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

[Missouri Mule]

STEP BACK look at what you created as a motive, from this. 19 year old Suzie Streeter gave a statement to police about the vandalism.

Does that really make sense to you?

If you think about this. The night this occurred. We have 2 changes of plans. Seperate parties for these guys. One of the guys works with her on a daily basis? I do not think that anything like this would have happened on that night.

Now what this has made me think is we have a random act, or we have a stalker that was following either one of the the girls at the parties that night.

I'm not sure what was in the statement she gave or what she might have told police "off the record." We also don't know what she told the graverobbers that she told the police. That was my point in a previous post. She might have wanted to stir them up and they took the bait. Who really knows?

I could buy into the stalker angle. Do we have any evidence of such a person? I believe you have ruled out Revak although someone on Topix claims to have seen him with Suzie near her home. What about Carnahan? He seemed to have a history of this sort of thing using the attempted abduction on Ingram Mill. I can see him driving slowly behind her and then jumping out and grabbing her. I can see any number of other people at the parties that night who might have spotted either or both girls and followed them home. It's not that difficult to do if one is of the mind. And if there is someone else with a van around the corner, just rush into the home right behind the girls as they enter or perhaps go outside to retrieve something from the cars. Any number of possible scenarios could have happened.

Of course I'm not in the investigation so don't know to what extent the friends and relatives were queried but in general most people can usually pinpoint certain people to take a look at in the event someone goes missing. There is always something like a love triangle or money, or marital problems that is known by those close to the victims and usually, the activities of the victims are scrutinized in exacting detail to determine a perfect timeline and possible perpetrators.

Would you care to put forth a viable theory. I'd be interested in your take.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The only reason Cox or Carnahan are suspects is because they are bad guys. Should we make a list of convicted felons in southwest missouri in 1992 and talk about them all?

Sure, why not? If you believe they had the motive, opportunity and means they should be considered, should they not; especially if they have a past history of similar crimes?

 

[Trooogrit]

Theory? I do not know. I thought a potential rape in the home was interrupted by the girls coming home. However, the early accounts of the crime scene indicate the police believe more than one took part in abducting the women. The FBI profiler said the same thing. This kind of dissuades the thought of rape of Sherrill. So that made me think that the girls were the targets on there way home. Who would have seen them? Someone from the parties? Relatives from all over the place attend graduation parties.

 

[Kathee]

One of the things I had long heard was that Jackie Johns was going to spill the beans on Carnahan and he took care of the problem although he reportedly mutilated her body in the process. I believe that was also involved with the (or a) business in Nixa. Someone who attended the trial might be able to clarify what was the motivating factor for her murder.

Mutiliated her body ?!?!?! There was never a difinitive cause given for Jackie's murder during trial. Moore believe's that Carnahan acted like he had trouble with his vehicle to get Jackie to pull over and offer him a ride.

I beleive that Carnahan is a sick sex fiend who can't control his urges.

 

[Dejasade]

Excuse me if this was already mentioned or answered...but was it verified that the girls were at the restaurant late at night? If they WERE, I would think a likely scenario would be them being maybe followed home by a person at the restaurant. From the Disappeared episode, they didn't go in to this very much...just that it wasn't "verified".

 

[Kathee]

Excuse me if this was already mentioned or answered...but was it verified that the girls were at the restaurant late at night? If they WERE, I would think a likely scenario would be them being maybe followed home by a person at the restaurant. From the Disappeared episode, they didn't go in to this very much...just that it wasn't "verified".

The alleged sighting of our girls at George's Steakhouse has NOT been verified.

 

[bystander77]

Dejasade: Great question and thanks for asking!

The sighting at George's was reported by a waitress that claimed that she recognized Sherril and Suzie, as they were regular customers. The waitress also claimed the 3MW were talking to a group of 2 or 3 men that night at the restaurant. Beyond this, there's not much info on this alleged event. We're all curious to see what lengths they went to confirm this event.
As MM said, and I can relate, there's a restaurant or 2 where we are regulars and the staff knows us well and doesn't even need to bring us menus. How well this waitress knew Sherril and Suzie is unknown and would, for my money, determine how credible the tip really was.
I think the SPD was tunnel-visioned with their failed approach to track down a unique, vintage van, which they deemed early on as their best lead. I'm still not convinced this van is a part of the mystery.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Mutilated her body ?!?!?! There was never a definitive cause given for Jackie's murder during trial. Moore believes that Carnahan acted like he had trouble with his vehicle to get Jackie to pull over and offer him a ride.

I believe that Carnahan is a sick sex fiend who can't control his urges.

I wish I had the newspaper articles about that case but it had long been my understanding that her nude body, which was violated horribly, was found floating in Lake Springfield. So much has been said about this crime that perhaps some of it was just folklore that has been embellished over the years.

I just rechecked on this in Springfield and it appears that rape was the motive. The story is that her body was probably put in the James River some distance from Lake Springfield where it would have floated to. She was said to be "savagely" murdered as best as can be reconstructed from memory with a tire iron about the head which went to the description of her body. Not having the old newspaper articles which might have further described the condition of her body it is sufficient to say that rape was established and she was beaten to death. Beyond that I can no longer state she was "mutilated" as sometimes happens in rape cases.

 

[Hurricane]

Dejasade: Great question and thanks for asking!

The sighting at George's was reported by a waitress that claimed that she recognized Sherril and Suzie, as they were regular customers. The waitress also claimed the 3MW were talking to a group of 2 or 3 men that night at the restaurant. Beyond this, there's not much info on this alleged event. We're all curious to see what lengths they went to confirm this event.
As MM said, and I can relate, there's a restaurant or 2 where we are regulars and the staff knows us well and doesn't even need to bring us menus. How well this waitress knew Sherril and Suzie is unknown and would, for my money, determine how credible the tip really was.
I think the SPD was tunnel-visioned with their failed approach to track down a unique, vintage van, which they deemed early on as their best lead. I'm still not convinced this van is a part of the mystery.

Without getting into the timeline the basic problem with the George’s sighting is that none of the other employees in the restaurant working that morning support what the waitress claimed. Nor did any customers from that time of morning ever come forward to support her claim. If one of the girls was intoxicated and belligerent as the waitress claimed at least one of the other employees would have noticed. So it seems that she had the wrong 3 women, had the wrong morning, or made her story up.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Dejasade: Great question and thanks for asking!

The sighting at George's was reported by a waitress that claimed that she recognized Sherril and Suzie, as they were regular customers. The waitress also claimed the 3MW were talking to a group of 2 or 3 men that night at the restaurant. Beyond this, there's not much info on this alleged event. We're all curious to see what lengths they went to confirm this event.
As MM said, and I can relate, there's a restaurant or 2 where we are regulars and the staff knows us well and doesn't even need to bring us menus. How well this waitress knew Sherril and Suzie is unknown and would, for my money, determine how credible the tip really was.
I think the SPD was tunnel-visioned with their failed approach to track down a unique, vintage van, which they deemed early on as their best lead. I'm still not convinced this van is a part of the mystery.

When I first looked at this case after viewing the "48 Hour" program I was convinced that the waitress had seen the women there. She seemed so credible that I couldn't understand how her account would be discounted. And to further compound the problem was that very little was said in the newspapers explaining in any detail why it was discounted. Today, I am given to believe that the clothing worn by whoever was in the restaurant was not consistent with their normal attire and it appears no one else in the restaurant could substantiate the waitress's story. We also have the alleged sighting at the convenience store where the clerk was certain Sherrill had come in looking for the girls. That was later debunked when the actual woman who did come in came forth and identified herself. That was put aside as a provable false sighting. The sighting at George's remains in doubt for many people. I tend not to think they were there although the women who were in the restaurant never saw fit to come forth and reveal themselves. This would have been quite helpful but never happened.

But it can't entirely be dismissed because the former prosecutor, Darrell Moore, is on record as stating that he wanted to talk to the men in the restaurant who were with the women, whoever they were or even if they actually existed. We simply don't know. So there is that element of doubt remaining. On balance and on the basis of the time line it seems unlikely.

 

[bystander77]

Hey folks - hope this isn't deemed off topic, but I had 3 questions:

1) Can anyone speak for the women's shoes? Were they too left at the house? At 1:12 of this clip indianagirl shared with us, you can see several pairs of shoes... just wondering if they were ever spoken for or if maybe they were all Suzies or Sherril's.

2) What ever really did happen to thread #3. I understand it got locked, but why?

3) Regarding the reported sighting of the van on Kentwood, in the early AM hours, by the paperboy? Were the homes on Kentwood (to the rear of 1717) in existence at the time of the crime, or was it an empty street. Judging by what my trips around the area have shown me, they look like older housing stock, and seem like they would've been there at the time.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

As for the shoes I think the only person that we could go off of is Stacy because she was a guest so most likely only had one pair. Still though even there she may of brought an extra pair because they were going to parties that night and a water park the next day and being female myself that usually calls for two different kinds of shoes. For Sherril and Suzie I don't think there is anyway to know because who knows how many shoes they own.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Hey folks - hope this isn't deemed off topic, but I had 3 questions:

1) Can anyone speak for the women's shoes? Were they too left at the house? At 1:12 of this clip Indianagirl shared with us, you can see several pairs of shoes... just wondering if they were ever spoken for or if maybe they were all Suzie's or Sherrill's.

2) What ever really did happen to thread #3. I understand it got locked, but why?

3) Regarding the reported sighting of the van on Kentwood, in the early AM hours, by the paperboy? Were the homes on Kentwood (to the rear of 1717) in existence at the time of the crime, or was it an empty street. Judging by what my trips around the area have shown me, they look like older housing stock, and seem like they would've been there at the time.

I hope I'm not inaccurate but I seem to recall that there were numerous pairs of shoes for Sherrill and Suzie. Somewhere in the multitude of articles about this case I seem to recall the number was about 60 pairs of shoes for each person living in the house. I had a theory at one time that there might have been cash put away in some of the shoes. There were some communications that reached me some time ago that Sherrill was dealing largely with cash at the time they went missing. I can't verify that as fact. Seems that someone else established she carried on regular banking patterns. It does seem odd that the shoes would be scattered about, however which suggests something.

The houses to the west of Sherrill's home were in an "old money" section of Springfield and I would surmise those homes were valued in the several $100's of thousands dollars. Very nice area.

Why Thread #3 was pulled is clouded in some mystery. Although there were some disagreements that ensued, and I was involved, and as requested I took down all the "offending" posts of mine where I alluded to sources I would not name. Why the thread was then later taken down I don't know. Later I seem to recall it being said by someone that there was sensitive information contained therein that was deemed vital to the case which resulted in it being pulled. Perhaps the moderator of this forum will speak to this issue.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Argument from Ignorance. You can't substantiate your argument that he has gotten away with anything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

I am not sure how to respond to this other than to say what I said before: I am not "arguing" this. It is common sense. We can't say Cox or any suspect couldn't have abducted these women simply because he was caught doing other crimes in the past but not caught this time. That is to say, someone may be caught speeding and get a ticket but speed many other times and not get one.

Also, take a look at this post because I was sort of shocked and disappointed at how you responded to me. We don't want the tone of the board to become hostile and accusatory. My rule of thumb when responding to the college freshman who write for me is to be polite but honest. That will do for me, too.

 

[MaryLiz]

I am not sure how to respond to this other than to say what I said before: I am not "arguing" this. It is common sense. We can't say Cox or any suspect couldn't have abducted these women simply because he was caught doing other crimes in the past but not caught this time. That is to say, someone may be caught speeding and get a ticket but speed many other times and not get one.

Also, take a look at this post because I was sort of shocked and disappointed at how you responded to me. We don't want the tone of the board to become hostile and accusatory. My rule of thumb when responding to the college freshman who write for me is to be polite but honest. That will do for me, too.

Well said. Certain people who post on this thread may not believe Cox is a viable suspect. That's their right. I think because of his criminal history, that makes him capable of committing this crime. He may not be my prime suspect, but it's certainly my right or anyone else's right to suggest he may have had something to do with it - as merely an opinion based on that or any other thought. Newspaper or other media articles are needed to back up anything stated as fact on here as far as suspects or scenarios of what went down that night. But if you just want to make a basic statement that says Cox or anyone else could have been involved in this because....then state an opinion, that is perfectly acceptable as well. And we shouldn't be made to feel like we're ignorant for posting basic opinions.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I am not sure how to respond to this other than to say what I said before: I am not "arguing" this. It is common sense. We can't say Cox or any suspect couldn't have abducted these women simply because he was caught doing other crimes in the past but not caught this time. That is to say, someone may be caught speeding and get a ticket but speed many other times and not get one.

Also, take a look at this post because I was sort of shocked and disappointed at how you responded to me. We don't want the tone of the board to become hostile and accusatory. My rule of thumb when responding to the college freshman who write for me is to be polite but honest. That will do for me, too.

Your analogy of the speeding ticket is certain appropriate. Speaking for myself, I'm 67 years old and have driven well over 1,000,000 miles in my lifetime. (I've owned 55 cars as well). I have received a total of one (1) speeding ticket in a speed trap in Texas (before I moved here). All the trips I made out to Montana and where I surely speeded across those western states never appeared on my driver's license. Guess I got lucky.

 

[Hurricane]

I am not sure how to respond to this other than to say what I said before: I am not "arguing" this. It is common sense. We can't say Cox or any suspect couldn't have abducted these women simply because he was caught doing other crimes in the past but not caught this time. That is to say, someone may be caught speeding and get a ticket but speed many other times and not get one.

Also, take a look at this post because I was sort of shocked and disappointed at how you responded to me. We don't want the tone of the board to become hostile and accusatory. My rule of thumb when responding to the college freshman who write for me is to be polite but honest. That will do for me, too.

To say that Robert Cox is a suspect in this case because we don’t know that “he may have gotten away with rape, assault, and multiple murder” before by definition is an argument from ignorance. Such an argument cannot be substantiated in a debate because it is impossible to know that he ever got away with anything, nor can such an argument be defended against for the very same reason; it is impossible to know that he didn’t. That is no different than Worsham making his comment out of frustration that it is as if space aliens took the 3MW; you will never prove aliens did take them and you will never prove they didn’t until possibly if their remains were found. An argument from ignorance is never allowed in debate classes in school for that very reason; it cannot be debated. What has been pointed out is that without evidence to the contrary it appears that Cox has been incompetent in the crimes that he has attempted to carry out. As for Zeller’s first thought turning to Cox being involved upon learning of this crime that is just their opinion. They obviously knew nothing of his activities after he returned to Springfield. And it is a fact that the Grand Jury refused to return a true bill on Cox based on the evidence, or lack thereof that was presented to them. To me that is most telling because as we have often been told here, a prosecuting attorney could get a ham sandwich indicted.

This is Websleuths. Maybe a more appropriate title would have been Webopinions. I thought the whole point was to attempt to solve the unsolved. I wish someone would develop some circumstantial evidence against Cox. That’s what would interest me.

 

[Trooogrit]

Well it is not as though Robert Cox has not been looked at as a suspect. I think that is the thing to establish, we do not know much about him. What is he? I do believe he is a killer (my opinion), I think that he killed the girl in Florida, but it appears as though she may have put him into a rage trying to resist his advances and that is when he killed her. Now flash forward to 1985. He has 2 attempts of abducting women. However is not able to go through with it, basically is talked out of it. This is a regression of sorts. Then of course he is caught in Texas, and I believe stalking was part of that charge and a "kill kit" was supposedly found in his possession. He claims he is not a rapist, and is almost offended by that accusation. He just does not have any clear identity. In my opinion he is some kind of wannabe as strange as that sounds. I have heard people compare him to Bundy. HA that is a laugh, he is not anything close to Bundy who is a classic sadist. So where does he fit? The I-70 killer? walk up behind someone and shoot them in the back of the head? I think that fits him better than anything with planning. However, the bottom line remains he has never been convicted of murder, at least that was not overturned.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I would ask a simple question. If Sharon Zellers had not bitten off part of Cox's tongue would he have ever been caught or even suspected of this crime? Even with this obvious wound only brought on him by Zellers he would have walked scot-free from the git-go. How many victims of rape have the presence of mind to bite off the tip of their attacker's tongue?

Q: Who here believes that Cox was innocent of murdering Sharon Zellers?

Another question. How many innocent people have extra alibis when they don't even need one?

 

[Trooogrit]

I would ask a simple question. If Sharon Zellers had not bitten off part of Cox's tongue would he have ever been caught or even suspected of this crime? Even with this obvious wound only brought on him by Zellers he would have walked scot-free from the git-go. How many victims of rape have the presence of mind to bite off the tip of their attacker?

Q: Who here believes that Cox was innocent of murdering Sharon Zellers?

Another question. How many innocent people have extra alibis when they don't even need one?

Well there really was no solid evidence to convict him of the Zellers murder at that time. He was wrongfully convicted. Today I believe DNA would either convict him, or set him free, and opinions would not matter, only evidence would matter as it should.

Alibis have nothing to do with guilt or innocence, yea Cox might have been better off saying I do not remember. The only reason he even had an alibi is because he knew they would be looking at him. That is how it works here. Once accused always accused. It does not matter that there is nothing to tie him to the crime scene, tie him to the women, tie him to anything other than the the city of Springfield. Evidence does not matter in a witch hunt.