe, (we assume it is because witnesses said it was the globe) and it was on the porch steps as opposed to the porch itself, it makes the equation a bit different.

The porch light fixture was mounted on the wall near the front door, and below it is the mailbox. The mailbox has 2 small U-shaped hangers attached that extend outward toward the yard. If the globe dropped from the fixture, it would have struck the mailbox and/or the hangers and would have landed on the porch. The physics of the fall would not have provided the energy to cast it to the steps. If we believe the police report is correct on the location of the glass and we understand the physics of the fall, we are left with these possibilities: 1) the globe was taken off and broken intentionally 2) the globe was taken off and dropped accidentally 3) the globe was hit accidentally and in a way that created the extra energy to land it on the front steps, or 4) the globe was sitting on the porch itself and was struck by someone’s/something’s foot to propel it to the steps.

Prior to reading the police report, I had reasoned the most likely cause for the broken globe was it falling from the light fixture because of the door slamming. These light fixtures are not well made and usually have 3 screws that tighten and apply pressure into the lip of the globe. The screws often fall out and get lost or the screws aren’t really tightened all the way into the lip, but you don’t realize it. In other words, the design creates problems with securing the glass globe. It comes down to this on the broken glass - we just have no way of knowing what happened. You can’t use the broken globe in your calculation because its cause isn’t knowable. Any of the possibilities are realistic but in no way does whatever happened with the glass globe change the type person(s) who committed this kidnapping. If the globe was purposefully used in the abduction, it just enhances the view the perpetrator was organized in his approach.

I do wish we could determine whether the glass was on the porch as most accounts state or on the porch steps as the police report states. Others have wondered if the police have the glass. I believe they do since the original investigator has stated the glass was disposed of near the fence line.

The Dog:

Sherrill Levitt owned a small dog named Cinnamon, a Yorkie. According to witnesses, Cinnamon was free inside the home as others arrived during the daylight hours of June 7. Various accounts about the dog’s reaction to visitors have been suggested, but I don’t think we can put much stock into any of that because the witnesses inside the home were also strangers to the dog.

Two questions arise concerning the dog. Why did the abductor(s) not lock the dog outside in the backyard or lock away in another room? Why was the dog left unharmed as three people were about to be abducted? One can imagine the scene inside the house as the abduction took place. Almost any dog would have become agitated and barked. Accepting that likelihood, why was the dog left inside the home and unharmed? I’ve asked previously to consider how the victims would have behaved in a given situation, but in this case, think of the kind of person it takes to maintain composure while kidnapping three women in a residential neighborhood and not lash out at a small barking dog. This speaks to methodical behavior and not reactionary. I think the lack of attention to the dog could also argue for an extremely quick resolution to the abduction. In other words, he(they) was(were) in quickly and out quickly.

The Displacement of the Women from the Home:

Is there significance to the removal of the women from the home? Is it an important investigative angle? I think yes to both questions. Two of the primary focuses of most violent criminals are to accomplish the intended crime (probably sexual assault in this case) and to avoid detection. Not all types of criminals exercise the same amount of focus on the two objectives. For some, avoiding detection is more of an afterthought while for others it is always paramount. Let’s walk through this abduction. The two moments with the least amount of control for the abductor(s) were the entry into the home and the exit from the home with the women in tow. The former had to occur to commit the crime; the second did not (if a violent crime was the intent). A less intelligent, more disorganized criminal would act on what was before him and commit the violent acts inside the home. The home could have been a horrific scene. Instead, it is pristine. To the best of our knowledge, no forensic evidence of any kind was found. These are the actions of an organized, methodical, violent criminal who usually abducts from one location and commits the violent act elsewhere. The new location is one of greater control both in terms of carrying out the violent act and controlling the forensics to avoid detection. The latter type of offender, organized, knew there was a risk of taking the women from the home, but that risk did not outweigh the need to control what lay ahead. The removal of the women gave him both the power and control necessary to avoid detection and to fulfill his ultimate plan.

What Happened to the Three Women?

The three women have not been seen since the night of the abduction. We have no idea what happened to them. For the general public, there is not a trace nor a hint of information concerning their whereabouts. Once the three women were abducted, what were the possibilities? Although it is extremely unlikely, the women could be held in captivity. With enough advanced preparation, one or more of the women could be held in a “secret area” within a home or structure. It would be a fantastic outcome but borders on a near-zero chance after 27+ years. A second and much more disturbing possibility is the evisceration of the women's remains using whatever process was available and thus leaving no remains to be discovered. The final method of disposal would be burial/concealment of some type--the most likely choices being burial/concealment below ground, within containers, within a structure, or underwater.

I believe the most promising investigative angle to consider is the following. What if the most convenient and efficient manner of disposal in the abductor’s mind was to use the abduction vehicle as the “container” to bury the women? Since we do not know the access to equipment our abductor had, let's consider he may have just pushed the vehicle into a body of water with the victims inside. How could this be helpful to us today? It is extremely unlikely anyone would continue to purchase license tags for a vehicle at the bottom of a lake, in a hole, or that has been cut to pieces. If electronic records allow, find out which vehicles within 60 miles of Springfield did not have their tags renewed between June 7, 1992, and June 7, 1993. There would be a number of ways to manipulate the list of owners of those vehicles to narrow the suspect pool. What are our chances of success with this avenue? I don’t know, but this vehicle was just used in a triple abduction. The man behind the wheel had to wonder if he had been spotted at any point, so the chances may be better than we would first imagine.


Could One of the Abductors be a Woman?

This case has not been solved in 27 years. Maybe it didn’t happen the way we believe it did. From the beginning, many believed the crime was committed by two or more people, but the idea that one of them could have been a woman has scarcely been mentioned. The reason for the lack of consideration is that it happens so rarely. In this case, the inclusion of a woman would augment the possibility of a ruse or an acquaintance gaining access to the home. A woman coming to the door saying she had a flat and needed to use the phone would find more favorable consideration than a man with any type ruse. In the second instance, if she were an acquaintance, she could also gain entrance to a home at 3:00 AM long before a man could.

Do I think this is what happened? That a woman was part of the abduction. No, I don’t, but I also cannot rule it out.



The Profiles/Behavioral Theories:


The Kansas City Star
July 21, 1992

Acquaintance abducted 3, FBI theorizes Person was trusted by at least one of missing women, expert believes.

The Associated Press


SPRINGFIELD – “An FBI violent crime specialist theorizes that three missing women were abducted by someone at least one of them trusted, and the abductor probably had help from one or more others. Authorities want to talk with people who may unwillingly have become involved in a possibly unplanned abduction, said James Wright of the bureau's National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime. "I think they (other people) were brought into this not knowing what was going to happen. It's quite possible that the primary person did not know what was going to happen," Wright said. "There are people that have knowledge who don't feel good about the knowledge they have. They may not be the primary person. “Wright spoke after a call-in television show about the case that aired Sunday night on KOZK-Ozarks Public Television. Wright has been following the case since Sherrill Levitt, 47; her daughter, Suzie Streeter, 19, and Streeter's friend, Stacy McCall, 18, disappeared June 7. Authorities think the women were abducted because many things they would have taken out of town were left at Levitt's home in Springfield. Wright said his theory came from "the totality of information," but he avoided specifics about the number or type of people he suspects are involved. The abduction leader probably was an acquaintance "who may have known their comings and goings," he said. Secondary players may fear going to police because they think the primary culprit would retaliate, he said. But anyone withholding information probably is feeling strong anxiety, he added. "If you think you don't feel good about it now, don't think it's going to get any better. Don't think it's going to go away," Wright said. Springfield Police Chief Terry Knowles said the department could protect those who provide information. Police Capt. Tony Glenn said the program received 118 calls, all but four of which were handled off the air. "Those people who have contacted us anonymously, we'd like to hear from them again and develop some type of dialogue with them," Glenn said. Wright, whose unit handles 1,000 cases a year, said the disappearance was an unusual, puzzling case. "If you look into the records of missing persons every year, you would not come across many cases like this," he said....”


Crime Scene Investigations Blog in June of 2012

Three Women Still Missing After Twenty Years: - The Crime Scene


“Detectives (SPD) believe that someone, be it a former girlfriend, a past friend or associate, or a relative of the suspect, has information that can help solve the case. Given the passage of time, detectives hope that people who may have potentially useful information, even if it seems somewhat unimportant to them, or they think that someone else has already filed a similar report, or the information does not completely fit with previously reported information, will come forward. Ultimately, detectives want to solve the case and provide closure to the community and the victims’ families.

Since the time of the disappearance, a number of different case theories, names of possible suspects, and vehicle descriptions have been made public. The police department remains open to all possibilities, and it stresses that it does not want previously-released information to keep someone from contacting authorities.

The suspect clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The suspect had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the suspect in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the suspect may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence.”


Excerpt from the News of KY-3, a Springfield Television (nearly identical to above)

"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence."

Profile Discussion:

The original 1992 profile/analysis by the FBI suggested this abduction was done by multiple people and at least one of those persons was known to the victims. I find this fascinating because I can’t imagine a profile that specific being developed from the facts we have. I have wondered what additional set of facts would be necessary to get to that profile. For one, the FBI must have concluded the abductors could have only come through the front door and were only let inside the home because they were recognized by Sherrill and/or Suzanne. I think that is a viable possibility, but it is far from certain or even likely unless more facts are known than what we have. Even if we concede the entry was through the front door, what fact or behavior points us to conclude it was an acquaintance? As I pointed out above, the women were not dressed to receive almost any kind of company. In addition, what are the odds an acquaintance shows up at 3:00 AM just after the girls get home? Further, an acquaintance would have pulled up in the driveway to avoid suspicion from Sherrill and Suzanne but by doing so would have allowed passersby to observe the vehicle at the house. The person or persons who committed this crime do not appear to be the type to make that kind of major error.

Based on what we know publicly about this abduction and previous profiles or behavioral analysis, this crime is being viewed primarily as an “organized” crime. Organized does not necessarily mean long term premeditated but more nearly means well thought out, clever, and methodical. “It should be emphasized that the crime scene will rarely be completely organized or disorganized. It is more likely to be somewhere on a continuum between the two extremes of the orderly, neat crime scene and the disarrayed, sloppy one.” (John Douglas)

What elements of the crime scene at 1717 Delmar Street are indicators of an organized or disorganized crime scene and what does that say about the offender(s)?

There is much we still do not know about this crime, but the check marks and strike-throughs above all point to an organized event. Many of the items in the disorganized category can clearly be ruled out. Remember, too, at least one more unknown crime scene other than the Delmar home exists, and we know nothing about it. Even though we cannot definitively say the abduction was “planned” or that “restraints” were used, I would definitely lean toward believing those are also true in this case. A summary of the crime might go like this: The abduction of the women either began as a specific attack on the residents of the Delmar home or by a chance encounter with the two girls as they drove home. The perpetrator used cunning, guile and/or experience to find a way into the home. He/They quickly gained control of the occupants of the home probably through the use of a weapon that was brought to the scene. The abductor remained calm in the face of crying, screaming victims and the incessant barking of a small dog. The women were quickly taken from the home leaving no evidence of a struggle, violence, or forced entry. The perpetrator(s) was able to place the women into a vehicle and transport them without anyone observing a single thing.

Finally, the abductor(s) has been able to hide the final resting place of the victim for 27 years. I think there has been a dichotomy of thought on this case almost from the beginning. Some people see how well planned this seems to be and assume someone the victims knew had to have thought this through for a long time to have pulled off such a “near-perfect” abduction. I think that is a fair assumption and a real possibility, but I do not believe it is more likely or more believable than the girls crossing the path of an organized psychopath. We cannot rule out friends, family, neighbors or a random stranger. The best we can do in an exercise like this is to know the kind of person who did this and to gain as much understanding as we can about how he/they may have committed elements of this crime and to begin to see clearly the kind of person who committed this crime.

What are the personal characteristics we might expect from someone who leaves an “organized” crime scene like the one at 1717 East Delmar? This is dicey with such a limited amount of data or crime scene evidence, but the typical organized individual would have some/many of the following characteristics/behaviors:

• Average to above-average intelligence
  
  
• Socially competent
  
  
• Skilled worker
  
  
• High birth order status
  
  
• His father's work was stable
  
  
• Sexually competent
  
  
• Inconsistent childhood discipline
  
  
• Controlled mood during the crime
  
  
• Use of alcohol with crime
  
  
• Precipitating situational stress
  
  
• Lives with a partner
  
  
• Has mobility
  
  
• Follows the crime in the news
  
  
• May insert himself into the investigation
  
  
• May change jobs or leave town
  
  
• Narcissistic and remorseless
  
  
• Pride in appearance, articulate, outgoing
  
  
• Chooses his target carefully
  
  
• May be older and more mature
  

In this case, we have had to create narratives with very few solid facts to support them. Earlier I presented a logic model to the known facts of the case. Now we have behavioral tendencies to lay over the known facts so we can further speculate how the crime may have been committed. Does this stretch things too far and become too speculative to be helpful? It may, but it has been 27 years and the case remains unsolved. In my own mind, I can see how this crime most likely happened. I can tell you the kind of person or persons who took the three women. I can tell you most likely what happened to them in a nonspecific way. Yet, I cannot tell you anything that really moves us closer to solving the case or gives the families peace. I cannot tell you who did it nor where the women are today. This case is going to be solved by either good old-fashioned police work or from getting the right tip from the right person. I do believe this case will be solved, and I am hoping it is sooner rather than later.

 

[DrHog]

The above narrative took some time to get posted. The file was too large and I had to cut the last paragraph which I will post at the end of this but I also struggled with formatting and my charts. The charts turned out very small and hard to see in the above post. This was the final paragraph I had to delete from the above review:

Wrapup:

"This summary does not contain everything. I left almost all of the eyewitness sightings from the discussion. Many have already been abandoned by police and the others are of questionable value for an exercise like this. When this case is solved and we look back, it's possible some sightings may have provided value but there is no way to know which ones that may be. I have not reviewed the list of suspects. As a matter of fact, I tried to skip over discussion of suspects as I reviewed material for this summary. I did not want a given suspect to cause me to view the facts from any one point of view. I also believe the police or people on the ground in Springfield have the best chance of making a determination of who would be the top suspects based upon the facts and the suspect’s behaviors. I am hoping this summary generates discussion and can point out my oversights, mischaracterizations, or omissions that require correction or addition."

 

[soonersleuther]

DrHog this is great stuff. Well done and hopefully gets people thinking again----it did me
This is a tough one. Not much to go on. If the girls were going to stay at the Kirby's then any previous talk at the parties would have led a possible abductor(s) to the Kirby's. The last minute change means that probably only the Kirby's knew they would be at Suzanne's house.

My most likely scenarios are 1) they were followed on the way home from the Kirby's (convenience store if they stopped), with the perps waiting a few minutes for the girls to get settled in (and they could snoop around outside) where they were more vulnerable or 2) 100% pre-planned by someone who targeted Suzanne. Sherrill was home all night and half of the morning alone and it would have been much easier to target her then. With the girls cars in the driveway the perps would have known Sherrill wasn't alone and therefore I don't see her as the target.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

This is a pretty spectacular review. I've read everything I could get my hands on about this case, and I didn't know about the Coke can or the "teenish" voice of the obscene caller.

One thing your review suggests is either the abductor was very smart or got lucky. Leaving the dog unharmed in the house almost certainly bought him time; when Janelle and Mike, and later Stacy's mother, came to the house, finding Cinnamon dead would have meant an immediate call to the police. Looking forward to more discussion of your review.

 

[DrHog]

DrHog this is great stuff. Well done and hopefully gets people thinking again----it did me
This is a tough one. Not much to go on. If the girls were going to stay at the Kirby's then any previous talk at the parties would have led a possible abductor(s) to the Kirby's. The last minute change means that probably only the Kirby's knew they would be at Suzanne's house.

My most likely scenarios are 1) they were followed on the way home from the Kirby's (convenience store if they stopped), with the perps waiting a few minutes for the girls to get settled in (and they could snoop around outside) where they were more vulnerable or 2) 100% pre-planned by someone who targeted Suzanne. Sherrill was home all night and half of the morning alone and it would have been much easier to target her then. With the girls cars in the driveway the perps would have known Sherrill wasn't alone and therefore I don't see her as the target.

Thank you for the kind comments. My goal was to create interest in the case and to put forth an analyses for the scrutiny of others. There is no short cut to a solution to this crime. There are so many angles to consider and so little evidence to use to back up any theory. I do believe focusing on the behavioral pattern can lead us to a more narrow suspect pool. I also think there are some investigative avenues left in this case. It may be that the police have in fact followed up on all of them and we just don't know about it.

I like that you are considering various possible solutions. As I stated, there are just so many possibilities. I do have my "more likely" scenarios, but at the end of the day, it could have been done in a way I least expected.

 

[DrHog]

This is a pretty spectacular review. I've read everything I could get my hands on about this case, and I didn't know about the Coke can or the "teenish" voice of the obscene caller.

One thing your review suggests is either the abductor was very smart or got lucky. Leaving the dog unharmed in the house almost certainly bought him time; when Janelle and Mike, and later Stacy's mother, came to the house, finding Cinnamon dead would have meant an immediate call to the police. Looking forward to more discussion of your review.

Thank you. The Coke can is visible in one of the crime scene photos. I discovered the "teenish voice" description in only one source. One of my regrets is that I did not "source" this document better. I should have footnoted where I got each piece of information. In some cases it was in multiple locations but for other items it was in a single article or program.

You make a good point about a possible reason for not harming the dog. On each point in this crime, I try to imagine the kind of person it takes to behave the way he did. In this case it seems that on every point one can say the perpetrator was cunning, controlled, and thinking ahead. I see no evidence of someone losing control and being haphazard.

 

[scadagirl28]

If I may what led you to the behavioral list for the abductor \s ? I find the use of alcohol with crime and controlled to be the most interesting.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

Theres really only one theory that "fits" where you dont have to force anything......... and I do mean only one.

 

[DrHog]

If I may what led you to the behavioral list for the abductor \s ? I find the use of alcohol with crime and controlled to be the most interesting.

As you probably know, The FBI pioneered behavioral profiling. They divided crime scenes into organized, disorganized or mixed. They discovered each type crime scene was created by someone with a range of possible characteristics. It is never perfect nor does any one suspect have all of the characteristics on the list. I think your point is why would a "controlled" individual drink alcohol before committing a crime since that could potentially make one less controlled. One could speculate as to why, but I don't know of any studies on that question. It just is one of the prominent characteristics of an organized crime scene.

 

[scadagirl28]

I appreciate your review and insights. Also anytime you wish to come back , even to go out on a limb and speculate or not , I would like to read it.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

This is well worth another read.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I find this fascinating because I can’t imagine a profile that specific being developed from the facts we have. I have wondered what additional set of facts would be necessary to get to that profile.

One explanation for the seeming specificity is that the FBI is often talking not ABOUT the perpetrator(s) but to people on the fringe of a case. This person may have noticed something unusual or suspect that a neighbor or family member or co-worker could be involved. On the main board, I talked a bit about a local case that involved home invasion murder with abduction and rape--an organized killer who used "disorganized" violent attacks on males to shock his real victims (the wives/GFs) into compliance. This guy's wife talked to the police about him and eventually tipped them off about an out-of-town vehicle that led to his apprehension. That might have been what the whole "someone who had no idea what they were getting into" was about. That was in some conflict with the early police theory that the killer used a fake gas leak as a way to get the door open.

 

[DrHog]

One explanation for the seeming specificity is that the FBI is often talking not ABOUT the perpetrator(s) but to people on the fringe of a case. This person may have noticed something unusual or suspect that a neighbor or family member or co-worker could be involved. On the main board, I talked a bit about a local case that involved home invasion murder with abduction and rape--an organized killer who used "disorganized" violent attacks on males to shock his real victims (the wives/GFs) into compliance. This guy's wife talked to the police about him and eventually tipped them off about an out-of-town vehicle that led to his apprehension. That might have been what the whole "someone who had no idea what they were getting into" was about. That was in some conflict with the early police theory that the killer used a fake gas leak as a way to get the door open.

Thank you for your thoughts on this. I agree there has to be other facts not known for the FBI analyst to put forth this scenario so early on in the case. I guess with so much openness from the PD early in this investigation, I have wondered why those facts remained so well hidden. The FBI scenario limits the pool of suspects dramatically and limits it to an entry through the front door. The whole point of an investigation is to narrow the potential pool of suspects but without excluding the guilty party. I have not considered an eyewitness to be the source of the FBI's narrative. An eyewitness in this case would have to have known both the victims and the suspects. Sherrill and Suzanne had only lived in the neighborhood a couple of months and likely were not well known much less who their friends were. An informant might be a possibility but, if so, they have never provided police with enough information to charge anyone. If we remove eyewitnesses and an informant from the possibilities from the choices for how an analyst could reach this conclusion, what new set of facts could dictate this method of abduction. Further, and to your point, the analyst went beyond just acquaintances and stated one participant may have been "someone who had no idea what they were getting into". I have tried to be creative and imagine facts to back up those claims and I can't even imagine any without it being someone providing them "information". If that is the case, I think that information ended up being dismissed. Otherwise, we would have had a very specific set of known suspects and probably some resolution by now. My best guess is it was a moment in time analysis and is probably only one of many possibilities now.

 

[Catmommy]

Dog and player could have known each other. Dog may have been frightened and confused when things went down but not aggressive or barking because this wasn't done by a stranger. Just something to consider when bringing up Cinnamon.

 

[DrHog]

Dog and player could have known each other. Dog may have been frightened and confused when things went down but not aggressive or barking because this wasn't done by a stranger. Just something to consider when bringing up Cinnamon.

I think you are right. We can't really know how the dog would react with either a stranger or someone he knew. Anything to do with the dog is at best an educated guess. It would be helpful to know this particular dog's disposition, but we don't know that either. The only description of the dog was by those entering the house the day of the abduction who thought Cinnamon was agitated. He did come toward them even though he did not know them. This from Hillspet.com:

"The Yorkshire terrier's small size belies its true personality, which is energetic, feisty — and domineering. Yorkies are affectionate, but they also want lots of attention; the breed is a good choice for someone who wants to dote on a dog.

Yorkshire terriers make excellent watchdogs. But they can be snappy toward other children if not treated respectfully or gently. Some might also be aggressive toward other small animals, but some Yorkies live quite peacefully with other dogs and even cats.

Yorkshire terriers can be barkers, but it is possible to train them not to bark excessively. Some can also be stubborn about house training."

 

[Catmommy]

I wish sometimes dogs could talk (not my own of course) - many cases would be solved. I'm thinking of an Akita (my breed) dog in another murder that was critical in finding the victims. There was a reason that dog did not protect his owner. Poor Cinnamon knew more than he was able to convey.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I wish sometimes dogs could talk (not my own of course) - many cases would be solved. I'm thinking of an Akita (my breed) dog in another murder that was critical in finding the victims. There was a reason that dog did not protect his owner. Poor Cinnamon knew more than he was able to convey.

I like to think that however terrified Sherrill was for herself and the girls as they were forced out of the house, at least she didn't have to see the perpetrators kill her dog.

 

[thejeangenie]

I've been reading along a bit at a time for weeks, fascinated with all the opinions and theories. I have known this case from the very beginning and thought about it often, over the many years. The one thing that always stood out was the little evidence. Someone (plural) took them swiftly - quickly and cleanly. Amateurs don't do professional jobs. With one person? Sure, an amateur could get lucky and get out quick without leaving clues. But with three grown women? No way. This finally dawned on me, it was a professional job. It took awhile, as the elements of the crime all seem so homegrown, so familiar, particularly to us in small towns, in Springfield and around. We identify with them, with the house and their street and with their jobs, with their dog, and with the paths of their lives that night, -- and missed seeing something else introduced into our comfortable realizations. Someone got paid to do this, an element we did not naturally foresee, the shadow of major crime, something foreign to us; and they knew their job and did it t a "T." No one's going to death-bed confess. Unless there's a link down the line, something weaker, a weaker person (and these are not weak people), you're never going to get an answer.

 

[Nixaeagle]

Chillicothe (Mo.) Constitution-Tribune
November 13, 1995
Springfield, MO, (AP)- A group of veteran detectives who have reviewed the 1992 disappearance of three women has reached the same conclusions as police did.

The three women –Sherrill Levitt, her daughter Suzanne Streeter and Streeter’s classmate Stacy McCall- all were apparently abducted from Levitt’s home in June 1992.

The Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit has finished reviewing the case files, and close to 30 leads will be re-examined, said police Capt. Darrell Crick.

The support unit and Springfield investigators agreed that the motive was sexual assault, rather than drug dealing. They also agreed on the same list of suspects, although the two groups ranked them differently on a scale of suspicion.

All the investigators that reviewed the case files agree , Nothing to do with drugs , hit men , cleaners ect ect .