The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #4

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Indianagirl said:
Clymer is Stacy's Aunt and lives in Oklahoma. The article just quotes what she said. So, IMO the Aunt was probably told this, perhaps by her sister, who heard it from SPD? (Maybe what was truly said was lost in translation?) SPD must have put a lot of stock into it, as there was a mock up green van displayed. I guess it just depends on whether one thinks the porch lady is considered credible or that sighting is valid. IMO, there isn't enough public information out there to decide one way or the other.

Trooogrit, I also thought the tumor was not that pronounced. However, maybe when Suzie talked it pronounced it? Or maybe its something hard to notice in just a picture?
Click to expand...

It is my opinion that a van was used and I tend to believe the porch lady sighting is valid. Having said that however there has always been two points of contention for this:

*Could she have heard the unseen male voice instructing Suzie? I guess it is possible during the quiet time at 6:30 a.m. and if perhaps the male sat on the floor of the van behind the doghouse (engine). Everything would have to be just right.

*Could she have seen the small birthmark and/or fatty tumor near Suzie’s lip? That is a little harder for me to get around and accept.

Suzie’s friends are on record as saying that Suzie was very self-conscious about herself and she did an excellent job at disguising them with makeup. So if it is true that the porch lady was able to see them then there is no doubt that the girls were in the house and that the damp wash cloths were theirs from when they removed their makeup. That would also eliminate any plans that they might have had of going back out that night.
 
The Kansas City Star
September 2, 1992
Edition: MID-AMERICA
Section: MID-AMERICA
Page: C3

Van could draw abduction clues Replica vehicle used in Springfield, where women still missing.
Author: The Associated Press
Article Text:
SPRINGFIELD - A moss-green 1964 Dodge van was parked outside police headquarters Tuesday as authorities urged residents to examine the replica of a vehicle that may have been used June 7 to abduct three women.
Police said the panel van, with no license plates, a white front grill and its back windows painted over, matched a witness's description of a van seen early on the morning the women disappeared.
The replica was fashioned from a van found at an auto salvage yard. Authorities said the actual van could range from a 1964 model to a 1970 model.
Lt. Mike Brazeal said the van would be on display at police headquarters for a couple of weeks and would then be moved to shopping malls around town.
"This appears to be the best lead that we have at the present time," Brazeal said.
Officials said they hoped someone else would remember seeing the actual van and provide new information on what happened to the women - Sherrill Levitt, 47, her daughter Suzie Streeter, 19, and Streeter's friend, Stacy McCall, 18.
A witness told police she saw the van in eastern Springfield about 6:30 a.m. on June 7 - the morning the women disappeared.
The women vanished from Levitt's home, leaving their cars, keys, purses, makeup and cigarettes behind. The case has baffled investigators, who received thousands of leads but said they didn't have any solid clues.
The witness told investigators the van's driver looked like Streeter.
"We're comfortable enough that what (the witness) saw and what she described could have been Suzie Streeter, so we've got to find that van," said Sue Schofield, the department's supervisor of crime analysis. "It may be disposed of. It may be in a junk yard or a lake," Schofield said. "But somebody has seen a van that looked like that van. " The witness told police she heard a male voice from inside the vehicle telling the driver to turn around and warning her against any "silly or stupid" moves. The witness said she didn't see the man.
Copyright 1992, 1996 The Kansas City Star Co.
 
Prior to the airing of the "48 Hour" piece the SPD was rather open about the case which I believe might explain why Clymer was provided this information. After the "48 Hour" piece both Mountjoy and Moore hit the roof over the lack of proper procedures as they saw it as it would hinder their prosecution. After that, as I recollect, the information came out in dribs and drabs and is today effectively non-existent.

My opinion: Any information provided to the public, including Clymer, prior to the "48 Hour" piece is probably the unvarnished truth as the police knew it up to that point. Because of the "48 Hour" piece it is probable that the public, being starved for information, developed the view that the police were indifferent to the investigation. And, not to make it personal, may explain why I received the rather unusual response when I called in an identical white van. It had probably already been checked out and eliminated. I can remember to this day as I worked from the 7th Floor of the Springfield State Office Building a similar van was seen in the parking lot across Olive Street and was called in. The police in plain clothes actually showed up almost immediately, looked inside the van with flashlights and determined it was not the vehicle.

And finally, it was not until I read this article that it became clear, in my opinion, that the van sighting was more likely than not valid, that Suzie was more likely than not driving the van heading east out of town. There are several possible routes from Delmar. Turn left from the driveway to Glenstone, left, up one block to Grand, turn east. Or turn right from Delmar to Kentwood, one block north, turn right on Grand (entailing a traffic signal). Or drive to Cherry via Glenstone entailing traffic signals. If, however, she went onto Grand she may have simply overshot Oak Grove going north to Cherry, necessitating the turnaround. The Cherry Street route, to 138 and out of town is much less well traveled, fairly direct and much quicker and probably the logical route traveled. Cherry would intersect with FR 197, south, then back east on FR 138, then going all the way out to MO125. A further indicator this was the probable route is it is also approximately around the area of Cherry and 138 where I understand the "screams" were heard that night further indicating this was the route taken. (If someone knows that exact location, please correct me.)

Please allow me to offer another thought. I have wondered how and why Sherrill's vehicle came to be parked all the way in the garage as it is my understanding that it normally was parked half way in and half way out. Perhaps Suzie asked her mother to move the vehicle; perhaps after a trip to George's, into the garage so she could drive forward out of the driveway the next morning. If Sherrill's vehicle was blocking the driveway, it would require the rather awkward act of backing both Stacy and Suzie's cars out of the driveway in order to exit the residence on their trip to Whitewater, unless Sherrill moved it the next morning. I think it would be worthwhile to recheck the time line even more closely and see if the George's sighting was feasible. It has been my understanding that this was a favorite eatery for Sherrill and that the waitress knew her on sight. If she said she saw her, she probably did. I can imagine Sherrill greeting both girls when they arrived, realizing they needed some food to help them recover from the night's festivities, taking them down to George's and then all returning in her vehicle. Sherrill merely drove her car into the garage so Suzie could leave in the morning. Since the keys were in Sherrill's purse it may be because Sherrill simply put them there after returning from George's, if that is what took place. This is only a hypothesis but it makes reasonably good sense to me. What came afterward from that time forward until sometime around the approximately 6:25 AM departure from Delmar is open to conjecture.
 
Missouri Mule said:
From the "Charley Project" site:

"She has a small tumor on the left corner of her mouth which gives the appearance of chewing tobacco."

http://www.charleyproject.org/cases/s/streeter_suzanne.html

I'm speculating but I would think this was what was observed and although I have no way to know for certain, I imagine that the van pulled in the driveway just due west of where the eyewitness saw the van. As I recall, this particular side of the street (the south) which I believe likely the van turned around had smaller homes on smaller lots than on the north side of Grand. (Perhaps some local resident could drive by that approximate area to confirm that) If that is the case, the eyewitness most probably had a reasonably close-up view of Suzie. In any event she would have had to have viewed this characteristic from the left side.
Click to expand...

Suzie did have a small tumor on the left side of her face, approx. the size of a dime to quarter size. She was anticipating getting it remove early fall after graduation in Little Rock. It did not affect her speech, beauty, etc. but might have made her somewhat self-conscious. What teenager doesn't have those moments of angst about their appearance?
 
I checked out Google Earth and there are two blocks on E Grand (just east of S. Oak Grove) where houses are close enough together so that it is possible that Van Lady saw and heard what she claimed. (this area is 15 blocks from the Delmer house and just past the "left turn" on S. Oak Grove that one would need to take to get to the 65.) I hope the SPD did an effective job of checking out the line of vision between where she sat and where the Van was stopped. (and not just take her word for it).

The issue of the "birthmark is very important. It does not show up on any of the photo's I've seen. She was apparently able to cover it up with make-up, which, it is known, she had removed before any of this went down.

My questions are:
1) Was the "birthmark" reported as part of Suzie's description in the media coverage of the early days of the investigation?
2) Did Van lady's vantage point permit identifying this "birthmark"?

If the "birthmark" wasn't reported but the Van lady saw it, Bingo, her sighting is pretty much verified and we have an important lead. If the "birthmark" was reported, the big question is: could Van Lady really identify it as such, from where she sat? If that appears doubtful, Van Lady's credibility is shot.

I wonder how thoroughly the story was checked out. I get the impression that a tremendous amount of effort was spent trying to find the van yet, years later, detectives on the case have indicated skeptitism that it ever existed.
 
kemo said:
I checked out Google Earth and there are two blocks on E Grand (just east of S. Oak Grove) where houses are close enough together so that it is possible that Van Lady saw and heard what she claimed. (this area is 15 blocks from the Delmer house and just past the "left turn" on S. Oak Grove that one would need to take to get to the 65.) I hope the SPD did an effective job of checking out the line of vision between where she sat and where the Van was stopped. (and not just take her word for it).

The issue of the "birthmark is very important. It does not show up on any of the photo's I've seen. She was apparently able to cover it up with make-up, which, it is known, she had removed before any of this went down.

My questions are:
1) Was the "birthmark" reported as part of Suzie's description in the media coverage of the early days of the investigation?
2) Did Van lady's vantage point permit identifying this "birthmark"?

If the "birthmark" wasn't reported but the Van lady saw it, Bingo, her sighting is pretty much verified and we have an important lead. If the "birthmark" was reported, the big question is: could Van Lady really identify it as such, from where she sat? If that appears doubtful, Van Lady's credibility is shot.

I wonder how thoroughly the story was checked out. I get the impression that a tremendous amount of effort was spent trying to find the van yet, years later, detectives on the case have indicated skeptitism that it ever existed.
Click to expand...
Well the birthmark was reported as early as June 10th, claiming it was the right chin, later it moved to just the chin, not sure when it moved to the left corner of her lip. It has also been reported as not visible in photos, but with that being said I question the description given by the porch lady.
 
Trooogrit said:
Well the birthmark was reported as early as June 10th, claiming it was the right chin, later it moved to just the chin, not sure when it moved to the left corner of her lip. It has also been reported as not visible in photos, but with that being said I question the description given by the porch lady.
Click to expand...

I agree. I have wondered if she didn't embellish a little bit on her sighting, assuming it is valid and since she didn't come forward until around the first of August. SPD believed that it was a valid sighting. After reading and seeing the news coverage she could have picked up details that ended up in her report. But it seems to me that if she was being totally untruthful and made a false report then she would not have let it go so far as to let herself be hypnotized.
 
I'd have a hard time of mistaking a tumor for a birthmark since a tumor is a growth under the skin while a birthmark is a discolored blemish on the skin.

The van had to have been quite close to the porch for the lady to recognize it as a birthmark. Since it was stated that the lady was too scared to report the sighting for a couple of days, it leads me to believe that there's more to what the lady saw and heard that made her so scared and that the police haven't released for some reason. I doubt seeing a driver being scared and a voice telling her to don't be stupid would have made the witness so afraid to have have not report the sighting for a couple of days. She had to have seen something else.

It's also possible it was a recent bruise that the porchlady saw that appeared to be a birthmark, or, as mr. electric (from Missouri) stated in thread #2, post #109, "Maybe the girl driving was not one of the 3MW. Maybe a girl that did not like Suzanne or Stacy. may be."

And, as a side note, if this was such a well-planned operation, why did the abductor(s) have to enlist the help of Suzie to drive the vehicle? And, if there were more than one abductor, they wouldn't have needed (or risked) having Suzie drive the van, which tells me it was only one abductor. (One abductor, who, Suzie, if it was Suzie driving, knew what he was capable of if she didn't comply with his orders).

One would also have to wonder how Suzie (a fighter) morphed from being carried struggling from the home to being a driver?

A moss-green van

The woman was sure of what she saw on June 7, the day the women vanished. She was on her porch in east Springfield, enjoying the morning sunrise. She saw an older-model Dodge van, of moss-green color, pull into the driveway next door.

A young blonde was driving — she looked just like Suzie Streeter, whose picture had been in the newspaper and on television — and she looked scared. The woman on her porch could hear a man’s voice say, “Don’t do anything stupid.”

She didn’t report it for several days because she was too scared to come forward. And by the time she had, police were working other sightings of an older-model Dodge van. Sometimes the color was dark blue or a dirty brown, depending on the time of day.
Click to expand...
 
tangledweb said:
I'd have a hard time of mistaking a tumor for a birthmark since a tumor is a growth under the skin while a birthmark is a discolored blemish on the skin.

The van had to have been quite close to the porch for the lady to recognize it as a birthmark. Since it was stated that the lady was too scared to report the sighting for a couple of days, it leads me to believe that there's more to what the lady saw and heard that made her so scared and that the police haven't released for some reason. I doubt seeing a driver being scared and a voice telling her to don't be stupid would have made the witness so afraid to have have not report the sighting for a couple of days. She had to have seen something else.

It's also possible it was a recent bruise that the porchlady saw that appeared to be a birthmark, or, as mr. electric (from Missouri) stated in thread #2, post #109, "Maybe the girl driving was not one of the 3MW. Maybe a girl that did not like Suzanne or Stacy. may be."

And, as a side note, if this was such a well-planned operation, why did the abductor(s) have to enlist the help of Suzie to drive the vehicle? And, if there were more than one abductor, they wouldn't have needed (or risked) having Suzie drive the van, which tells me it was only one abductor. (One abductor, who, Suzie, if it was Suzie driving, knew what he was capable of if she didn't comply with his orders).

One would also have to wonder how Suzie (a fighter) morphed from being carried struggling from the home to being a driver?
Click to expand...
If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully. I still dont see how one person could do this though. IF one abducter did this, then we have no clue who it is. IF it were one abductor where did he get the van? Borrow it from someone? That means it was a local vehicle? and this van was his means of transportation to the crime scene? How did he get them out to that van? How did he get in the house? Did he pull up in the driveway with his van and use a ruse to get the door opened?
To me I think the bigger question would be where else did they go after the abduction. This sighting states it was 6:30 in the morning. It was daylight and had been for quite some time (almost an hour) 15 blocks away from the house? That is about 5 minutes or less from the house. 1.25 miles. So does it make sense to do an abduction at that hour? DId they go to another location? Say where other participants had vehicles parked? Was there somewhere in the vicinity of the Porch Lady that they had stopped off? I dont know, but the timeline doesnt jive well for an abduction and escape from town in a hurry.
 
"Witnesses" lie. It's a fact LE has to deal with. People read about high profile crimes and want to "get in the act". They come forward with "information" based on what they know from the media or rumors that have circulated. Most of the "thousands of tips from the community" are of this nature.

Some witness who really do have information relating to the investigation embellish, exagerate or "add" to what they really know or saw in order to make themselves more credible or more valuable to the investigation. They will make up details or say they are certain of things they are not. Witnesses must be interregated as thoroughly as suspects. If someone claims to have seen or heard something (like our Van Lady) LE needs to go to the exact spot the witness was at and verify that what was seen and heard was actually possible. This sort of thing is used to destroy the credibility of witnesses at trial all them time.

I suspect that it is commen for drivers who are heading out of Springfield east or north, to miss the turn at S. Oak Grove continue down Grand, where they ultimately use a driveway to turn around. I am sure people who live there see it happen all the time.

I think it unlikely that some random Blonde with a birthmark was driving around East Springfield having a fight with her boyfriend at 6:30 AM that day. (if one was, she would have come foreard) If Van Lady saw what she says she saw, It is almost certainly related to the crime and it became the lynch-pin of the investigation. If she made it up, she may have totally derailled the investigation.
 
kemo said:
If Van Lady saw what she says she saw, It is almost certainly related to the crime and it became the lynch-pin of the investigation. If she made it up, she may have totally derailled the investigation.
Click to expand...

So, if LE determined that the report was false would they not have made an announcement to that effect? I'd doubt LE would leave everyone hanging for 16 years with false information. Or would they?
 
Trooogrit said:
If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully. I still dont see how one person could do this though. IF one abducter did this, then we have no clue who it is.
Click to expand...

THe FBI profiler said it was someone familiar with the comings and goings of the people at the house. A trusted individual or a previous acquaintance would fit that bill. As far as getting them out to the van, you answered that question with "If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully."

If the patio doors in Suzie's room didn't have the broomstick in the door guide, they could have gotten in that way or because the odor of varnish was so strong, Mrs. Levitt left a window open or the girls opened one when they got there. I noticed in one of the videos that there was an open window and a fan was in it.

Maybe someone had a key from the previous owner and the locks hadn't been changed. There's any number of scenarios.

To me I think the bigger question would be where else did they go after the abduction. This sighting states it was 6:30 in the morning. It was daylight and had been for quite some time (almost an hour) 15 blocks away from the house? That is about 5 minutes or less from the house. 1.25 miles. So does it make sense to do an abduction at that hour?
Click to expand...

I don't think there's any set time to do an abduction. There's no logic to anything when you're dealing with sociopaths or psychopaths and I'm generalizing here and not pointing to anyone specific.

(The psychopath is defined by a uninhibited gratification in criminal, sexual, or aggressive impulses and the inability to learn from past mistakes. Individuals with this disorder gain satisfaction through their antisocial behavior and lack remorse for their actions.)
 
kemo said:
"Witnesses" lie. It's a fact LE has to deal with. People read about high profile crimes and want to "get in the act". They come forward with "information" based on what they know from the media or rumors that have circulated. Most of the "thousands of tips from the community" are of this nature.

Some witness who really do have information relating to the investigation embellish, exagerate or "add" to what they really know or saw in order to make themselves more credible or more valuable to the investigation. They will make up details or say they are certain of things they are not. Witnesses must be interregated as thoroughly as suspects. If someone claims to have seen or heard something (like our Van Lady) LE needs to go to the exact spot the witness was at and verify that what was seen and heard was actually possible. This sort of thing is used to destroy the credibility of witnesses at trial all them time.

I suspect that it is commen for drivers who are heading out of Springfield east or north, to miss the turn at S. Oak Grove continue down Grand, where they ultimately use a driveway to turn around. I am sure people who live there see it happen all the time.

I think it unlikely that some random Blonde with a birthmark was driving around East Springfield having a fight with her boyfriend at 6:30 AM that day. (if one was, she would have come foreard) If Van Lady saw what she says she saw, It is almost certainly related to the crime and it became the lynch-pin of the investigation. If she made it up, she may have totally derailled the investigation.[/quote]
Click to expand...

The SPD was looking for a van long before the porch lady came forward. It was reported on the 15th that they were looking for a blue Dodge van which may have been used in the abduction, that was stolen earlier from a used car lot. On the 17th the witness sighting of a van parked at 4:30 a.m. on S. Kentwood Ave was reported. The porch lady didn't come forward until early August, first reported in the N-L on the 3rd. Even if her sighting is a total fabrication it would only through off the assumed direction in which the perps were attempting to leave town by.
 
The Van reported on S. Kentwood was significantly different from Van Lady's van.. Certainly, people's power of obsevation and memory isn"t perfect and they could very easily have been the same van. From what I can gather, it was Van Lady's description that was accepted as "accurate" (she saw it in daylight, the "frightened blonde" would make the sighting more significant, and Van Lady worked in the Used Car industry and would, presumably, have a better eye for the details of a vehicle). I recall reading that a "lead ivestigator" refered to Van Lady's sight as "the best lead we have". It was a replica of the Van Lady van that was parked outside City Hall. (to me this would be very poor police proceedure unless they were very confident, bordering on positive, that that was the vehicle). We know that a great deal of effort went in to identifying the van. There were probably thousands of older American vans in the extended Greene Co area (mostly driven by men 18-45) but very few would fit Van Lady's description. We do not know what methods were used to identify the van; how closely they stuck to Van Lady's description.

I am inclinded find the Kentwood sighting more credible than Van Lady, but the only valid judge would be the interviewing officers. If I was satisfied that Van Lady was telling the truth howerver, I would have more confidence in the accuracy of the details of her van description. Thus, if as I suspect, Van Lady was accepted as credible, then the search for the van would focus on her description. I think it is reasonable that every van that fit this description in the area could have been located and the driver fairly well checked out. It would not be possible to do this with all "older American made" vans; but their are some profiling techniques that could have been used. We don't know how the investigation was conducted.

Hurricane, was the staus of the van, stolen from a lot, resolved?
 
What reasons would the perp(s) have to make one of the girls drive? It takes a certain amount of control out of their hands - Suzi could purposefully crash the van, she could flash the lights, draw attention to herself, etc.

One of the few reasons I can think of is there was only 1 and they felt like they needed to be in the back with the other two women to keep control of them. I have a hard time believing that if there were two perps or more they would put Suzi in the drivers seat so they could control the other two women who were most likely bound at that point and didn't pose much of a threat. Once you get your victim into your car, into your space you take hold of almost all the control over those victims and it doesn't seem feasible to me that he would take that control and hand a little bit to Suzi for really no good reason. Someone who has just kidnapped three women does not want to be in a position where they are not in control of where that vehicle is going.
 
kemo said:
The Van reported on S. Kentwood was significantly different from Van Lady's van.. Certainly, people's power of obsevation and memory isn"t perfect and they could very easily have been the same van. From what I can gather, it was Van Lady's description that was accepted as "accurate" (she saw it in daylight, the "frightened blonde" would make the sighting more significant, and Van Lady worked in the Used Car industry and would, presumably, have a better eye for the details of a vehicle). I recall reading that a "lead ivestigator" refered to Van Lady's sight as "the best lead we have". It was a replica of the Van Lady van that was parked outside City Hall. (to me this would be very poor police proceedure unless they were very confident, bordering on positive, that that was the vehicle). We know that a great deal of effort went in to identifying the van. There were probably thousands of older American vans in the extended Greene Co area (mostly driven by men 18-45) but very few would fit Van Lady's description. We do not know what methods were used to identify the van; how closely they stuck to Van Lady's description.

I am inclinded find the Kentwood sighting more credible than Van Lady, but the only valid judge would be the interviewing officers. If I was satisfied that Van Lady was telling the truth howerver, I would have more confidence in the accuracy of the details of her van description. Thus, if as I suspect, Van Lady was accepted as credible, then the search for the van would focus on her description. I think it is reasonable that every van that fit this description in the area could have been located and the driver fairly well checked out. It would not be possible to do this with all "older American made" vans; but their are some profiling techniques that could have been used. We don't know how the investigation was conducted.

Hurricane, was the staus of the van, stolen from a lot, resolved?
Click to expand...
Actually the van described on S. Kentwood was different in color than the one the van lady saw, but it was the same in vintage and age (dodge 67-70). There was a photo of one in the NL June 17, 1992. There was an attempt to locate vans of this description, but not all were accounted for and I believe they said there were 450 registered in Missouri alone of that model.
 
tangledweb said:
THe FBI profiler said it was someone familiar with the comings and goings of the people at the house. A trusted individual or a previous acquaintance would fit that bill. As far as getting them out to the van, you answered that question with "If a gun was to Suzies mothers head or a knife, I am sure Suzie would cooperate fully."

I am familiar with what the FBI profiler said and to some degree that is useful information, but the FBI also believed more than one person took part in this crime.
" The FBI theorizes at least two people took the women, and at least one of the women knew one of the men who lured them out of the house on false pretext.
But with little hard evidence from the crime scene, the scenario is very general and mainly focuses on the type of people who may have done this. Said FBI spokesman Max Geiman in Kansas City" NL July 8,1992

"Wright said the leader likely was an acquaintence who may have known their comings and goings.
He said the person may have been someone that one of the women trusted. But it's others involved, who may not have known the women, that the FBI and Springifield police hope to reach." NL July 19,1992

"With all this experience more that 22 years with the FBI---Wright admits, this case is not easy. "Unfortunately there's not a whole lot to look at here, and unfortunately, we don't see crimes like this very often. We dont have a great deal of insight." NL July 19,1992
quote]
Click to expand...
 
Trooogrit said:
Actually the van described on S. Kentwood was different in color than the one the van lady saw, but it was the same in vintage and age (dodge 67-70). There was a photo of one in the NL June 17, 1992. There was an attempt to locate vans of this description, but not all were accounted for and I believe they said there were 450 registered in Missouri alone of that model.
Click to expand...


There are some postings here that contain a wealth of information to help one see things more clearly.......and wanted to say thank you for being so in-dept with your postings...
I'm speculating of course, but i wondered if by chance, the location the women ended up at, was a predetermined site........perhaps used before, it seems maybe, if most of what was to occur had been put in motion earlier, then the two POI could act more on instincts, then try and THINK of what to do at the time, there adrenaline had to be soaring through there bodies, at the time, so to have preplanned the location/locations to take the women to would have made it easier so not to THINK so much about what to do next?..............perhaps after leaving, they went to two different locations, for two different reasons, before leaving it all behind somewhere.
I don't see them trying to take them very, very far from the house, they did it at that time, perhaps with less traffic, less traffic on the highway perhaps? being so early in the morning.
the two places, one would have been the BEFORE ground, and the other the AFTER ground.........and i always thought perhaps, they were taken from the home around 1am-4am, but more then likely between 3 and 4 am.....And not still being in the area, at daybreak
to be seen pulling into some woman's drive way, seems careless and reckless after abducting 3 women at once, seems they would have taken them and then got the hell out of there, as quickly as possible.
All just MOO, nothing for certain and or factual.
​
 
I wonder why these callers were never found and interviewed more thoroughly and why these male subjects could not have been identified or offered to come forward.

This appears that at least three (two besides the waitress) contacted the police to report this sighting. This lead was dropped in the early part of the investigation but it would go a long way to explaining how Sherrill's car was found all the way in the carport. Evidently Moore believed it had legs.

A hypothesis: These individuals were stalking the young women and followed them back to the home. They parked the van across the street from the Levitt home and when they all went down to George's the van followed them. They went into the restaurant where they struck up a conversation with the women and were seated with them. When the meal was completed they followed them back to the Levitt home. What might have happened after that time is clouded in mystery. There are some problems with the theory and the crime scene. In any event this account appears credible and written by an experienced reporter for the N-L.

Here is what might account for some of these gaps. Three men went to George's where they met up with the women. Two of them have clammed up since 1992, moved on or have died. They may not have been Springfield natives. The other was Robert Cox, a Springfield native. As the other two realized what a psychopath Cox was they ran for the tall grass because they realized they had gotten in over their heads and departed the scene. The lone abductor remaining was Cox which would account for the lone male voice in the van and why Suzie had to be driving the car. Perhaps it was one of the other two individuals who placed the call from Florida to AMW.

As to the motive: I don't think there was one as we would commonly understand. Cox is likely a serial killer who wanted to pattern himself after Ted Bundy. The motive for such serial murderers is the act of killing itself. Not to put too fine a point on it, some of these serial murderers kill their victims in order to have sex with them after they are dead (Necrophilia).

http://www.forensicpsychiatry.ca/paraphilia/necro.htm

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/serial_killers/notorious/bundy/16.html

(Snip)

"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."

(Snip)

The Kansas City Star
July 21, 1992

Edition: MID-AMERICA
Section: MID-AMERICA
Page: B6

"Back in 1992, three calls came in to police that the three women were seen in the early morning hours at George's Steakhouse. The callers said they also saw three men with them.

Moore wants to know who those three men are, and if they could be related to suspects developed in Barry County.

"I want some people found and interviewed again," Moore said. "I want to know who those guys were.

"If anyone from the McCall family or the Levitt or the Streeter families asked me to my face if every possible thing that could have been done was done, I want to be able to say yes," Moore adds. "And at this point I can't say that."

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/0608-Cassvilleb-115439.html
 
Missouri Mule said:
I wonder why these callers were never found and interviewed more thoroughly and why these male subjects could not have been identified or offered to come forward.

This appears that at least three (two besides the waitress) contacted the police to report this sighting. This lead was dropped in the early part of the investigation but it would go a long way to explaining how Sherrill's car was found all the way in the carport. Evidently Moore believed it had legs.

A hypothesis: These individuals were stalking the young women and followed them back to the home. They parked the van across the street from the Levitt home and when they all went down to George's the van followed them. They went into the restaurant where they struck up a conversation with the women and were seated with them. When the meal was completed they followed them back to the Levitt home. What might have happened after that time is clouded in mystery. There are some problems with the theory and the crime scene. In any event this account appears credible and written by an experienced reporter for the N-L.

(Snip)

"Back in 1992, three calls came in to police that the three women were seen in the early morning hours at George's Steakhouse. The callers said they also saw three men with them.

Moore wants to know who those three men are, and if they could be related to suspects developed in Barry County.

"I want some people found and interviewed again," Moore said. "I want to know who those guys were.

"If anyone from the McCall family or the Levitt or the Streeter families asked me to my face if every possible thing that could have been done was done, I want to be able to say yes," Moore adds. "And at this point I can't say that."

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/0608-Cassvilleb-115439.html
Click to expand...
............perhaps, the van was already there, at the restaurant.....they Saw the women entered, or the POI were already inside before the chatting be-gain.......and for one reason or the other, they followed them back to the house, and the one vehicle that was mentioned, that was pulled up farther into the carport then usually , could it be that was the plan??, she pulled up farther so the van could park behind her??......if they all did leave around the same time, if confirmed by anyone there, that saw them all leave around, or at the same time..............
.......... that could be very well, where they were spotted and followed?
.........they could have even just followed them out, of the resturant, and pulled guns on one or more of the women, and made them all drive back to the house, and to make room for the fouth vehicle, the one in front parked futher up and into the carport???
.................ALL JUST SPECULATION, AND ASSUMPTIONS ON MY PART.....

but on this link that follows, it is what i think may have been the last event , or something similiar, but still just speculating.
http://www.14wfie.com/Global/story.asp?S=9122848
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 191 more.
Total: 1,571 (members: 192, guests: 1,379)

Online statistics

Members online
192
Guests online
1,379
Total visitors
1,571
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,802
Messages
17,959,143
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top