The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5

Missouri Mule · Apr 24, 2011

Hurricane said:
Missouri Mule said:

You have attributed to me twice now a statement about Garrison having a pot belly that I did not make. There is a reference in the N-L during his trial for rape that he appeared looking like an accountant with a pot belly. His attorney had his hair cut and dressed him in a long sleeve white shirt to cover up his tattoos on his arms and the cuffs on his wrists. I have never said anything about his ability to fit thru a window, one way or another. And oddly enough he did crawl thru a 2nd floor window to gain entry to commit the rape of which he was convicted.

And likewise I have never made the claim that the sliding glass door could be lifted out of its frame.

I have to agree with Kathee as I quote her now:
No thanks. I’ll continue to work as I always have and exchange info with those who do likewise and I can trust.

Click to expand...

I beg to differ with you sir but when we were on good terms several years ago you did bring up the matter of the "pot belly" and also the sliding glass door. Perhaps you have forgotten.

In any event, if you don't want to put forth your own theory, for whatever reason, that is your decision. If you don't have faith that it will withstand scrutiny I can understand why you would demur.

I would also remind you that trust works both ways. When you called my home I shared with you what information I possessed with you. Evidently you do not believe in reciprocity. That's unfortunate.

Hurricane · Apr 24, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
Hurricane said:

I beg to differ with you sir but when we were on good terms several years ago you did bring up the matter of the "pot belly" and also the sliding glass door. Perhaps you have forgotten.

In any event, if you don't want to put forth your own theory, for whatever reason, that is your decision. If you don't have faith that it will withstand scrutiny I can understand why you would demur.

I would also remind you that trust works both ways. When you called my home I shared with you what information I possessed with you. Evidently you do not believe in reciprocity. That's unfortunate.

Click to expand...

LOL! Allow me to assert once again that I called you at your home one time in 2007 to share information I had just obtained from an interview. You were the recipient of plenty of reciprocity until it was discovered that you were not trustworthy and you were cut off from the research group in 2008 and no further information was shared with you after that time.

Trooogrit · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
Let's assume that Garrison was involved. Is it conceivable that he could have, by himself, have abducted the women? (In your opinion). If not would he have enlisted help? That would have made it even more probable that something of him and others would have been found in the home. Like Cox, there is nothing in that home, if connected to them, that could be said to be explainable such as normal visitors to the home. And then we have the problem that whether him or the others could keep this secret all these years. Are they still living? We don't know (or at least I don't know.) We only know that he has clammed up as has Cox.

Garrison could have carried out the crime with a weapon, as I am sure Cox would have used one. I would challenge you to read about the east area rapist in California in the late 70s, who evolved into the original nightstalker and has never been caught. He controlled several people quite easily, men included. My personal opinion is that this evolved from 1 victim to 3 victims and it is possible help was brought in.

I'm having a real problem with the lack of forensic evidence. A "skilled" serial killer, an organized psychopath, would know how to do this but does Garrison have any history of this ability? Based on his trial for rape, I tend to think not. As I think of that mystery visitor to his attorney's office telling him to drop the case it seems plausible that it was just his way of having the trial disrupted by one of his low-life buddies on the outside; possibly to get a mistrial. It never really made any sense to be me. And in the end, he just acquiesced when he said upon hearing the verdict, "don't know what to think" as being the head of his class. Now he sets mum in his prison cell evidently content to serve out a defacto life sentence.

There are no skilled serial killers, Bundy, Gacy, Dahlmer,BTK or the green river killer would leave something in there crime scenes today. Advanced DNA makes it almost impossible to not leave traces. Personally I would look for hair to match Cox, he is covered with body hair.

For various reasons I just really can't see him as capable of pulling this crime off with or without accomplices. From what we know of them they are even less high up the IQ scale.

You keep bringing up IQ, and this ability to do things without being detected. Garrison crawled through a window to get to his victim in the crime he was convicted for. All the suspects listed are losers, they have all been incarcerated many times, meaning they are not that smart, nor that skilled. I do not believe that Cox and Garrison knew each other. I find it highly unlikedly and I would say that if help was needed, Garrison would have it. Cox I find to be a solo act. So that begs the question, what was he driving, what were his movements. A true serial killer is a satist, his satisifaction comes from the torture. Cox does not show that. Garrison peaks my interest because of the category of rapist he is. I think he got in over his head and called in some friends to help him get out of the jam.

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

This is obviously not a productive area of endeavor so let us move to other matter which have periodically come up.

As most who have looked at this case and even fairly recently the former prosecutor wanted the three men who were allegedly seen with the women found and questioned. The story which I believe to be valid is that "Stacy" was seen in western wear. If this account is true, and because Stacy (the real one) could not fit in Suzie's clothes and had no western wear of her own, this sighting could not be said to be a valid sighting. Additionally the timeline is so incredibly short and there were no corroborating witnesses, I believe it is reasonable to put this story in the dead letter box.

Another matter which concerns me is the relationship between Jannelle, Suzie and Stacy. If I understood the "Disappeared" program correctly Jannelle had never gone to the Levitt house prior to the abduction. (I think I'm right on that.) I think prior to the airing of the program that the impression was that all three were fairly good friends sharing common interests generally although Janelle and Stacy were going on to college while Suzie was going to follow her mother into the beautician field. I deduce from that and the assertion that Jannelle had not been to the Levitt house that the closest friendship was between Jannelle and Stacy and much less so with Suzie. In fact, I believe it is correct to say that while Jannelle would accompany the other two in various gatherings that she only accompanied one or the other at a time but not all three together. I stand to be corrected if that is an erroneous impression but it strikes me as somewhat unusual. I have also heard from several people that Jannelle made reference to "the other girl" meaning Suzie further indicating that Jannelle was tight with Stacy but not with Suzie. What does one make of this?

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

Trooogrit said:
You keep bringing up IQ, and this ability to do things without being detected. Garrison crawled through a window to get to his victim in the crime he was convicted for. All the suspects listed are losers, they have all been incarcerated many times, meaning they are not that smart, nor that skilled. I do not believe that Cox and Garrison knew each other. I find it highly unlikedly and I would say that if help was needed, Garrison would have it. Cox I find to be a solo act. So that begs the question, what was he driving, what were his movements. A true serial killer is a satist, his satisifaction comes from the torture. Cox does not show that. Garrison peaks my interest because of the category of rapist he is. I think he got in over his head and called in some friends to help him get out of the jam.

You could be right. Garrison may have been the "ringleader" who did this crime. I have no way to prove or disprove that theory.

I would ask you this because I don't know. Is there some body of information on Cox that leads you to believe what you believe about Cox? I'd like to see it if I could. I'm not understanding why you believe that Cox and Garrison did not have a relationship of some kind. From my perspective I see Cox referring to Garrison as a more familiar type of relationship when he calls him "Steve" rather than "Garrison."

I do agree that Cox appears to be a solo act. And if this is his method of operation is it not reasonable to believe he could also have carried out this crime by himself alone? And if he did, would it not also be true that he must have taken the women somewhere pre-planned where he could work his will? And is it not possible that if he and Garrison had any kind of a relationship as friends that he could have invited Garrison, knowing his proclivities, to come over to where they were held and partake of the "spoils?"

Having said that, it is also possible that no relationship ever existed between Cox and Garrison. But if Cox did this crime himself and brought no one else into the act, he must have thought out how he would have taken the women somewhere to do whatever he intended to do. And since we (at least most, I believe) think he went out toward Rogersville, is it not reasonable that he could have gone to the Robb Farm? It seems reasonable to me that Cox must have had some friends even if he acted alone in his crimes.

Now if Garrison was the instigator of this crime, and if he brought in help to deal with the situation, it would be more probable that one or more of the two or three would have left some forensic evidence behind, would it not? So far as I know nothing linking any of the four individuals, Cox, Garrison and the other two people were ever found in the Levitt home. I would be inclined to believe that this would be improbable if the forensic team took the time they claim to have taken to scrub the house of any possible evidence. None of the three seemed to be skilled in evidence avoidance so far as I know. If I am missing something please set me straight.

bystander77 · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
Another matter which concerns me is the relationship between Jannelle, Suzie and Stacy. If I understood the "Disappeared" program correctly Jannelle had never gone to the Levitt house prior to the abduction. (I think I'm right on that.) I think prior to the airing of the program that the impression was that all three were fairly good friends sharing common interests generally although Janelle and Stacy were going on to college while Suzie was going to follow her mother into the beautician field. I deduce from that and the assertion that Jannelle had not been to the Levitt house that the closest friendship was between Jannelle and Stacy and much less so with Suzie. In fact, I believe it is correct to say that while Jannelle would accompany the other two in various gatherings that she only accompanied one or the other at a time but not all three together. I stand to be corrected if that is an erroneous impression but it strikes me as somewhat unusual. I have also heard from several people that Jannelle made reference to "the other girl" meaning Suzie further indicating that Jannelle was tight with Stacy but not with Suzie. What does one make of this?

I know I have said this before - maybe you missed it... This STINKs to high hell in my book. It further adds to Janelle's inconsistent behavior around the time of the disappearance. I know not a single person, that would just walk right into someone's house that they had never been to. As Janelle implied they were hardly friends, that makes her actions that much more unreasonable. Not only did she walk right in, she ended up cleaning up and hanging out there. I just can't buy it.

Referring to Suzie, as "the other girl" are you kidding me? I'll always wonder if the SPD did enough diligence in clearing her, or if they were too busy looking for a 1960's van to do so. Was she the one person that failed the lie detector?

It's a shame a new set of eyes can't be placed onto this case. I think there was some tunnel vision from the start and perhaps the answer was right in front of them the whole time.

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

bystander77 said:
I know I have said this before - maybe you missed it... This STINKs to high hell in my book. It further adds to Janelle's inconsistent behavior around the time of the disappearance. I know not a single person, that would just walk right into someone's house that they had never been to. As Janelle implied they were hardly friends, that makes her actions that much more unreasonable. Not only did she walk right in, she ended up cleaning up and hanging out there. I just can't buy it.

Referring to Suzie, as "the other girl" are you kidding me? I'll always wonder if the SPD did enough diligence in clearing her, or if they were too busy looking for a 1960's van to do so. Was she the one person that failed the lie detector?

It's a shame a new set of eyes can't be placed onto this case. I think there was some tunnel vision from the start and perhaps the answer was right in front of them the whole time.

I agree completely with your analysis. Not to diminish your strong views but I've probably heard from a half dozen other people who have made the same conclusion. The actions of going into the home as was done just doesn't pass the smell test.

I'll throw out something for consideration. Of the possible motives for murder there are three generally that come to mind. They are jealousy, revenge and profit. We have discussed revenge and profit but perhaps jealousy ought to be looked at as well. It has been observed that although plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay in Janelle's home that night, Suzie and Stacy opted to go to Suzie's home to sleep in. Since Jannelle indicated she was not at all close to Suzie I wonder how she felt about the rebuff given by Stacy to go stay at Suzie's home. Most would agree that it had to have been known that other relatives were coming in to stay that weekend long before the plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay there. There are a lot of silly motives that come into play that lead to tragic results. Perhaps jealousy that one was chosen over the other played a part in this crime. It certainly should be looked at and one of the programs that used to be on U-Tube had Jannelle visibly annoyed at the repeated questioning by police. She complained that she wondered if the officers even spoke to one another as they kept asking her the same questions each time a new officer came to interview her. Perhaps she was highly incensed on graduation night at Stacy's actions and said something to someone who took it upon himself to go to Suzie's house and tell her off and things got out of hand. Stranger things have happened.

I think the story about walking into the house as things were laid back in Springfield is a lot of bulloney. I lived there for 26 years and I would never think to walk into someone's home although she can rightfully argue that the door was unlocked and the television was on. That was probably enough to get her off the hook as a suspect back then. She was not seen as a logical suspect having no apparent motive.

Hurricane · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
I agree completely with your analysis. Not to diminish your strong views but I've probably heard from a half dozen other people who have made the same conclusion. The actions of going into the home as was done just doesn't pass the smell test.

I'll throw out something for consideration. Of the possible motives for murder there are three generally that come to mind. They are jealousy, revenge and profit. We have discussed revenge and profit but perhaps jealousy ought to be looked at as well. It has been observed that although plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay in Janelle's home that night, Suzie and Stacy opted to go to Suzie's home to sleep in. Since Jannelle indicated she was not at all close to Suzie I wonder how she felt about the rebuff given by Stacy to go stay at Suzie's home.

Most would agree that it had to have been known that other relatives were coming in to stay that weekend long before the plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay there.

Click to expand...

There are a lot of silly motives that come into play that lead to tragic results. Perhaps jealousy that one was chosen over the other played a part in this crime. It certainly should be looked at and one of the programs that used to be on U-Tube had Jannelle visibly annoyed at the repeated questioning by police. She complained that she wondered if the officers even spoke to one another as they kept asking her the same questions each time a new officer came to interview her. Perhaps she was highly incensed on graduation night at Stacy's actions and said something to someone who took it upon himself to go to Suzie's house and tell her off and things got out of hand. Stranger things have happened.

I think the story about walking into the house as things were laid back in Springfield is a lot of bulloney. I lived there for 26 years and I would never think to walk into someone's home although she can rightfully argue that the door was unlocked and the television was on. That was probably enough to get her off the hook as a suspect back then. She was not seen as a logical suspect having no apparent motive.

The offer to make a pallet on the floor for Suzie and Stacy to sleep on was made by Kathy Kirby when the party broke up at the Joy residence. The relatives were all asleep in the Kirby household. The plans at the time the parties began that evening had been to go to a Branson motel later that night. There were no plans to stay at the Kirby residence; it was a spur of the moment offer. I dont blame either one of the girls for not wanting to sleep on the floor. Im sure that Janelle might have felt disappointed by the fact that they werent going to Branson and that she would be sleeping at home with a house full of relatives; nothing more.

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

Hurricane said:
The offer to make a pallet on the floor for Suzie and Stacy to sleep on was made by Kathy Kirby when the party broke up at the Joy residence. The relatives were all asleep in the Kirby household. The plans at the time the parties began that evening had been to go to a Branson motel later that night. There were no plans to stay at the Kirby residence; it was a spur of the moment offer. I don’t blame either one of the girls for not wanting to sleep on the floor. I’m sure that Janelle might have felt disappointed by the fact that they weren’t going to Branson and that she would be sleeping at home with a house full of relatives; nothing more.

I thought Stacy had called her mother at 10:30 PM that night which brought great relief to Mrs. McCall. They didn't leave Battlefield until 2:20 AM. When did the party break up at the Joy residence? The Hanover party was busted by the cops at about 1:50 AM and they backtracked to Battlefield at that time, did they not? Whose party was that? (the name) It appears plans to stay at Janelle's were in place almost four hours prior to their leaving for Suzie's home.

From the K.C. com
Kansas City Star
Laura Bauer
February 19, 2011:

(Snip)

..."Suzie and Stacy weren't supposed to stay at Suzie's that night. Levitt would have the time to do home projects, like refinishing a chest of drawers.

The two new graduates and others -- including close friend Janelle Kirby, who was the glue between Suzie and Stacy -- initially thought they'd attend parties in town and then go to Branson and stay at a hotel there.

But they decided that wasn't a good idea. It was getting late. Stacy called her mom at 10:30 and said they'd go to Branson in the morning. She'd spend the night at Janelle's.

The girls went to another party and left before 2 a.m. when police showed up to shoo partiers home. Instead of staying at Janelle's and sleeping on a pallet her mom had made on the floor, the two decided to go to Suzie's house and sleep on her new waterbed.

'I did stuff with Suzie, I did stuff with Stacy and we did things together,' Janelle says now. 'It was the very first time the two had done something together, without me or other without other friends.'

Stacy followed in her car and Suzie led to way to Delmar Street.

Where they vanished..."

(Snip)

Hurricane · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
I thought Stacy had called her mother at 10:30 PM that night which brought great relief to Mrs. McCall. They didn't leave Battlefield until 2:20 AM. When did the party break up at the Joy residence? The Hanover party was busted by the cops at about 1:50 AM and they backtracked to Battlefield at that time, did they not? Whose party was that? (the name) It appears plans to stay at Janelle's were in place almost four hours prior to their leaving for Suzie's home.

From the K.C. com
Kansas City Star
Laura Bauer
February 19, 2011:

..."Suzie and Stacy weren't supposed to stay at Suzie's that night. Levitt would have the time to do home projects, like refinishing a chest of drawers.

The two new graduates and others -- including close friend Janelle Kirby, who was the glue between Suzie and Stacy -- initially thought they'd attend parties in town and then go to Branson and stay at a hotel there.

But they decided that wasn't a good idea. It was getting late. Stacy called her mom at 10:30 and said they'd go to Branson in the morning. She'd spend the night at Janelle's.

The girls went to another party and left before 2 a.m. when police showed up to shoo partiers home. Instead of staying at Janelle's and sleeping on a pallet her mom had made on the floor, the two decided to go to Suzie's house and sleep on her new waterbed.

'I did stuff with Suzie, I did stuff with Stacy and we did things together,' Janelle says now. 'It was the very first time the two had done something together, without me or other without other friends.'

Stacy followed in her car and Suzie led to way to Delmar Street.

Where they vanished..."

The Brian Joy party was just around the corner from the Kirby residence (some have called this the Gleason party because Brians mother had a different last name). The 3 girls, Henson, Applebee, all began their evening at the Joy party. Then they got word of the impromptu party at Michelle Elders house on Hanover St and went there. When the Elder party was broken up they returned to Brian Joys party. Joys mother & stepfather were gone for the weekend and would be returning sometime on Sunday. He had some guys who were going to be staying over after the party. The two girls asked if they could sleep there. I believe that they had asked earlier in the evening and Joy originally said that they could sleep there but by the time the girls returned he had thought it over and stated in the N-L that he told them that they could not stay; that he was afraid his parents would return early the next day and find them still there. Stacy obviously told her mother at 10:30 pm what she wanted to hear; there were no plans to sleep on the floor at the Kirbys at that time. Your statement previously highlighted to me makes it sound like those plans were made before the Kirby relatives even arrived for the graduation ceremony.

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

Hurricane said:
The Brian Joy party was just around the corner from the Kirby residence (some have called this the Gleason party because Brian’s mother had a different last name). The 3 girls, Henson, Applebee, all began their evening at the Joy party. Then they got word of the impromptu party at Michelle Elder’s house on Hanover St and went there. When the Elder party was broken up they returned to Brian Joy’s party. Joy’s mother & stepfather were gone for the weekend and would be returning sometime on Sunday. He had some guys who were going to be staying over after the party. The two girls asked if they could sleep there. I believe that they had asked earlier in the evening and Joy originally said that they could sleep there but by the time the girls returned he had thought it over and stated in the N-L that he told them that they could not stay; that he was afraid his parents would return early the next day and find them still there. Stacy obviously told her mother at 10:30 pm what she wanted to hear; there were no plans to sleep on the floor at the Kirby’s at that time. Your statement previously highlighted to me makes it sound like those plans were made before the Kirby relatives even arrived for the graduation ceremony.

Reading over what I said, I merely said "it has been observed that although plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay in Janelle's home that night, Suzie and Stacy opted to go to Suzie's home to sleep in."

I don't believe it is implied that the plans were made a long time prior to that night. I think it was common knowledge that the original plans were to go to Branson that night to stay in a hotel there. One could logically assume that if they were out partying it would not be wise to have driven to Branson but to wait until the next morning. So Stacy called her mother to set her mind at ease. I would doubt it would have made much difference one way or another. The intention was to remove concern about the drive to Branson.

This report seems categorical to me:

"But they decided that wasn't a good idea. It was getting late. Stacy called her mom at 10:30 and said they'd go to Branson in the morning. She'd spend the night at Janelle's."

Frankly I don't know what to make of the plans to stay at the Joy or Kirby residence. Regardless it appears that Janelle may have been upset because she was not going to stay in Battlefield either in her house or the Joy house. Stated differently, Stacy had evidently at that time made the choice to be with Suzie over being with or near Jannelle which might have not set well with her. Or it may have made no difference. We just don't know as I've never seen anyone speak to the subject.

Hurricane · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
Reading over what I said, I merely said "it has been observed that although plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay in Janelle's home that night, Suzie and Stacy opted to go to Suzie's home to sleep in."

I don't believe it is implied that the plans were made a long time prior to that night. I think it was common knowledge that the original plans were to go to Branson that night to stay in a hotel there. One could logically assume that if they were out partying it would not be wise to have driven to Branson but to wait until the next morning. So Stacy called her mother to set her mind at ease. I would doubt it would have made much difference one way or another. The intention was to remove concern about the drive to Branson.

This report seems categorical to me:

"But they decided that wasn't a good idea. It was getting late. Stacy called her mom at 10:30 and said they'd go to Branson in the morning. She'd spend the night at Janelle's."

Frankly I don't know what to make of the plans to stay at the Joy or Kirby residence. Regardless it appears that Janelle may have been upset because she was not going to stay in Battlefield either in her house or the Joy house. Stated differently, Stacy had evidently at that time made the choice to be with Suzie over being with or near Jannelle which might have not set well with her. Or it may have made no difference. We just don't know as I've never seen anyone speak to the subject.

Here is your statement that I actually highlighted. To me it is deceiving:

Most would agree that it had to have been known that other relatives were coming in to stay that weekend long before the plans were made for Suzie and Stacy to stay there.

To suggest that 3 women might have lost their lives because someone got their panties in a bunch over a sleep over is a stretch. Janelle and Stacy were going to be college roommates living in a dorm room together soon enough. I guess I give more credit to all three of these girls for their maturity at that age than you do, to think that hurt feelings over a sleep over could have precipitated a triple murder.

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

Hurricane said:
Here is your statement that I actually highlighted. To me it is deceiving:

To suggest that 3 women might have lost their lives because someone got their panties in a bunch over a sleep over is a stretch. Janelle and Stacy were going to be college roommates living in a dorm room together soon enough. I guess I give more credit to all three of these girls for their maturity at that age than you do, to think that hurt feelings over a sleep over could have precipitated a triple murder.

That relatives were going to be in town? I think that is a stretch to think they weren't known to be in town.

You know that to rule out people and motives because it is not likely or because people don't do stupid things is to rule out what has to be considered to solve crimes. Until everything and everyone is ruled out we can never hope to get down to who are the legitimate suspects and scenarios. I cut no one any slack until they prove otherwise.

When about a half dozen people have told me that the comment "the other girl" raised their doubts I am inclined to use the "wisdom of crowds" rule. Everyone can't be wrong. I believe it needs to be investigated. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Hurricane · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
That relatives were going to be in town? I think that is a stretch to think they weren't known to be in town.

You know that to rule out people and motives because it is not likely or because people don't do stupid things is to rule out what has to be considered to solve crimes. Until everything and everyone is ruled out we can never hope to get down to who are the legitimate suspects and scenarios. I cut no one any slack until they prove otherwise.

When about a half dozen people have told me that the comment "the other girl" raised their doubts I am inclined to use the "wisdom of crowds" rule. Everyone can't be wrong. I believe it needs to be investigated. So we will have to agree to disagree.

Well, please keep us informed of the evidence as you uncover it. And good luck with the wisdom of crowds rule standing up in a court of law.

Trooogrit · Apr 25, 2011

Missouri Mule said:
That relatives were going to be in town? I think that is a stretch to think they weren't known to be in town.

You know that to rule out people and motives because it is not likely or because people don't do stupid things is to rule out what has to be considered to solve crimes. Until everything and everyone is ruled out we can never hope to get down to who are the legitimate suspects and scenarios. I cut no one any slack until they prove otherwise.

When about a half dozen people have told me that the comment "the other girl" raised their doubts I am inclined to use the "wisdom of crowds" rule. Everyone can't be wrong. I believe it needs to be investigated. So we will have to agree to disagree.[/quote]This is a baseless argument, I know people in that class and they find this absurd. One thing i have found out in four years of looking at this case. We know very little on the boards and the assumptions and inuendos that are made are generally overblown.

former central time · Apr 25, 2011

bystander77 said:
I know I have said this before - maybe you missed it... This STINKs to high hell in my book. It further adds to Janelle's inconsistent behavior around the time of the disappearance. I know not a single person, that would just walk right into someone's house that they had never been to. As Janelle implied they were hardly friends, that makes her actions that much more unreasonable. Not only did she walk right in, she ended up cleaning up and hanging out there. I just can't buy it.

Referring to Suzie, as "the other girl" are you kidding me? I'll always wonder if the SPD did enough diligence in clearing her, or if they were too busy looking for a 1960's van to do so. Was she the one person that failed the lie detector?

It's a shame a new set of eyes can't be placed onto this case. I think there was some tunnel vision from the start and perhaps the answer was right in front of them the whole time.

Bystander...you are pretty much were I am, but it would appear you got there far sooner than me. I've always been uneasy about the First Responders and I'm now critical, and everything I read and hear, pushes me further in that direction.

I had initially thought these girls were 'casual friends' by even h/s standards. That would explain the carefree thought of, '...guess they weren't to Branson...(oh, well, off I go).' That's defensible, but it wouldn't explain the care Jannelle gave to calling all morning, visiting the house, going inside and so forth. So, ok, they were 'close friends.' That would explain calling that morning, going over (even though she'd never been there), going in the house and so on, I'll accept that. But, why leave ? What's the hurry ?

Let's all step back a moment in time. Personally, I'm a little older than these girls, I remember h/s graduation, I remember 1992 and I remember life before cell phones. If I was to meet up with a close friend after a given party, I call them early in the morning (9 AM is early in my memory of youth), nobody answers. I go over, see the cars parked outside, house unlocked, TV on (not unheard of in today's world, some folks do it more than others though), purses lined up, beds unmade. Creepy calls to the house I answer, hang up, calls accidently erased in the process (it's possible). Then, I leave ? What's the rush ? Again, let's go back in time, these kids just graduated h/s, a WHOLE Summer to visit waterparks. Somebody catching a flight to Europe tomorrow ? Someone starts a new corporate job Monday ? How about calling back home, 'Hey Ma (sis, whoever), the girls aren't here, did they call there ?' Call the McCall household, so Mrs. McCall was out, what about Stacy's siblings, father, or just leave a message ? I'm sure Jennelle had other names and phone numbers of mutual friends to them she could have also consulted via a simple phone call. Strike out ? Stay and wait, what's the hurry ? I would argue, that's what 'close friends' do. A casual friend would have left, yes, but a casual friend would have never go over to the house to begin with. You can't have it both ways.

The other theme about these girls that continues to be repeated is about how they were going to 'move apart' after graduation (some going to college and some not). Stacy was to attend SMS in the Fall and I believe it was offered she was going to be in the dorms with Jannelle. OK, not exactly the other side of the country, they would stay in Greene County Missouri. Suzie was to attend trade school in cosmetology in the Fall (in her mother's footsteps). I don't know if that school was local, but it is at least inferred as, at the most, a car drive away. In geography terms, these three girls would EASILY be able to reconvene on the weekends, during breaks and Holidays. So, I'm left with thinking this 'breaking appart' was hardly geographic, but rather emotional.

I'm not accusing Jannelle of a crime and she was not the only First Responder. She may only be guilty of bad judgment, and/or have a very innocent better explanation for that morning's events. Many on this board and others through the years accept these actions as 'reasonable.' Reasonable people can agree to disagree and I do. In my view, applying the unemotional, dispassionate 'Reasonable Person Standard,' this story, as told, does not pass.

Missouri Mule · Apr 25, 2011

Putting myself in someone's shoes I would first be somewhat irked at having to drive nearly 12 miles to check on the whereabouts of someone who was supposed to up and about early to to Branson. We don't know that of course, but let's stipulate that was the arrangement for argument's sake. The very first thing I see upon arriving is the broken globe on the front porch. We'll that's not "normal." But I ignore that and go knock on the door. No answer, so I turn the door knob and it's unlocked and I can walk right in. (I don't even do that with a close relative.) The television is blaring, no one answers, no one is in the house, the purses are lined up on the steps and I think this is normal. I think that after all this they are walking around the block and maybe they knocked off the globe on the way out and intended to sweep it up after getting back from the impromptu walk. Next thing to do is to grab a broom from somewhere and throw away the glass fragments. Being a good friend. Yeah, I guess that's possible. Wait around for a 1/2 hour or more and they don't show up. And then I leave. Yeah, I guess that's possible. Why not go to a payphone and call the McCalls? After all she is tight with Stacy. Is she afraid of hearing a lot of grief over the changed plans. Yeah, I guess that is possible. Why not go to the McCall house? It was even closer than Battlefield. But that would be worse. Then I would REALLY get an earful for not keeping Stacy from going to the Levitt household. All of this is possible, I suppose.

So nothing happened. All the plans, so carefully drawn, are down the drain so I go to the local Hydra Slide for a "day in the sun." So did I leave a note in the house when the girls finally got back from who knows where? Won't they want to know where to find me? Guess that is expecting too much. Let them stew in their juices like they let me. That'll teach them! But I'm upset and crying in the back seat of Mike's car. I guess that's normal. But I'm going to enjoy that water slide nonetheless doggone it.

Then we have the phone call of Mrs. McCall to the Kirby house where she learned by noon that Stacy's plans had changed. It didn't change any plans there either as the family went to Lake Springfield for more fun as scheduled.

The bottom line is that the police weren't called and didn't arrive until 10:48 PM. I guess this is all quite reasonable in such a "laid back" town as Springfield.

And for good measure, I erase all these nasty phone messages in case the women suddenly show up and have to listen to these dastardly messages. That's good housekeeping. After all, they will appreciate that. But don't use the coffee maker; that'll really make Sherrill mad.

Yeah, I guess this is what I would do -- not.

hannah_b · Apr 25, 2011

Re the not knowing relatives were coming in to stay over. I wonder if this was simply due to a lack of communication between Janelle and her parents. Maybe the parents made plans with the relatives and for some reason just didn´t let Janelle know. Just a thought.

Jaya · Apr 26, 2011

Hi all! I've been stalking these boards for a long time, but have never really wanted to get involved in writing until now.

I'll just jump right in where the conversation currently is. I have a hard time buying that Janelle was unaware that she would be having family coming in from out of town for her graduation. It's graduation, it's important, you remember if Uncle Bob who you haven't seen since Thanksgiving is coming and staying with you. Even if her mom had told her previously and she forgot until that morning, we know based on the Disappeared piece that all the girls went and had dinner with their respective families after the ceremony before getting back together for the parties. If nothing less, Janelle would have been reminded when being with visiting out-of-town guests for dinner that evening. Would she have really forgotten again between dinner and inviting Stacy to stay with her at some point later in the evening?

The other suspicious thing about her story (well, there are many, but I'll just mention this one for now) is her assertion that when she got to the house and found the purses there and the front door unlocked and the light on, she thought that maybe they had just gone for a walk and so she sat and waited for them. Do any of you know a dog owner who goes for a walk around their neighborhood as a family on a nice summer morning and doesn't take their dog?

wfgodot · Apr 26, 2011

Welcome to WS and the 3MW thread, Jaya.

The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

New Member

New Member

Former Member

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics