The Obscene Phone Calls

Status
Not open for further replies.
Glad to see you weighing in on this--it's been a while and without access to the phone records, there's nothing but speculation possible at this point. I do wonder if LE knows more than they are saying on this point.
 
This idea just occurred to me - what if it was the person (s) that left the strange message that was erased? I'm only a few years younger than Stacy and Suzy and my answering machine had a code that you entered when you called to hear messages. The code was easy to find - just flip the panel that housed the tape up and there it was on a sticker. Maybe the person called, Janelle answered so he said something vulgar and then he called back immediately thinking she would ignore the call and that way he could erase the messages?

Just a thought. One call is random. Two calls back to back serves a purpose.
 
From people mag 11/04/19 program .
Asher states : janelle said it was a male caller she thought he was in her words “
Teenish”

If that’s all true , it seems to rule out the city Elderly crank caller .
 
From people mag 11/04/19 program .
Asher states : janelle said it was a male caller she thought he was in her words “
Teenish”

If that’s all true , it seems to rule out the city Elderly crank caller .
Hi, could you please explain what “teenish” means?
 
Why not, if he just abducted 3 women for the purposes of sexual assault?
Hm. Call the house hours later to see if they've been missed, then, at some stage of a sexual assault involving three women, talk dirty? That would be an unique M.O. I know there have been many cases involving taunting communiques following crimes, but this one I am unfamiliar with. Have there been any cases similar?
 
EARONS taunted his victims , but they were alive at home , not kidnapped with him . Plus , where would they call from ? Stop at a pay phone ?
 
We know there was a "phone call of interest" on Friday that was erased by people in the house. The other two calls came in while the house was full of people who arrived. It's not untypical for perpetrators to want to know what's going on in the investigation. As it was, the killer(s) was lucky enough to get a very big head start and a corrupted crime scene. Anyone answering the phone at the Delmar house would be an indicator that an investigation was either underway or initiating.
 
It's not untypical for perpetrators to want to know what's going on in the investigation. As it was, the killer(s) was lucky enough to get a very big head start and a corrupted crime scene. Anyone answering the phone at the Delmar house would be an indicator that an investigation was either underway or initiating.
Would this information be actionable? The kidnappers know eventually someone will enter the house. How does it help them to know exactly when?
The criminals certainly could be behaving irrationally, just wanting to know out of curiosity. This irrational behavior, though, would increase their risk of getting caught.
 
This just seems like common sense. You kidnap, rape and murder 3 women. You want to know when the fact that they're missing in discovered.
 
They took the only occupants . No one else supposed to be there . Not sure how that helps them ?
 
Ok, here's the logic:
1. The perpetrator(s) kidnap the 3 women in the wee hours.
2. The perpetrator(s) leave the house in normal condition and the dog alive inside.
3. All of the expected cars are in the parking lot.
4. So from the outside, no one would ever know that the women were missing.
5. And in fact, even though a number of calls to the house weren't returned and Janelle and Mike actually entered the house, they did not raise an alarm.
6. It's not until evening (probably 18 hours after the kidnapping) that anyone calls the police.
7. By the time police arrive, crime scene #1 (the abduction) is thoroughly compromised.
8. Meanwhile, somewhere, the kidnapper(s) have the 3 women, who are either alive and in terrible trouble or they are already dead.
9. The crime is still ongoing until the women's bodies are buried or disposed of.
10. The purpose of kidnapping 3 women is to take them to a place where the kidnapper(s) feel safe to take the crime to the next level. The kidnapper(s) need time and they do not want to be interrupted. The kidnapper(s) may be smart enough to know that murder and/or rape (the only plausible end point here) will leave a great deal of evidence.
11. Unless the kidnapper(s) are total morons, they have to know that the disappearance of 3 women, 2 of them just graduated from high school, is going to trigger a huge investigation.
12. So it's imperative for the kidnapper(s) to avoid discovery.
13. The time clock on the investigation starts officially with the first police report, but really begins when the police department gets all hands on deck in an investigation.
14. As long as it is not discovered that the women are missing, the timeline is in the favor of the kidnapper's.
15. If no one is supposed to be home, no one should pick up the phone. If no one is at the house, the investigation hasn't begun. No one is looking for the women or their bodies. No one knows anything has happened.

Now, if the kidnapper(s) are random killers, with no connection at all to Sherrill, Suzie or Stacy, then it's unlikely that the calls on Sunday had anything to do with the missing women. But the call on Friday has been characterized as "of interest," so that suggests to me that at least that call might be related to the abduction. If the kidnapper(s) knew one or more of the women, they may have wanted to see if their time had run out and they had to begin worrying about a full investigation. If one of the calls hadn't been answered by someone in the house and the other hadn't been erased, we may know more than we know now.




 
If we believe janelle the caller was a teen that she did not recognize the voice .
Who is a teen that was involved that she doesn’t know ?
 
If we believe janelle the caller was a teen that she did not recognize the voice .
Who is a teen that was involved that she doesn’t know ?

That's too many assumptions for me. She picked up a phone in someone else's house and heard what has been characterized as an obscene phone call. Back in the old days (60s and 70s) kid pranked-called all the time and hardly ever got caught. There's no reason to assume that Janelle would recognize any voice making such a call that probably didn't last a minute. How many times have all of us answered a phone and failed to recognize the voice of someone we know? I sometimes SEE people and don't recognize them.
 
I think questioning whether Janelle WOULD have recognized the voice of someone she knew or whether she SHOULD have takes us away from working with facts.

We know she answered the phone. We know she said it was an obscene call (and a "teenish" voice) but there is no evidence that she recognized the voice. We don't know if she is telling the truth about the call or not.
 
I’d think they would have played recordings of the guy they caught making obscene phone calls , to see if she recognized it as being the same .
 
1. There's no evidence that the man caught as an obscene caller was involved in the abduction.
2. We have no idea what sort of investigation LE did into the caller angle. That's frustrating.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
4,235
Total visitors
4,413

Forum statistics

Threads
592,380
Messages
17,968,226
Members
228,763
Latest member
MomTuTu
Back
Top