christine2448
Retired WS Staff
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2005
- Messages
- 10,392
- Reaction score
- 342
Please continue general discussions here. Thanks.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
So what did I miss? Where did SPD fail in their forensic investigation? Just because an arrest has not been made based on forensic evidence doesnt mean that SPD didnt do a proper collection of evidentiary samples. Just because this crime has not been solved doesnt mean that SPD botched the investigation. Not all crimes get solved regardless of what Law & Order or CSI would have us believe.
Excellent work Hurricane, and a very interesting read.
Your last sentence especially hits the nail on the head. L&O and CSI may be entertaining, but that's all they are. Too many people watch these shows and assume things are representative of actual criminal investigative work.
Thread 1 http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8961&highlight=springfield
Thread 2 The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 THREAD NO. 2 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Thread 3 The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 THREAD NO. 3 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Media Links Thread Media Links NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
Images only Thread Images only NO DISCUSSION - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community
But if SPD has been able to develop DNA from evidentiary samples then it would most likely eliminate all of the usual suspects except Bartt Streeter and Dustin Recla since no arrests have been made. If Reclas DNA was found in the house he could always claim that Suzie invited him over one night since they had previously dated. Without additional evidence his DNA alone would probably not be enough to bring charges. Other male friends could make the same claim that Suzie had asked them over but it would be harder to substantiate as fact since they had not previously dated Suzie. The final option is that if there is DNA then it belongs to an unknown who is not in the CODIS database.
I would only take issue with one thing that was said. If Bartt's fingerprints and/or DNA were to be found there, I am not understanding why that would point more specifically to him. I don't believe it is unreasonable to believe he was in the home at some time during the two month period Sherrill and Suzie lived there regardless of the strained relationship that may have existed.
Too bad we don't know whether Bartt Streeter's DNA or fingerprints were found at the house or not.He had never been to the new house since his mother had moved there, I believe. He didn't go to his sister's graduation nor did he show up at the scene after the crime as did many other concerned friends and relatives.Bartt had still been estranged (and disowned, IMO) from his mother and sister since his fight with his sister several months before in which the newspapers alleged he had stabbed his sister with a fork.
His mother and sister moved to Missouri from Washington State without him. It appears that his mother always favored Suzie over him. I think there was a lot of built-up resentment there.
If Bartt's fingerprints or DNA had been found at the house, that would have made him even more of a suspect.
When you couple that with his actions after the disappearances; leaving the state,and death threats of witnesses in that case and his non-participation in the search for his mother and sister to the present day, one can only wonder what he's running from. His many failed relationships, his other arrests over the years and his non-support of his children (to this day) do nothing to enhance his character, either. His own father even stated he should be investigated.his later kidnapping attempt of a young girl in Las Vegas
As far as his alibi goes, it's been a pretty gray area as far as the reporting on it goes. So far, no one on this board has been able to satisfactorily explain (to my satisfaction, anyways) his whereabouts that night, other than to state that the police said he passed the poly.
I totally agree about the polygraph. In my view they are worthless.
What we don't know is whether Bartt was in the home during that two month period. How would we know that? For example, Suzie is not around to tell us she never let him in even if Sherrill refused him entry. It is impossible to say based on the known facts.
I haven't ruled any of these individuals out. Two officers very closely involved with this case pointed in a different direction. I would have no way to say for certain but I would probably put about 10 people on the suspect list. This is where motive and time line becomes critical. The time lines are not sufficiently established and we don't have a certain motive; only a likely motive as per the SPD according to press reports.
Essentially we are at an impasse. The cops will not talk about it, the media/press will not report about it, the garage floor remains uncored, Cox plays games with a phony alibi, and we go over and over the same ground. My own unprofessional opinion is that the most telling clues are to be found in the Cox letters and interview. Until proven otherwise, I would place him as the likely perpetrator or ringleader.
Maybe it gets lost in the semantics somewhere but I dont think that the N-L ever alleged that Bartt stabbed his sister with a fork. If you have an article that states such could you post the date of publication?
News-Leader, Aug. 24, 1992.
Last spring, Bartt had a fight with his sister that alienated him
from his mother, who mailed him his birth certificate.
"Mom chose at that time not to have a relationship with me. Well
that had happened quite a few times in the past. If we had times
where we did not get along, we just did not see each other for a
while. Then when one of us wanted to talk to the other one, we
called and we talked over our problem. We always gave each other
space we needed during the time that we felt either person stepped
on the other person."
Bartt dismisses as "rumors" that the fight with Suzie involved a
stabbing with a fork, or that Suzie was badly bruised.
"There was no fork. There was an argument over the stereo because I
had the volume too loud. We had a little shoving match. Suzie and I
had moved into a house together and there was a bunch of extenuating
circumstances why it didn't work out. There was some boyfriend
problems. There were some partying problems on my part. There was
a situation of me being 28 and Suzie being 18. We jumped into it
too fast, and it didn't work out. And Mom expected me to be the
protector and to bend my life. Then "48 Hours" or somebody else
said something to me about my sister having bruises all over here.
There's no way."
News-Leader, June 21, 1992.
"In some ways, Streeter was not a typical teen-ager. She moved out
of her mother's home at least twice. Last summer she lived for
about three months with her boyfriend, Mike Kovacs, 17, at his
grandmother's home. In September, she moved back to her mother's
apartment "
Early this spring she moved in with her brother, Bartt Streeter,
27. After a fight about two weeks later, she moved out, friends
say. Both times she came back to her mom's home. Friends of both
Streeter and Sherrill Levitt say the mother-daughter relationship
was sometimes troubled.
A young male friend of the girls has given various accounts of the
events he recalls between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on June 7. He was one
of those who entered Levitt's house early in the day apparently
looking for the women. "We pretty well cleared all that up,"
Worsham said of the friend's accounts. "He was simply confused on
some times as to where he was."
I was never under the impression that only those people were going to Branson. I could be mistaken, but it sounded more like a larger group.Anyone know who this is? He entered the house early in the day? Alone? Before Henson and Kirby who entered later in the day at 12:30 pm?
If Henson, Kirby, Streeter, McCall and Appleby were the only ones going to Branson, who would this other young male friend be? And why the anonymity?
Well, in the article below, Bartt referenced Suzie being stabbed with a fork, so it can be assumed the reporter brought it up. There must have been a source that the reporter got it from. Being "stabbed with a fork" or "having bruises all over" didn't just materialize out of thin air. Suzie or her mother more then likely told someone about the fight and just because there are no medical records doesn't prove anything. The wound could have been superficial and didn't require medical attention or Suzie didn't seek medical attention because it was a family matter.
Whatever way it happened is really immaterial. We do know there was a fight.The police report states that he attempted to forcefully take the girl from the arms of the babysitter several times, that he flicked a cigarette into the child's face, that he was violent while detained and was peppersprayed, that he used foul language in front of women and children, that he threatened bodily harm to those around him, that a stipulation of his probation/parole was that his home be checked for stolen property and obtain counseling for impulse control and anger management.As far as looking further into the kidnapping attempt, what would be the purpose?
I don't need documentation from a hospital or a shrink to prove he's violent and exhibits sociopathic tendencies. It's obvious that he's a violent person and many things point to him being a suspect. I'm looking at a pattern of violence that continues till the present day in Punta Gorda, FL, not a few isolated incidents. The fact that he doesn't even provide support for his own children and has three DUI's doesn't help his case either.
Instead of me always having to prove and backup my view that he's a very good suspect, how about some proof from someone that he couldn't have done it?
Like his alibi, for instance. He was drunk on someone's couch, therefore he couldn't have done it? He was fishing at Truman Lake, therefore he coudn't have done it? We've never actually heard exactly what he was doing when the women disappeared. Why all the hush-hush around his alibi? Are we afraid that it might be picked apart?
I was never under the impression that only those people were going to Branson. I could be mistaken, but it sounded more like a larger group.
Last spring, Bartt had a fight with his sister that alienated him
from his mother, who mailed him his birth certificate."Mom chose at that time not to have a relationship with me. Well that had happened quite a few times in the past. If we had times where we did not get along, we just did not see each other for a while. Then when one of us wanted to talk to the other one, we called and we talked over our problem. We always gave each other space we needed during the time that we felt either person stepped
on the other person."
You are free to believe whatever you choose. I want to deal only in facts, not rumors. Some of Suzies best friends are on record as saying that there was no stabbing or bruising at the time of what amounted to a shoving match between her and Bartt; and that Suzie did not sustain any injuries -Hurricane
Mailing someone their birth certificate as a form of alienation sounds too corny and made up to me, especially since he was already 28 years old.
It's no more a rumor than Bartt's alibi is. There are no publicly-documented facts on his alibi so that would also stand to be a rumor.