The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #6

[Kathee]

Just for the record, I do not believe Janelle and her bf were involved.

It is THEIR timeline. I'm just saying that everything hinges on their timeline, and Janelle has changed times over the years.

 

[Missouri Mule]

It is THEIR timeline. I'm just saying that everything hinges on their timeline, and Janelle has changed times over the years.

I'm not entirely sure why "everything hinges on their timeline." Why would that be the case? I don't really like the various accounts given over the years but not sure why it would mean that much. Can you expand on this a bit? Thx,

 

[Indianagirl]

It is THEIR timeline. I'm just saying that everything hinges on their timeline, and Janelle has changed times over the years.

That's what I was wondering, is it their timeline or just what she has said that we are talking about? Does his version of events coincide with her version? I don't think I've ever seen anything with what his take on the day is.

 

[suzier]

Was that an assumption on how I should behave in this horrific situation? Thank you for your concern about my strange behavior but I’m doing what needs to be done and that is always making myself available to the professionals that are investigating this crime.

Bartt, I am sorry for your loss. Your family's case is one I follow because it hits so close to home with me. I had moved away years before this happened but I am from Springfield. I had lived on Page Street at one time, which you know how close that is. I had met Gerald Carnahan years before.

At one time I drank a lot and didn't always make the best decisions. I think it give me pause to think of how unfair life really is. How much we take for granted. I know your pain must be great.

I hope you can be blind and deaf to those you need not hear or see. I hope you can find comfort with the pieces of your life which remain. There are many people whom the "Springfield Three" have touched their lives solely by the circumstances...as what happened should never happen to anyone.

Suzie

 

[rachaellouise]

I think sometimes it's easy to lose sight of what this case actually is, 3 females who have families and friends who have gone without a single word. Bartt, I'm sorry for your loss.

 

[Kathee]

It is THEIR timeline. I'm just saying that everything hinges on their timeline, and Janelle has changed times over the years.

The time they were last see - the time Janelle went over (which has changed over the years,) them leaving Sherill's house and coming back. All I'm saying is it is all based on their timeline.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The time they were last see - the time Janelle went over (which has changed over the years,) them leaving Sherill's house and coming back. All I'm saying is it is all based on their timeline.

What are the differences in time that you are referring to? Why is this significant? I believe you have said that everything hinges on the timeline I recall correctly.

For example, if she said she went to the house at 12 noon but in reality it was at 10 AM in the morning I could see the relevance. If she said they arrived at 12:30 PM in the afternoon I wouldn't see the relevance.

What I have been most concerned with is why she felt the need to start calling so early in the morning. At that time they couldn't have had much more than a little over four and 1/2 hours of sleep. Why the rush? It was only about 35-40 miles to Branson.

Did they not make specific plans to muster up at a certain time; say 10 AM? That would have been more reasonable, I should think. So why would she call starting about 8 AM (as I recollect)? Did she have reason to suspect there might be a problem that was concerning to her? Was it something she knew about going on in their lives? Was it something she overheard being said that night? And when they arrived and didn't find them there why didn't she blow the whistle immediately and/or drive over to the McCalls or she could have called the McCall residence from the Levitt home.

Really, all of this business with the timeline is Police Investigation 101. All of the inconsistencies if that is what they were should firmly have been straightened out in the first day. Have the police ever addressed these things? What possible reason could they have not to discuss this openly and especially since by all accounts I know anything of they were never suspects?

 

[monkeymann]

What are the differences in time that you are referring to? Why is this significant? I believe you have said that everything hinges on the timeline I recall correctly.

For example, if she said she went to the house at 12 noon but in reality it was at 10 AM in the morning I could see the relevance. If she said they arrived at 12:30 PM in the afternoon I wouldn't see the relevance.

What I have been most concerned with is why she felt the need to start calling so early in the morning. At that time they couldn't have had much more than a little over four and 1/2 hours of sleep. Why the rush? It was only about 35-40 miles to Branson.

Did they not make specific plans to muster up at a certain time; say 10 AM? That would have been more reasonable, I should think. So why would she call starting about 8 AM (as I recollect)? Did she have reason to suspect there might be a problem that was concerning to her? Was it something she knew about going on in their lives? Was it something she overheard being said that night? And when they arrived and didn't find them there why didn't she blow the whistle immediately and/or drive over to the McCalls or she could have called the McCall residence from the Levitt home.

Really, all of this business with the timeline is Police Investigation 101. All of the inconsistencies if that is what they were should firmly have been straightened out in the first day. Have the police ever addressed these things? What possible reason could they have not to discuss this openly and especially since by all accounts I know anything of they were never suspects?

She originally stated that she started calling the house at 7:30am (Original Police Report). Then, over the years, it changed to 9-9:30am (Subsequent Interviews) Personally, I would have known darn good and well when I started calling the house, and my story wouldn't have changed one bit over the years. Unless of course, my story was contrived, then I, as others would as well, would probably screw up the details later. But thats just me.

But Kathee is correct.....based on the original police report, and subsequent interviews over the years, the "Entire Timeline" is based on JK & MH's statements. (Beyond the timeline that had been established on Sherrill with the phone call she received from a friend that night).

 

[Missouri Mule]

She originally stated that she started calling the house at 7:30am (Original Police Report). Then, over the years, it changed to 9-9:30am (Subsequent Interviews) Personally, I would have known darn good and well when I started calling the house, and my story wouldn't have changed one bit over the years. Unless of course, my story was contrived, then I, as others would as well, would probably screw up the details later. But thats just me.

But Kathee is correct.....based on the original police report, and subsequent interviews over the years, the "Entire Timeline" is based on JK & MH's statements. (Beyond the timeline that had been established on Sherrill with the phone call she received from a friend that night).

She evidently called between 7:30 AM to as late as 9:30 AM. While I agree that this is troubling, I still don't understand the statement that "everything" hinges on her timeline. Maybe I'm dense but I'm not getting that part.

 

[Mote]

I have a question for the older folks who have been following this case from the beginning. Did this case have an "online presence" in the 1990s? Was there a site where people discussed this case like they do today?

I did a quick search of the old alt groups that Google now has possession of. Again, I did a quick once over, and the earliest discussion on this case I found was from 1997. But all I did was search for "Springfield Missing Women." For some subjects, there are discussions that date back as far as 1987. It could be interesting to play around with the search engine to see if there was any online local discussion going on. Again, if there was a specific site you can go to archive.org and use their 'way back machine' search engine. It goes as far back as 1996.

The reason I bring this up is because I don't think the person responsible would have kept silent 100% of the time for the last 20 years. This is probably the "highlight" of the creeps life. I can envision a scenario where their guard would be let down behind a computer screen. People in the early 1990s still considered computers to be video games and it wouldn't have dawned on them how permanent the things posted online are. I'd look for any unusual comments.

I know it's a long shot.

 

[former central time]

She evidently called between 7:30 AM to as late as 9:30 AM. While I agree that this is troubling, I still don't understand the statement that "everything" hinges on her timeline. Maybe I'm dense but I'm not getting that part.

There are a couple hard times we have from the ‘timeline.’ Such as Sherrill’s friend conversation, completed circa 11:15 PM that previous night. Mrs. Kirby’s account of the girls leaving her house at 2:20 AM, a few hours later. Then when have when Mrs. McCall called the Kirby house looking for Stacy, reaching Jannell’s sister, that was presumably after 11 AM or noon, when Jannelle was at the Levitt house. Then when Mrs. McCall actually went to the Levitt house. These events and times involved other people and fill in some discrepancies.

I’m still not clear how long Jannelle and Mike were at the house, if they left and the house was still vacant, what time Mrs. McCall arrived at the house and were there other ‘First Responders’ there. Jannelle and Mike were the first to arrive at the house and therefor a lot of the burden lies with them, being the First of the ‘First Responders.’ As someone else mentioned, Saturday was a LONG day for all of them...got started at 9 AM, and went on until 3 AM (judging from Mrs. Kirby’s account of the girls leaving). Then, Jannelle is up Sunday morning, bright eye and bushy tailed at 8 or 9 to begin what would be another long day, when some of her contemporaries were still in bed at noon.

Kathee...I’m with you on this whole story being a bit...odd. You’ve probably seen the primary reports, as well as some others here. Is there anything you can share in her story doesn’t jive with other accounts that morning/afternoon ? Curious also, are there any questions she should have been asked but was not ? Just from what I’ve read here, I’m sure there are plenty of attorneys who could discredit her as a witness or raise enough doubt to a dispassionate jury to lessen her testimony/account. It’s not what people here think, it’s what a unemotional jury would. But, to discredit her doesn’t move the ball forward at the investigative stage. Anything you can share ?

 

[Missouri Mule]

There are a couple hard times we have from the ‘timeline.’ Such as Sherrill’s friend conversation, completed circa 11:15 PM that previous night. Mrs. Kirby’s account of the girls leaving her house at 2:20 AM, a few hours later. Then when have when Mrs. McCall called the Kirby house looking for Stacy, reaching Jannell’s sister, that was presumably after 11 AM or noon, when Jannelle was at the Levitt house. Then when Mrs. McCall actually went to the Levitt house. These events and times involved other people and fill in some discrepancies.

I’m still not clear how long Jannelle and Mike were at the house, if they left and the house was still vacant, what time Mrs. McCall arrived at the house and were there other ‘First Responders’ there. Jannelle and Mike were the first to arrive at the house and therefor a lot of the burden lies with them, being the First of the ‘First Responders.’ As someone else mentioned, Saturday was a LONG day for all of them...got started at 9 AM, and went on until 3 AM (judging from Mrs. Kirby’s account of the girls leaving). Then, Jannelle is up Sunday morning, bright eye and bushy tailed at 8 or 9 to begin what would be another long day, when some of her contemporaries were still in bed at noon.

Kathee...I’m with you on this whole story being a bit...odd. You’ve probably seen the primary reports, as well as some others here. Is there anything you can share in her story doesn’t jive with other accounts that morning/afternoon ? Curious also, are there any questions she should have been asked but was not ? Just from what I’ve read here, I’m sure there are plenty of attorneys who could discredit her as a witness or raise enough doubt to a dispassionate jury to lessen her testimony/account. It’s not what people here think, it’s what a unemotional jury would. But, to discredit her doesn’t move the ball forward at the investigative stage. Anything you can share ?

I don't disagree with anything said but what I am not understanding is why Kathee believes "everything" hinges on Janelle's timeline. What am I missing here?

 

[monkeymann]

I don't disagree with anything said but what I am not understanding is why Kathee believes "everything" hinges on Janelle's timeline. What am I missing here?

Because it really does. Kirby, Henson, Applyby, Kathy Kirby, as well as a couple of the partys that the girls went to and the people who can vouch for their presence at those partys, as well as the woman who called Sherrill that night, were the ones who established the timeline that police at least initially used as a starting point for their investigation.

But most of it was based on the report that was given to police by J. Kirby, Henson, Applybe, and Kathy Kirby (Who vouched for Janelles account by saying that she heard Stacy & Susie say they were going to Susies house), and Shane Appleby stating that, "He watched them walk to their their cars, and thats the last time he saw them"

What other timeline could police have possibly established after they actually started their investigation.....Unless they found something in the course of their investigation that threw into question the validity of one or more of those peoples stories, or based on evidence to the contrary that they found in the house that has never been released to the public.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Because it really does. Kirby, Henson, Applyby, Kathy Kirby, as well as a couple of the partys that the girls went to and the people who can vouch for their presence at those partys, as well as the woman who called Sherrill that night, were the ones who established the timeline that police at least initially used as a starting point for their investigation.

But most of it was based on the report that was given to police by J. Kirby, Henson, Applybe, and Kathy Kirby (Who vouched for Janelles account by saying that she heard Stacy & Susie say they were going to Susies house), and Shane Appleby stating that, "He watched them walk to their their cars, and thats the last time he saw them"

What other timeline could police have possibly established after they actually started their investigation.....Unless they found something in the course of their investigation that threw into question the validity of one or more of those peoples stories, or based on evidence to the contrary that they found in the house that has never been released to the public.

I agree the timeline is important but not ALL important. While it defines what took place and when it really doesn't establish anything. I would be much more interested in why Jannelle didn't have arrangements with Suzie and Sherrill to meet somewhere to go down to Branson together in one car. What time was that? Didn't they even talk about it? Jannelle could simply have gone to the Levitt home expecting to find them there and leave from there. Even if the phone didn't ring doesn't mean they weren't there. Maybe the phone service was out of order. Why did she call so early? Why didn't she call when and whatever time she did arrive to get people motivated to find out what was going on?

The timeline, as I say, is important but not critical to understanding what took place. If neither Janelle or Mike had nothing to do with their going missing, (as commonly understood) we are looking at the proverbial "shiny object" and missing the larger point. What were their plans that day? We don't know that with any specificity. If that were known then that would be the place to begin to reconstruct what might have happened.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

Bartt, never meant to offend you. I don't have much information but I do have some good information that *appears* to be credible. Yes it took me some time to get it and I have some growing to do as far as jumping the gun on some forum. You're right there.

All I wanted to know is if you had some clues. Of course I don't expect you to share that information. Also I don't feel like you had any involvement. And I realize how offensive it is for anyone to suggest you did. And I'm not sure if you're talking to trolls or me or what when you say "get a life" but, this is just something I'm interested in. Just like you're interested in football. I spend some time each day scanning the internet hoping for something new while there's down time at work. It doesn't take much more than a pulse and definitely no more time than it takes you to blog on the internet or something like that. I have a life, but thanks for YOUR concern.

I'm glad the mere mention of your name has brought you here though. You SHOULDN'T open up publicly about this case, that's stupid, but if there's anything you'd like to add for the general people who are interested in the resolution, you should. But of course I don't think you "owe" us anything.

Boy I sure do agree about the damn trolling going on here and on Topix, etc.

 

[Mote]

Could someone please enlighten me about this alleged bloody footprint on the outside of the house? I'm having trouble excepting this.

It seems the consensus is it would have belonged to Stacy McCall since she was barefooted. The obvious conclusion would be that she cut her foot on the broken glass. The thing I'm hung up on is wouldn't there have been a visible blood trail or at least some droplets of blood elsewhere?

I've read nothing that would indicate blood inside the home or blood outside the home except for this lone spot. There wasn't any precipitation reported on June 7th or June 8th in Springfield, so they couldn't have been washed away.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this because I'm leaning toward this bloody footprint as being total bunk?

 

[former central time]

Could someone please enlighten me about this alleged bloody footprint on the outside of the house? I'm having trouble excepting this.

It seems the consensus is it would have belonged to Stacy McCall since she was barefooted. The obvious conclusion would be that she cut her foot on the broken glass. The thing I'm hung up on is wouldn't there have been a visible blood trail or at least some droplets of blood elsewhere?

I've read nothing that would indicate blood inside the home or blood outside the home except for this lone spot. There wasn't any precipitation reported on June 7th or June 8th in Springfield, so they couldn't have been washed away.

Does anyone have any thoughts on this because I'm leaning toward this bloody footprint as being total bunk?

I have heard about this but as unliked separated points. Meaning...

A) A blood sample of Stacy’s (matching her DNA) was found on the door frame of the Levitt house.

B) A footprint belonging to Stacy was found in the living room facing to the door.

Point ‘A’ would close the book on anyone who questions whether the girls made it home that night, we have a slam dunk that she was there...somehow.

Point ‘B’ is odd to me because, although contemporary photographs show the inside house hardwood floors, in 1992 it appears carpeted from much of the video I’ve seen. But, I was never in the house myself.

I can offer this observation. You may recall in the 1992 48 Hours program how the reporter says, with video of the kitchen being dusted, a ‘palm print was found.’ My next door neighbor, a few years back, was robbed, and she told me investigators ‘...found a finger print...’ inside. I shared the story with a news friend of mine who told me that it’s a typical response from LE to help the victims feel better. Oooooo, a clue ! Something hard ! Often, it can be a little white lie. But, even if true, it means, don’t call Perry Mason or Dr. Quincy just yet, there’s a lot more work to be done.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

There is no question the girls made it home. Their purses and things were in the bathroom. Stacy was in the home before the abduction. That's a fact.

There's not much you can do with a fingerprint or palm print that doesn't match anyone in a database or if they can secretly obtain a fingerprint from a suspect. I'm sure if it matched a single person outside of the people who were there that following day, they'd be nailed to a cross by now.

Now only if we knew there were unidentified prints at all. That would tell us exactly where to look first if there isn't.

 

[Mote]

Ones belief of whether or not the perpetrator entered the home is dependent on the number of abductors one believes was involved.

Is that an accurate statement?

In reading up on this case, I’m of the mind that there was only one abductor. This article from last June seems to indicate the police suspect there was only one abductor too. However, I can’t realistically figure out how one person could have subdued three women without entering the home. There is a theory out there that the reason there wasn’t any physical evidence inside the home is because nothing ever took place inside the home. For starters, there may have been physical evidence left behind. Due to the fact that 18 people may have unknowingly annihilated the crime scene, we have no way of knowing for sure. But putting that aside, I still see problems with that theory, most notably the purses and Stacy McCall.

If the perp didn’t enter the home, there is no rhyme or reason why Sherrill Levitt’s purse is on her daughter’s bedroom floor. From what I’ve read, I get the impression Sherrill Levitt was a “neat freak.” The police were quoted as saying that some things were out of place and shouldn’t have been that way. For me, this points away from the theory that the perpetrator never entered the home.

As for Stacy McCall, I’ve yet to find a logical explanation as to why she would be outside socializing, braless and in her panties, in the middle of the night. If it was someone she knew, I’d think she’d be more likely to throw on some sweat pants and then go outside. To explain this, some have theorized that there was a struggle at the front of the house involving Suzie, Sherrill, or both with the perp and Stacy tried to escape out the back. The problem I see with this is if Stacy escaped from the house how did the perp maintain control of Sherrill and Suzie? If Stacy escapes and the perp chases after her, what’s stopping Suzie from running down to Glenstone Avenue to get help? The reverse of that is the perp is in the process of tying up Sherrill and Suzie, what’s stopping Stacy from calling the police? With breaking porch globes, barking dogs, people running around the outside of the house, and the possibility of a vehicle driving by seeing the mayhem, the perp would quickly lose control of the situation.

The point is one perp would have trouble pulling this off without entering the home. I’m not even sure two perps could have pulled this off without entering the home. Unless I’m reading the situation wrong, I have to conclude the perp DID enter the home.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Ones belief of whether or not the perpetrator entered the home is dependent on the number of abductors one believes was involved.

Is that an accurate statement?

In reading up on this case, I’m of the mind that there was only one abductor. This article from last June seems to indicate the police suspect there was only one abductor too. However, I can’t realistically figure out how one person could have subdued three women without entering the home. There is a theory out there that the reason there wasn’t any physical evidence inside the home is because nothing ever took place inside the home. For starters, there may have been physical evidence left behind. Due to the fact that 18 people may have unknowingly annihilated the crime scene, we have no way of knowing for sure. But putting that aside, I still see problems with that theory, most notably the purses and Stacy McCall.

If the perp didn’t enter the home, there is no rhyme or reason why Sherrill Levitt’s purse is on her daughter’s bedroom floor. From what I’ve read, I get the impression Sherrill Levitt was a “neat freak.” The police were quoted as saying that some things were out of place and shouldn’t have been that way. For me, this points away from the theory that the perpetrator never entered the home.

As for Stacy McCall, I’ve yet to find a logical explanation as to why she would be outside socializing, braless and in her panties, in the middle of the night. If it was someone she knew, I’d think she’d be more likely to throw on some sweat pants and then go outside. To explain this, some have theorized that there was a struggle at the front of the house involving Suzie, Sherrill, or both with the perp and Stacy tried to escape out the back. The problem I see with this is if Stacy escaped from the house how did the perp maintain control of Sherrill and Suzie? If Stacy escapes and the perp chases after her, what’s stopping Suzie from running down to Glenstone Avenue to get help? The reverse of that is the perp is in the process of tying up Sherrill and Suzie, what’s stopping Stacy from calling the police? With breaking porch globes, barking dogs, people running around the outside of the house, and the possibility of a vehicle driving by seeing the mayhem, the perp would quickly lose control of the situation.

The point is one perp would have trouble pulling this off without entering the home. I’m not even sure two perps could have pulled this off without entering the home. Unless I’m reading the situation wrong, I have to conclude the perp DID enter the home.

Without addressing all the points you have raised one theory I have read is that the perp may have had gloves on and had a gun where he subdued the women. And there may have been evidence left behind which was insufficient to indict the perpetrator due to the contamination of the crime scene if it was inside the house.

One has to wonder, however, how three women would have dutifully followed instructions to march out to the waiting van. I have theorized that if the women were hogtied they could have been carried to the van by one individual but it begs the question of how this could have been done by only one perpetrator and there is no evidence that we know of that a struggle took place in the house.

I tend to think the "prime perp" had at least one accomplice. I do believe the police do know the identity of this person.