A Review of Case of the Springfield 3

[pittsburghgirl]

Chillicothe (Mo.) Constitution-Tribune
November 13, 1995 Springfield, MO, (AP)-
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 .

It's human nature to want to think there is some reason for a terrible crime--that the victims were involved in something criminal, whether as participants or witnesses, or that they had close involvement with the perpetrators. That allows people to believe it won't happen to them. But the truth is that if it's a serial killer, that's a relatively random thing. Those killers look for opportunity and part of the concept of "opportunity" includes the ability to get away without detection as they carry out a crime that satisfies their fantasy.

Projection is another human tool that comes into play. We tend to project our own view of the world onto people and situations. We think someone would feel or react some way because "that is how I would feel or react."

I'm noting the early date on this article, however. I would like to know what a more current group would see in the same case files. And I would like to find a good article or book on the difficulties of finding and convicting serial killers. What have we learned since 1995? That's 25 years.

 

[the_p0ssum]

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.

The attached article strongly implies that Riedel didn't as it says the other two did pass...

"Both Recla and Clay - who told police he wished the three women were dead - passed polygraph examinations concerning that case."​

 

[DrHog]

The attached article strongly implies that Riedel didn't as it says the other two did pass...

"Both Recla and Clay - who told police he wished the three women were dead - passed polygraph examinations concerning that case."​

That is a good catch and a reasonable conclusion. It's probably the best guess that can be made short of the police actually telling us. I'll include this in my Review if I repost an updated version at some later date. My hope was information I may have missed could be added here in the replies to build an ever better review of the case. There are just so few hard facts in this case but seemingly plenty of maybe, maybe not.

 

[Nixaeagle]

Posted on earlier closed thread .

Here's a list of people who past their polygraph test.

- Bartt Streeter N-L
- Dustin Recla N-L
- Michael Clay N-L
- Joseph Riedel
- Joplin Man (48 Hours)
- Laclede County Suspect #1 N-L
- Laclede County Suspect #2 N-L
Mike Kovac N-L
Refused :
Robert Cox
Steve Garrison

 

[SAMS]

@DrHog
Excellent write-up! Nice to see you started a new thread to post this in. Bravo.
We don’t really know that the porch light was left on and the front door left unlocked by abductor(s) though, do we? We really don’t know if the ladies went missing from the home and not from another location entirely, but of course the scene left behind tells us they most likely did. This case has always blown my mind. Well done. MOO

 

[DrHog]

@DrHog
Excellent write-up! Nice to see you started a new thread to post this in. Bravo.
We don’t really know that the porch light was left on and the front door left unlocked by abductor(s) though, do we? We really don’t know if the ladies went missing from the home and not from another location entirely, but of course the scene left behind tells us they most likely did. This case has always blown my mind. Well done. MOO

Thank you, @SAMS. I hope this thread continues to build solid information about this most interesting and frustrating case. You are correct when you say we do not know with certainty the porch light was left on or the front door left unlocked by the abductor(s). There are very few things we know about this case that aren't without some degree of doubt. I tried to include only what was true or highly likely to be true. I rarely speak in absolutes when working on a case because I do not want to ever reach a conclusion or accept a premise that could eliminate or lead me away from the real perpetrator or real outcome. My reading of what we know to be true or highly likely to be true leaves me with a minuscule possibility the 3 women were not abducted from the home. The other possibility for the porch light not being left on is that Janelle Kirby was mistaken in her recollection. I'm not convinced this is a big deal either way but if the light was left on, it could indicate the one instance of a failure of organization by the offender. There is, of course, the possibility the departure was not through the front door. I think almost everyone thinks the exit was through the front door, but I have no evidence to say that was the path of departure. I think it is an important detail, but unless someone has information I am unaware of, the exit could have been through the door to the carport or through the back of the house. As to the other point, we can be almost certain the front door was unlocked since that is how Janelle entered the home. It could have been ajar and she made her way in that way but I think that is unlikely. I appreciate you challenging any aspect of this case. I think it makes the basic set of facts stronger. I don't like wild speculation or jumping to conclusions. Everything should be open to question and doubt until enough information compels a stand. Thank you.

 

[LynnRN1953]

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

LE?

 

[LynnRN1953]

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.

I feel just the same. I am glad that at least the little dog was unharmed. I have always felt that Sherrill was the main target, no special reason nor knowledge on my part, just a feeling which could certainly be wrong. But I have started thinking now that it's possibly that Stacey's ex boyfriend who was robbing graves and against whom she may have been planning to testify could have been behind this. But he was around her age (19) and surely would not have been able to abduct and kill and hide the bodies of three women without help/

 

[KickapooGrad04]

Posted on earlier closed thread .

Here's a list of people who past their polygraph test.

- Bartt Streeter N-L
- Dustin Recla N-L
- Michael Clay N-L
- Joseph Riedel
- Joplin Man (48 Hours)
- Laclede County Suspect #1 N-L
- Laclede County Suspect #2 N-L
Mike Kovac N-L
Refused :
Robert Cox
Steve Garrison

Do you have proof of this besides some random post ?? I saw that post and did not find it credible.

Please provide a source where Garrison "refused a polygraph" because I can't find it. Thanks!

 

[KickapooGrad04]

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 .

Wouldn't the Hood property search in 2003 in Cassville confirm it has to do with the same players as the original GJ in 1994 though?

A lot discovered since 1995.

 

[drama_farmer]

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."

BRAVO! Thank you so much for taking the initiative, the time and effort to produce this. I hope you composed this offline and then copy/pasted to WS. I've had glitches here in the past, and have lost much less informative and helpful posts!

Another hint for anyone who may find it helpful: if you're composing a long and/or complicated post in WS, you can save as draft, or simply select what you've written and "copy" the text as you go, creating a sort of manual backup.

BTW, the charts are fine. They show as thumbnails in the post, but enlarge once clicked upon.

eta: a word

 

[drama_farmer]

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.

(snipped to address this one point)

With the TV in Suzy's room "on" but silent, I imagine a scenario where Stacy fell asleep (or was trying to fall asleep) first. Maybe Suzy wanted to stay up and smoke a few more cigarettes and finish her Coke. If Stacy were asleep, maybe she was the last to know what was happening. Therefore, no time to get dressed.

I think this scenario would require a more "stealth" approach by the perp, unless Stacy was a particularly sound sleeper.

JMO (I'm more of a "casual" sleuth on this case)

 

[DrHog]

(snipped to address this one point)

With the TV in Suzy's room "on" but silent, I imagine a scenario where Stacy fell asleep (or was trying to fall asleep) first. Maybe Suzy wanted to stay up and smoke a few more cigarettes and finish her Coke. If Stacy were asleep, maybe she was the last to know what was happening. Therefore, no time to get dressed.

I think this scenario would require a more "stealth" approach by the perp, unless Stacy was a particularly sound sleeper.

JMO (I'm more of a "casual" sleuth on this case)

Your version of what may have happened illustrates the many possibilities as to the events in the house after the girls arrival to the residence. As I try to do at each critical point in this case, let's try to think like the actors were thinking. All 3 women were adjusting in the moments following the arrival of the girls. Sherrill was not expecting her daughter to come home much less bring a friend along. Suzy was not feeling great but was probably trying to make her guest feel welcome and, at the same time, explain to her mom the change in plans. Stacy had never been to this house and probably was unsure how Sherrill would feel about a late night surprise. I am guessing on some of this but certainly some quick processing was going on in everyone's head. No one can say what was happening at the time of the intrusion but I think it is possible everyone might have been a little distracted and perhaps a little less aware that normal. Thank you @drama_farmer for your contribution.

 

[DrHog]

There are many theories about the disappearance of Sherrill, Suzanne, and Stacy. Almost all revolve around the 2 essential questions of why and who. Knowing who usually tells you why. Knowing why usually tells you who.

In this case many have asked, who was the target? Was it all 3? Was it Sherrill? Was it Suzanne? Was it Suzanne and Sherrill? Was it Stacy? Round and round we go. Is there any way to know? I do not believe we can say with certainty at this point who the target(s) was but we can make some calculations as to the more likely and less likely scenarios. I’ve read enough on this board through the years to know many people already have their minds made up about who was targeted, but I don’t view it that way. I view the possibilities on a continuum with some more likely than others. Many of the people who seem certain have a suspect in mind which then provides the why. I do not have a suspect in mind. I do have a strong opinion about why they were taken for 2 reasons. First, there is a strong statistical probability that one or more of the women was targeted for sexual assault. Second, the police who have more information than we do also believe sexual assault to be the mostly likely reason for the abduction.

What other reasons could reasonable exist for these abductions? Some have suggested such things as revenge, elimination of witnesses or robbery/burglary. None of those can be ruled out but seem to me much less likely than sexual assault. It is also possible what began as one thing became another. A home burglary could easily become a sexual assault under given circumstances. This is why it is important to not think black or white but to consider black and white and gray.

My motivation for posting this is not so much to convince you of anything, but to ask you to tell us what facts or circumstance point to who was targeted.

 

[Bluesman991]

There are many theories about the disappearance of Sherrill, Suzanne, and Stacy. Almost all revolve around the 2 essential questions of why and who. Knowing who usually tells you why. Knowing why usually tells you who.

In this case many have asked, who was the target? Was it all 3? Was it Sherrill? Was it Suzanne? Was it Suzanne and Sherrill? Was it Stacy? Round and round we go. Is there any way to know? I do not believe we can say with certainty at this point who the target(s) was but we can make some calculations as to the more likely and less likely scenarios. I’ve read enough on this board through the years to know many people already have their minds made up about who was targeted, but I don’t view it that way. I view the possibilities on a continuum with some more likely than others. Many of the people who seem certain have a suspect in mind which then provides the why. I do not have a suspect in mind. I do have a strong opinion about why they were taken for 2 reasons. First, there is a strong statistical probability that one or more of the women was targeted for sexual assault. Second, the police who have more information than we do also believe sexual assault to be the mostly likely reason for the abduction.

What other reasons could reasonable exist for these abductions? Some have suggested such things as revenge, elimination of witnesses or robbery/burglary. None of those can be ruled out but seem to me much less likely than sexual assault. It is also possible what began as one thing became another. A home burglary could easily become a sexual assault under given circumstances. This is why it is important to not think black or white but to consider black and white and gray.

My motivation for posting this is not so much to convince you of anything, but to ask you to tell us what facts or circumstance point to who was targeted.

I believe since FBI (who have more access than we do) determined it was someone who knew the women and the area of the crime. If you're calculations man, that means they knew Sherrill and/or Suzie so the target lies in them.
Also, the sex assault theory came from a 1995 report and you know we've learned more about some players and the case since then. If the Cassville dig in 2003 was something that made Darrell Moore say "finally our possible big break." still related to the information Garrison gave the cops in 1994. Court-sanctioned, gag orders and all. Garrison also had information "only the cops knew." So how does he obtain that? And if you want to keep looking at data, how does Garrison link to the women exactly? Sold drugs to Recla and Clay. Recla and Clay hung out with and drove Suzie's car. Garrison out 3 weeks before the crime...how does he get Suzanne into his life so fast?

"But Garrison lied and now bodies turned up" sure then why are they still gag ordering his info in 2003? And maybe he lied for other reasons (if you investigate, there's a reason he wanted out of prison in earl 1993....a very specific reason, so that was the deal he made). And since he didn't lead them to bodies, maybe he didn't want to implicate himself. However it's still true he had information only investigators knew about the crime. So how does he get that information?

If you're into calculations... that means the answers lie somewhere in Garrison and the one-offs of him. And if you know about him, he's a rapist and drug dealer. So drug dealing is not out of the realm of possibility of having something to do with this case.

"Calculations" mean nothing in a triple abduction with unique victims ranging in age and relationship with no DNA evidence. There's no other case like this. So you have to toss them out the window IMO. Data is all about interpretation. You can't interpret anything with such a small sample size. You have no other case to compare this one too. Closest one with the same sociological/geographical connection is the Bible/Freeman case in OK.