Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #15

Status
Not open for further replies.

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
Want to add that it's possible that the abductions/murders were PLANNED without targeting specific victims. That is, the killer(s) wanted to do abduction/murders, but may not have targeted specific people, as people. In the shotgun murders case I spoke about above, the killer looked for specific situations (one-story home, married couple). He may have stalked those people for a while but choosing them was not about who they were, but rather how they fit the fantasy he had in his head. He might have seen Suzie and Stacy leave the party or stop for cigarettes or pull into the driveway and saw the situation he wanted. He might have been prowling because graduation night offers possibilities for finding young girls out and about, without have an agenda about who he chose.
 

TedMac

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2014
Messages
1,630
Reaction score
4,076
Want to add that it's possible that the abductions/murders were PLANNED without targeting specific victims. That is, the killer(s) wanted to do abduction/murders, but may not have targeted specific people, as people. In the shotgun murders case I spoke about above, the killer looked for specific situations (one-story home, married couple). He may have stalked those people for a while but choosing them was not about who they were, but rather how they fit the fantasy he had in his head. He might have seen Suzie and Stacy leave the party or stop for cigarettes or pull into the driveway and saw the situation he wanted. He might have been prowling because graduation night offers possibilities for finding young girls out and about, without have an agenda about who he chose.

Totally agree. That is exactly what I think happened. And he was prepared with all the devices he would need (rope, gags, weapons, etc). He struck the exact same way Neal Falls used to do it-probably seeing them driving to Delmarr from the party(s) and simply following them home and used a ruse to get into the house.
 

nye bevan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2020
Messages
46
Reaction score
213
Somebody asked back aways what were the most unlikely scenarios. Here are mine:
1. They were buried at Cox.
2. One person committed the crime.
3. The crime was random.
The first one's a bit more unlikely than the other two, but not by much. They weren't killed by a serial killer who just happened by, or a sex-mad citizen who binged then quit.
 

Nixaeagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
1,014
Totally agree. That is exactly what I think happened. And he was prepared with all the devices he would need (rope, gags, weapons, etc). He struck the exact same way Neal Falls used to do it-probably seeing them driving to Delmarr from the party(s) and simply following them home and used a ruse to get into the house.
Think they were in town for graduations ? The Kirby’s had relatives in town from Kansas for instance . Would make it easier to not get caught .

Like RCC was a 19 year old in FL on vacation with his parents when he abducted / Murdered Sharon Zellers . Had his tongue not gotten bitten , he would have left FL , undetected .
 

Nixaeagle

Well-Known Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2020
Messages
306
Reaction score
1,014
Want to add that it's possible that the abductions/murders were PLANNED without targeting specific victims. That is, the killer(s) wanted to do abduction/murders, but may not have targeted specific people, as people. In the shotgun murders case I spoke about above, the killer looked for specific situations (one-story home, married couple). He may have stalked those people for a while but choosing them was not about who they were, but rather how they fit the fantasy he had in his head. He might have seen Suzie and Stacy leave the party or stop for cigarettes or pull into the driveway and saw the situation he wanted. He might have been prowling because graduation night offers possibilities for finding young girls out and about, without have an agenda about who he chose.
Bruce Mendenhall Another trucker who abducted women in several states . Targeting Them at truck stops . Unfortunately for him , Nashville had one of the best homicide detectives in the country working on the case . But to your point he was trolling truck stops for random women when an opportunity presented itself .
 

asyousay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
5,643
Reaction score
15,435
I always come back to the profilers take
The abduction leader probably was an acquaintance "who may have known their comings and goings," he said.
Wright said his theory came from "the totality of information,
 

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
Somebody asked back aways what were the most unlikely scenarios. Here are mine:
1. They were buried at Cox.
2. One person committed the crime.
3. The crime was random.
The first one's a bit more unlikely than the other two, but not by much. They weren't killed by a serial killer who just happened by, or a sex-mad citizen who binged then quit.

Evidence?
 

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
I always come back to the profilers take

Adding the words you quoted here: "The abduction leader probably was an acquaintance 'who may have known their comings and goings,' he said. Wright said his theory came from 'the totality of information'."

The word "acquaintance" jumps out. What the profiler said doesn't require any sort of close connection to the women. A serial killer has acquaintances, too. The profile of organized serial killers points to someone living in the community, with a job, a partner, having transportation and (by inference) passing as a normal person. Edward Surratt, the trial killer I discussed above, shared both organized and disorganized characteristics. There is evidence he studied victims. An organized serial offender may have "known [the] comings and goings of any of the women."

What I object to is the idea that the profiler's report points to some connection the victims (usually Sherrill and Suzie) have to the killers, such as they were killed because Sherrill heard something at the salon or Suzie was going to testify against a couple of grave robbers (and did those people do real hard time for that crime? enough to warrant triple murder?). The likelihood is that the important connection between the women and the main or only predator was in the predator's mind.

I don't know what happened. When the crime scene was so corrupted, and because the police department was probably in over its head, any chance to solve the crime was greatly compromised. But the evidence we do have points to an organized criminal or perhaps criminal duo. On a night where lots of kids were out partying, a car or van trolling for victims--or perhaps keeping a desired victim in sight--would not be noticed. It's possible, for example, that Stacy was the victim who triggered the attack. She was a receptionist at a gymnastics studio and modeled wedding gowns, so there were opportunities for her to come to the attention of a predator. Graduation night was a rare opportunity to get her away from the vigilance of her parents. While it's often argued she was at the wrong place, wrong time, it might actually be the reverse--that Sherrill and Suzie became targets because of Stacy. Or the two girls, together, entering the house so late at night, offered an opportunity for someone interested in either of them or both of them--or a chance to grab 2 young women from a house that matched the abductor's criteria for home invasion.
 
Last edited:

asyousay

Well-Known Member
Joined
Apr 15, 2012
Messages
5,643
Reaction score
15,435
I just don’t believe Stacey was a target. If you are stalking Stacey then you wait until she alone which is a lot simpler than breaking in and kidnapping another 2 women.


This was at Suzie’s and Sherills house and no sign of a break in. It was about them that night and Stacey was just unlucky IMO
 

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
I just don’t believe Stacey was a target. If you are stalking Stacey then you wait until she alone which is a lot simpler than breaking in and kidnapping another 2 women.


This was at Suzie’s and Sherills house and no sign of a break in. It was about them that night and Stacey was just unlucky IMO

You may be right. Or it might be about the two young women and a home that met the criteria.
 

Blue Girl1991

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 18, 2016
Messages
237
Reaction score
433
Hello everyone,I am glad to see you here:),I tried so many times to get into these threads and found them closed many times,I am very glad to see that this thread is open again and you do not let these precious women be forgotten.I have 27 pages to read and catch up ,I hope you all safe in these crazy times.
 

Jenny0101

Active Member
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
44
Reaction score
135
With all the people in the house, why wasn't the money taken? Some people might have believed Sherrill would come home and that she would miss it. Anyone involved would know better so why not take it? One thing that comes to mind is that leaving cash in her purse added to the drug theories. Some people pay with cash and money orders to avoid their money getting taken or used to get credit by an ex. It also prevents debt by you or someone else that has your information. To people that haven't been in that situation it's easy to think cash equals drugs. That seemed and still seems to be what some people want others to believe.

Because the money was never what they were after.
 

cherrymeg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
10,033
Because the money was never what they were after.
If you are going to take three women what would stop you from robbing them as well? Does that say something about the perpetrators or am I over analyzing? I think the crime scene was staged. I might have a different theory tomorrow or next month but I feel like the way things were found at the Delmar house are important. A lot of people don't feel comfortable going in someone else's purse, so is not taking the money a weird sign of regret or respect - like that would be a violation one step too far? Again, I might be way overthinking it lol.
 

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
I think the house at Delmar was tidy because Sherrill was tidy. The purses? Either they were in that position for some reason when the home invasion happened or the kidnappers told them to get their purses and put them there. Or some compulsive and not always truthful "helper" the next day might have looked through them and left them that way. This is one answer LE might know that they haven't revealed to the public. The house didn't need to be "staged" if it was orderly in the first place and the killer was an organized offender who didn't want to leave evidence.

The money being their suggests another motive, the obvious one--sexual assault and murder.
 

Valiant

Well-Known Member
Joined
May 26, 2006
Messages
923
Reaction score
5,101
I would consider this possibility:
The women may have been removed from the house (or outside the house) by someone different than the person who staged the house. If that is the case, an extra vehicle is only there a very short time. The one staging the inside needs no vehicle in the driveway and can be picked up there later (or just walk away).

I think no matter how clean the house was before, getting three adults out of the house is bound to leave some signs behind. And those minor items were re-staged so it left less evidence of what happened - such that it lead people coming to the house to claim that the women had walked somewhere to eat.
 

cherrymeg

Well-Known Member
Joined
Aug 26, 2008
Messages
2,733
Reaction score
10,033
I would consider this possibility:
The women may have been removed from the house (or outside the house) by someone different than the person who staged the house. If that is the case, an extra vehicle is only there a very short time. The one staging the inside needs no vehicle in the driveway and can be picked up there later (or just walk away).

I think no matter how clean the house was before, getting three adults out of the house is bound to leave some signs behind. And those minor items were re-staged so it left less evidence of what happened - such that it lead people coming to the house to claim that the women had walked somewhere to eat.

I always wondered why so many people showed up at the house and how did it happen. What do you say to get people to show up in those circumstances?
 

1SpringfieldSherlock

On Time Out
Joined
May 5, 2020
Messages
1
Reaction score
2
Over the past 3 years or so, I have read many message boards, and watched videos, etc on this case. There are numerous issues that I believe have brought us to where we currently stand, and why this case has not been solved. These are just some general observations of what I have seen throughout the few years I’ve observed this case.

1) The amount of factual evidence the public is aware of is very minuscule.

2) I believe law enforcement has more evidence they have withheld from the general public. As has been mentioned numerous times, they will do this so they can deduce suspects based on information only the perp will know. However, I believe due to the overall lack of evidence in this case, this may have backfired per se.

3) I do believe there are some people who have inquired and talked with folks “in the know” on some little known details. However, they have not given out some details they were made aware of as they 1) Do not want to leak confidential information (which is understandable), and 2) They want to be the person who solves this case (ego driven).

4) I believe this will not be solved unless a confession of sorts is made (perp or witness w/ evidence).

Personal Thoughts on the Case:

1) It was an unfortunate event that those who were at the house, cleaned the crime scene. I believe, this is single-handedly the turning point of the case. In my opinion, there was evidence there that was destroyed unknowingly which would have pointed law enforcement in the right direction.

2) The theories out there all have a small portion of truth to them…but then, there is a lot of gap filling. For example (there are others, but I have used these 3 just as examples. This does not mean I lean towards them or not):

a. RC was in Springfield during this time period. He is connectable to the victims. His history is well known at this point.

b. Personal relationship of 1 of the victims was recently ended. That relationship was with a criminal, and the victim was going to be testifying in the near future.

c. The drug scene / crimes related to drugs in SWMO is one of the worst in the nation per capita. Statistics on this can be found with a simple search.

3) Based on the age and biography of these women, I would find it difficult to believe 1 perp could do this by themselves. Even with a weapon in hand, I believe this would be too much for 1 person based upon the un-predictability on how they would react. Unless threat of mom was eliminated. I believe she (mom) would have acted the most unpredictable to save daughter and friend.

4) My concerns with hospital parking lot:

a. Excavation did no un-earth anything. Settling would have had to occur, and this would presumably make their location a low point. They would have to take the excavation down to suitable soil (i.e. remove all topsoil) beyond this. The soil, I would also assume, would be softer around them which would allow for crushing due to weight of equipment.

b. No witnesses to any unusual activity next to a hospital?

5) Staging would require time, and provide an opportunity for perps to be caught.

6) I believe this happened between 3am-4am. Enough time for them to get home, remove makup, and get in bed. Possibly even fall asleep. While also being under the cover of darkness.

7) The phone calls made to the house on Delmar while people were over the following day…I would be curious to know if a payphone was nearby where one could see the house.

8) Nearly 30 years ago, it was not unheard of that people left their front doors unlocked.

9) I am intrigued that the 1 newspaper clipping mentions "empty and full beer cans...towel...and newspaper clippings of the missing women".
 

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
We know that Sherrill was security-conscious. We can't know whether Suzie looked the door when the girls came in. I've also thought it was possible for one or both girls to go back outside to the car after getting to the Delmar house. But again--we have no way to know.

I don't think the house was staged because there was no need. You "stage" if you want the crime to look like something it wasn't. If the house had been tossed like it was a burglary--that's staging. What the house looked like was normal. Like nothing had happened.

You may find it difficult to believe that one killer could subdue 3 women, but I can think of a half-dozen cases where families of 3-5 have been killed or kidnapped/murdered by 1 person. In the McStay case, one man took a family of four from their home into the dessert and murdered all 4. There is zero way to know how Sherrill or the girls would response. We do know that there is no evidence of a struggle. It's possible that the kidnapper(s) struck one of the women and that subdued the rest. What we know is that (as you point out) there is no physical evidence to suggest whether there were one or more perpetrators.

Could you provide some context for this passage? Where and when was this found?
I am intrigued that the 1 newspaper clipping mentions "empty and full beer cans...towel...and newspaper clippings of the missing women".
 

pittsburghgirl

Well-Known Member
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
2,654
Reaction score
738
I would consider this possibility:
The women may have been removed from the house (or outside the house) by someone different than the person who staged the house. If that is the case, an extra vehicle is only there a very short time. The one staging the inside needs no vehicle in the driveway and can be picked up there later (or just walk away).

I think no matter how clean the house was before, getting three adults out of the house is bound to leave some signs behind. And those minor items were re-staged so it left less evidence of what happened - such that it lead people coming to the house to claim that the women had walked somewhere to eat.

What is being "staged"? Why would there be a need? They didn't clean up the glass on the porch from the light. There was, as I recall, some stuff out of place in the area of Sherrill's closet, but that is not unusual or suggestive of staging. There was a blind that had a slat out of place. The TV was on, showing static. So why would someone do those things? It's not like they pointed to 3 runaway or to a burglary. Moreover, we have no real idea of what Stacy's mother and the rest of the unfortunate visitors moved, or "fixed," other than the broken glass.

People stage crimes to throw LE off, usually to disguise the acts of a criminal close to the victims. So they "stage" a burglary, usually. Or stage a domestic violence homicide to look like a psycho rapists did it. There's nothing in the appearance of the house that would either suggest or eliminate relatives of any of the three or for that matter, friends. The scene says nothing. The best "read" on that is an organized serial offender or offenders smart enough to leave no real evidence--or lucky because the "friends and family" event eliminated all of that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top