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

[wfgodot]

I still think the women were taken because of what one (at least one) of them knew; that overpowering the three of them was not as difficult as some imagine; that it's primarily a murder case with rape as, perhaps, a crime of after-the-fact opportunity; and that the perpetrator(s) were professional - at least in the sense that he or they were savvy enough to leave little evidence behind. The silence over the years (no one "spilling the beans") is indicative of a close-knit group of like-minded individuals - that is, if one thinks, as I do, that there was more than one perpetrator (meaning, more than one person who knew and facilitated what went on - if not more than one person who actually performed the abduction).

 

[Missouri Mule]

When I first started thinking about what happened to Sherrill, Suzie and Stacy, I spent a lot of time thinking about each little detail of the case. I still don't know exactly how the person or person who abducted the women vot them in control but I think the case itself is pretty simple.

If it were a robbery, Sherrill's purse would have been searched. If it were a garden variety rape or rape murder scenario, the crime could have been committed in the home, as many rapes and murders are. Victims are moved because the perpetrator can't do what he wants to do in the place where the victims are first encountered. That suggests to me that he didn't have enough time for what he planned and so was willing to take the risk of removing three women from the home (whether they were ambulatory or carried out) and drive them out in some sort of vehicle (And if I recall, move the women's cars or supervise their movement) to some sort of private place. It is also possible in my view that he had a prior record and did not want to leave fingerprints or body fluids that might identify him.

It may be that he knew or knew of one of the women, but I think that it is just as likely that the FBI profiler was throwing out some bait to see if someone (witness, friend, relative, hanger-on) would come forward with information. LE doesn't put anything out in the media, especially early in a case, without a good reason, usually aimed at producing leads.

I also don't think it was a burglary turned triple murder by accident (or whatever). The intruder had to know Sherrill was home in a one-story house, if he entered before the 2 girls came home. If allmthree were there, there were three cars in the drive and probably lights on. There was a small barking dog. I think it was a rape/murder, and probably a triple rape/murder, from the start.

Today I decided to go through some old posts made in Thread #4 (posts #88, 87 and 86) and came upon the rather interesting posts, three in all made by "SkewedView" who went into precise detail about exactly what he thinks went down. He described himself as a recovering sociopath who understood these kinds of things and I found it fascinating to read his take on this subject. He said the following: "When I look at this scenario, it SCREAMS serial killer or some other form of sexual predator – specifically an organized, sociopathic sexual-sadist, very likely working alone."

In view of your belief in the rape/murder scenario, you might want to compare your thoughts with his and see what if anything you might agree or disagree with. If what he says is true we may be as blind as Clarice Starling was when the lights went out. We may just be groping for answers that will never come.

 

[Hurricane]

When I first started thinking about what happened to Sherrill, Suzie and Stacy, I spent a lot of time thinking about each little detail of the case. I still don't know exactly how the person or person who abducted the women vot them in control but I think the case itself is pretty simple.

If it were a robbery, Sherrill's purse would have been searched. If it were a garden variety rape or rape murder scenario, the crime could have been committed in the home, as many rapes and murders are. Victims are moved because the perpetrator can't do what he wants to do in the place where the victims are first encountered. That suggests to me that he didn't have enough time for what he planned and so was willing to take the risk of removing three women from the home (whether they were ambulatory or carried out) and drive them out in some sort of vehicle (And if I recall, move the women's cars or supervise their movement) to some sort of private place. It is also possible in my view that he had a prior record and did not want to leave fingerprints or body fluids that might identify him.

It may be that he knew or knew of one of the women, but I think that it is just as likely that the FBI profiler was throwing out some bait to see if someone (witness, friend, relative, hanger-on) would come forward with information. LE doesn't put anything out in the media, especially early in a case, without a good reason, usually aimed at producing leads.

I also don't think it was a burglary turned triple murder by accident (or whatever). The intruder had to know Sherrill was home in a one-story house, if he entered before the 2 girls came home. If allmthree were there, there were three cars in the drive and probably lights on. There was a small barking dog. I think it was a rape/murder, and probably a triple rape/murder, from the start.

I agree that LE and the FBI were fishing with their comments about one of the perps being a minor player and now feeling bad about what they know. That is no different, really then the comments frequently made on these boards about the first one in avoids the needle and other words to that effect. It is just fishing in an effort to get someone to tell what they might know.

I agree with the assessment that this was to be a crime of rape first; the murders came about as a result of events which took place. I believe 1 - 3 perps were driving past 1717 after their criminal plans in the area of the estate homes to the west were thwarted somehow. If Sherrill's bedroom window and blinds had not been open a quarter of the way, she would be alive today. But once the perps peeked in her window to see her in bed plans for her rape were set in motion. If the 2 girls had not came home before the rape occurred Sherrill would have been raped and beaten, but left alive. Now facing the prospect of dealing with 3 women the perps decided to remove them from the home for better control and to make points with their peers by offering them up, not realizing that they were sealing the fate of the women and becoming participants of 3 murders.

I agre with the accessment

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I think it is possible that more than one person was involved, perhaps at different stages of the crime, but I agree that if so it would be "close-knit group of like-minded individuals," as wfgodot states. For example, pedophile groups are very good at keeping their secrets.

 

[monkeymann]

This will be the end of this argument. I said that it was a preliminary tool for law enforcement. I do not agree that it should be used as a "lie detector". Period. The reason why is because of the reasons that I gave you previously. Period. It is not a proven science or it would be admissible in court. Once it becomes admissible, we can further this discussion. I do want to say that I respect your opinion and dedication and my words and opinions aren't meant to hurt or anger you in anyway. I just disagree. (sorry)

Not meaning to beat a dead horse here or anything.....But it "Isn't" used as an infallible "Lie Detector". I never stated, nor meant to imply that. You are correct, it is used as a preliminary tool. It is also used as an on-going tool. It is enough of a "Proven Science" that Law Enforcement uses it as a "Preliminary...and On-Going Tool". It "IS" a "Proven Science"....It is NOT an Infallible Science". Much in the same way that "Psychology" in general, is a "Proven Science".....It is NOT however, an Infallible Science.

I can't imagine you being a Psychologist, and being so dismissive of the Science of Kinetic Body Language?

 

[monkeymann]

I understand. But what if he really doesn't have an alibi? Does that make him guilty? My husband and I watched Disappeared together the other night. I have no idea what I was doing that night, but that doesn't makeme guilty of anything. And by the way, if I had lived with my brother, oh boy...we would have gotten into some really bad fights too. I am just trying to see things from a practical perspective.

I NEVER said he was "Guilty" of anything!! Also, your example is anything but "Practical", when its applied to the 3MW case. Do you really think that anyone who was closely associated with this case, wouldn't have been able to remember what they had been doing on June 6-7? Especially considering the fact that Law Enforcement would have surely interviewed certain people, family, friends...etc., with in a couple days of the Investigation Starting. Not having an alibi doesn't make a person guilty by any means....it makes them a suspect, until they have been determined to NOT be a Suspect.

I personally DON'T KNOW who police consider a SUSPECT. We had just been trying to take this case back to the starting point, and eliminate people as suspects before going any further with the "CRAZY THEORIES" running around out there. I have NEVER thought this case was as complex, as it has inadvertantly become. Thats why we were trying to "Start Over", and reexamine everything.

 

[monkeymann]

I agree that LE and the FBI were fishing with their comments about one of the perps being a minor player and now feeling bad about what they know. That is no different, really then the comments frequently made on these boards about the first one in avoids the needle and other words to that effect. It is just fishing in an effort to get someone to tell what they might know.

I agree with the assessment that this was to be a crime of rape first; the murders came about as a result of events which took place. I believe 1 - 3 perps were driving past 1717 after their criminal plans in the area of the estate homes to the west were thwarted somehow. If Sherrill's bedroom window and blinds had not been open a quarter of the way, she would be alive today. But once the perps peeked in her window to see her in bed plans for her rape were set in motion. If the 2 girls had not came home before the rape occurred Sherrill would have been raped and beaten, but left alive. Now facing the prospect of dealing with 3 women the perps decided to remove them from the home for better control and to make points with their peers by offering them up, not realizing that they were sealing the fate of the women and becoming participants of 3 murders.

I agre with the accessment

Do you then think that the crime scene was staged.....at least the appearance that Susie and Stacy had taken their make-up off in the bathroom.

Because if it wasn't staged, the perps would have had to have hidden somewhere while the girls were getting ready for bed.

Which is actually something that I had considered....that who ever did this may have already been in the house when Susie and Stacy came home. The perps hid out in Sherrill's bedroom until they were either inadvertantely discovered by Susie checking on Sherrill, or until they decided what they were going to to about the girls coming home unexpectantly.

I will also point out that your anology "Raped and Beaten, but left alive" & "Make points with their peers by offering them up" makes it appear as though you have a suspect in mind, and they are associated with a "Larger Group".......Am I close!

 

[monkeymann]

First, Bartt Streeter is a victim, both in actuality and in WS TOS (terms of service). No one in LE has ever cited him as a suspect or a person of interest. Yes they did....he was one of the First people Law Enforcement looked at.

If my mother and sister had disappeared, were murdered and perhaps tortured, I would get upset if people who never met me on an Internet board accused me of murdering them. NO ONE is accusing him of anything!! We were merely asking what his alibi had been, Its been a question that was asked several times, but no one seems to want to talk about it (Even Privately).

He has every right to say whatever he wants in response. And if he didn't respond in some way, people would interpret that as a sign of something.
You are correct. He can respond anyway he wants. And people are going to interpret it how ever they are going to interpret it.

As for Kathee, she actually works on this case, has spent thousands of hours and can do whatever she wants with what she develops. How do you know how many hours she's put into this case? Do you think its fare to the rest of us who are serious about solving this case, when we ask her to clear something up, or answer a question and she doesn't respond. Its not like we're asking for then names of witnesses, or the people who gave her the information. But a brief "Overview" of what is known would be nice. She expects a lot out of us, being on here every day talking about this case, but she doesn't give a lot back in return it seems.

When she DOES share something (e.g., the parking garage tips), she is criticized for that. They were based on a Psychics Vision to began with. Supposedly there have been "Other Tips" that point to the parking garage but Kathee won't EVER divulge what the "Other Tips" are. And Rick Norland clearly stated that the readings he is seeing, could be decaying trees or tree roots, wood, etc. Also, did Rick Norland survey the entire parking garage, or just that one area?? Was Rick Norland asked to survey that particular section of the parking garage. That's what I've always got out of what was said in the Video.

I hope we can agree that we value the sub-forum enough that we won't jeopardize it in this way, because trust me, the mods here won't tolerate it.


I was upset with myself for not responding to the posts about Bartt when I saw them. He has my heartfelt support and sympathy. And I count Kathee as a friend, albeit one I met in cyberspace. She has my deep respect for her commitment to the case. While you're doading over Kathee, ask her why she affiliates herself with the Airalex Website and all the "Crazy, Disrespectful BS" that goes on there. Ask her if it is for the attention she gleans from it, or if its because shes really serious about solving this case.....and if she IS serious about solving this case....why does she affiliate herself with the Airalex Website. It Really becomes an interesting quagmire now doesn't it!

These are serious points to consider.

 

[CaliMama]

Not meaning to beat a dead horse here or anything.....But it "Isn't" used as an infallible "Lie Detector". I never stated, nor meant to imply that. You are correct, it is used as a preliminary tool. It is also used as an on-going tool. It is enough of a "Proven Science" that Law Enforcement uses it as a "Preliminary...and On-Going Tool". It "IS" a "Proven Science"....It is NOT an Infallible Science". Much in the same way that "Psychology" in general, is a "Proven Science".....It is NOT however, an Infallible Science.

I can't imagine you being a Psychologist, and being so dismissive of the Science of Kinetic Body Language?

No problem. I understand where you are coming from. I just feel like certain techniques such as this one can easily be abused. I think Nancy Grace has a body language expert on at least once a week now, and it is just getting tiresome to hear that everyone is lying about this or that.

You really confused me when you said that both JK and BS were lying based upon their body language and that is exactly what I am talking about when I say that this tool isn't a precise enough tool to be using, especially with the people surrounding this case who have already been through so much. There is no way that JK and BS could have been in on this together and that is why I said that this is not a valid way to measure deception (in this case).

There is no psychologist/psychiatrist that would use body language as the sole method of understanding his/her client/patient. It is usually used as a method to asses how open someone is about a certain life circumstances and is usually used as a way to communicate with the client, not as a means to judge how honest they are being.

Lastly, like I said before, I appreciate your opinions and dedication. I don't want to take part in conversations regarding body language with BS and JK, because I do view them as victims.

 

[CaliMama]

I NEVER said he was "Guilty" of anything!! Also, your example is anything but "Practical", when its applied to the 3MW case. Do you really think that anyone who was closely associated with this case, wouldn't have been able to remember what they had been doing on June 6-7? Especially considering the fact that Law Enforcement would have surely interviewed certain people, family, friends...etc., with in a couple days of the Investigation Starting. Not having an alibi doesn't make a person guilty by any means....it makes them a suspect, until they have been determined to NOT be a Suspect.

I personally DON'T KNOW who police consider a SUSPECT. We had just been trying to take this case back to the starting point, and eliminate people as suspects before going any further with the "CRAZY THEORIES" running around out there. I have NEVER thought this case was as complex, as it has inadvertantly become. Thats why we were trying to "Start Over", and reexamine everything.

I thought BS said that he got drunk and fell asleep on the couch in the Disappeared episode.

 

[CaliMama]

First, Bartt Streeter is a victim, both in actuality and in WS TOS (terms of service). No one in LE has ever cited him as a suspect or a person of interest. If my mother and sister had disappeared, were murdered and perhaps tortured, I would get upset if people who never met me on an internet board accused me of murdering them. He has every right to say whatever he wants in response. And if he didn't respond in some way, people would interpret that as a sign of something.

As for Kathee, she actually works on this case, has spent thousands of hours and can do whatever she wants with what she develops. When she DOES share something (e.g., the parking garage tips), she is criticized for that. I hope we can agree that we value the sub-forum enough that we won't jeopardize it in this way, because trust me, the mods here won't tolerate it.

I was upset with myself for not responding to the posts about Bartt when I saw them. He has my heartfelt support and sympathy. And I count Kathee as a friend, albeit one I met in cyberspace. She has my deep respect for her commitment to the case. And I hope I don't get a time out for responding to this stuff rather than just pushing the alert button.

I agree. I am not here to victimize the victims and that is why I tried to stop the body language conversation. Whatever happened to these three beautiful souls was perpetrated by one or more people that were not mentioned in the Disappeared episode (jmo).

 

[CaliMama]

I'm surprised to hear of the sharing of make-up but not being a girl I wouldn't know that. However, it is true that any clothes that Suzie had would not have fit Stacy. Mrs. McCall said that from the outset since Stacy's shorts had been left on the floor.

This overnight bag business reminds me of an idea I floated a long time ago which I will now discuss. (laugh if you must) It had been suggested to me that Sherrill had been dealing primarily with cash leading up to the abductions that suggested she was trying to keep cash away from her creditors; that is not banking it that would be subject to garnishment since her former husband's creditors were hounding her for his unpaid bills she thought was taken care of by the divorce decree. (the divorce decree does not invalidate the contractual requirements of a loan contract).

In 1992 there was a young lady I asked who had experience in the hair styling business and I was interested in how much money was possible to earn doing this kind of work. The response from her working Cabool was that $600 a week was fairly typical. If Sherrill was working in Springfield with a more affluent clientele and we know she had well over 200 clients it is possible, if not probable, that she earned well in excess of $600 but more on the order of perhaps $1,000 a week. That's not too shabby, especially for those days in a low cost area like Springfield. Yet, apparently she was living very close to the edge and not a great deal of money was evidently found in any bank accounts. Getting to the point, I have wondered if she had secreted money away in the dozens of shoes in her closet and wind of this "stash" had filtered out somehow and this might be the underlying motive behind this crime.

Suppose that someone with a "need" for cash came into this knowledge and already had a motive to "settle scores" and decided to undertake a plan to get at this money, if it existed. It's a wild idea but I think a plausible idea. If that house was being surveiled prior to the abductions, exactly what was the purpose except to confirm the comings and goings of when it might be best to gain entry and see what monies were in the home? (of course the "sexual assault" angle must be taken into account) That overnight bag might have been used to carry out any money found. As an aside when my own home was burgled back in the 1970s the "pillow slip" bandits took a pillow slip off the bed to carry out the loot they found. That overnight bag would have worked quite nicely.

Of course it could have been just a burglary gone bad as some have suggested, but why leave the money in her purse? Typical run of the mill burglars would not have done that.

I'm just saying, what if?

That is an interesting angle. I remember stopping into Cabool on our way to Branson each summer. It is a pretty small town compared to Springfield and I would say that the lady who cut hair there didn't have as much competition as a hairdresser in Springfield. Sherill still might have made a lot of money (in cash), though.

The reason why I think that this was a sex crime is because the house was not burglarized. I realize that there is no evidence of a struggle. I believe they were taken somewhere else, assaulted and (I am so sorry for saying this for the family members and friends reading) killed. If this is what happened, this was a person/persons who had a plan beforehand.

When I say that someone had a plan, it didn't have to include these three women. The plan would be what they would do once they got whomever they got...at least this is what happened to me and my friend. We weren't specifically targeted beforehand, but happened to be the ones that became a part of the plan (sorry if that doesn't make sense).

Is there a link to a list of the parties that they attended that night?

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

I think it's time we try to link Teddy Gale Roberts to the women.

If what "Can't Say" says has any merit. Then we need to look into where he claims the bones of the girls are. He claims on Alex's website he's going public with the address soon. I'm skeptical of his information but when you don't have much to hang your hat on, an open mind is needed. We'll know really soon if any kind of cadaver dog can sniff around there without getting caught without a warrant. Can't Say did share some PDFs that show lots of truth to what he said. OldDog and MonkeyMann both have copies.

Let's face it, we get nowhere in this case without bones or a confession.

 

[Kathee]

I'm not sure what it is that revolves around Janelle's timeline exclusively except for a few hours early Sunday morning. Everything else can be verified by other witnesses. Just because it hasn't been given to the media other witnesses verify the timeline of the activities from the night before and certainly the 18 people who entered the house (and particularly the mothers of Suzie and Stacy's friends who were in the house) have verified that timeline. So the only thing open to verification is the early morning hours on Sunday.

I am trying to catch up with this thread. Sorry, life happens! With all due respect Hurricane, the early morning hours of Saturday and Sunday are THE ONLY critical ones that matter. As for what happened the night before I have witnesses that are willing to give statements that debunk some of Janelle's claims!

 

[Missouri Mule]

I am trying to catch up with this thread. Sorry, life happens! With all due respect Hurricane, the early morning hours of Saturday and Sunday are THE ONLY critical ones that matter. As for what happened the night before I have witnesses that are willing to give statements that debunk some of Janelle's claims!

Kathee, can you be more specific about what "claims" that Jannelle said that were debunked. I thought it was fairly well established they left her house at about 2:20 AM to go to the Delmar address. Is there something of importance that we don't know? Such as, was there room in the house in Battlefield and the girls were encouraged to leave against their intention. Or are you talking about what happened when Jannelle said she began calling and then went to the Levitt home? I'm just not clear on your meaning.

 

[Kathee]

Hi, I for one am here and thinking. Just saw the Disappeared piece. What bothers me about a lot of the tv pieces is that the break no new ground at all; they don't ask interesting questions that aven't been asked a hundred times. What might a real investigative reporter do with this case?

The producers of Disappeared have over six hours of taped interview with me. THEY chose what was included when the edited the piece. While not all of us, including me, are 100% happy with what they put together, I am thankful that they spotlighted our girls!

 

[monkeymann]

I am trying to catch up with this thread. Sorry, life happens! With all due respect Hurricane, the early morning hours of Saturday and Sunday are THE ONLY critical ones that matter. As for what happened the night before I have witnesses that are willing to give statements that debunk some of Janelle's claims!

Kathee...Thank You! The question I guess that I have now is, do the "Debunking" of some of Janelle's claims create that much of a change in the known (Thought to be known) facts surrounding the events of that night and next day, and what she and Mike Henson actually did that night. Can you elaborate a little more on this?

 

[Kathee]

Yes, thank you. I got my hospitals mixed up (I used to work for Cox). I didn't realize that information came from a psychic.

CaliMama, a lot of folks want to say it was only a psychic tip at the hospital, but scientific evidence, in the form of GPR, says there is something under the parking garage.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

Kathee, what led you to the garage other than psychics? Case and point.

Doesn't matter what GPR shows. Did you use GPR on other garages, other areas? That would help a lot. You scanned one insignificant area. Even if something other than psychics led you there, why would the police do a dig without something hard to go by? Even you know they can't do that.

Cox's garage. They are the ones that can do something about it. Putting it in LE's hands was smart, but that doesn't mean LE needs to do a dig. However, it MIGHT say they already know who the perp is. And just have elusive evidence.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

Kathee, you told me about a tip in Florida involving MHH. Did you know that Brookline address simply doesn't exist? If you know where exactly it is, mind sending me a Google Maps link?

Sorry if I sound harsh in some of my posts. I, like you, have become easily agitated when looking at this case. I'm just an "armchair sleuth" LOL after all.