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

[kashmir]

Many times first impressions are the correct impressions. I'd be interested in what views you had that were changed. It has always been my belief that one's "gut feelings" are usually correct. Can you elaborate on what views that were changed?

I was actually in Springfield/Nixa visiting family the weekend this happened. I was 11 and always heard the family that lived in Springfield darkly muttering "the boyfriend" when discussing the case. That is where my first impressions came from. My aunt is a well connected nurse who I always assumed knew everything. I often spent summer weeks as a teenager babysitting for $$$ while the family went on vacation, and I remember being so terrified during the nighttime I would read my aunts Erma Bombeck books with all house lights on until I fell asleep. So it's easy to want to believe it was a boyfriend or someone close, just to distance yourself.

One point, though...many successful hairdressers have a very easy way about them. Lonely People can easily assume they have a friend in their hair girl due to confidences shared when the cape is on. Maybe someone-a walk in, maybe- assumed they were better friends then they thought.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I was actually in Springfield/Nixa visiting family the weekend this happened. I was 11 and always heard the family that lived in Springfield darkly muttering "the boyfriend" when discussing the case. That is where my first impressions came from. My aunt is a well connected nurse who I always assumed knew everything. I often spent summer weeks as a teenager babysitting for $$$ while the family went on vacation, and I remember being so terrified during the nighttime I would read my aunts Erma Bombeck books with all house lights on until I fell asleep. So it's easy to want to believe it was a boyfriend or someone close, just to distance yourself.

One point, though...many successful hairdressers have a very easy way about them. Lonely People can easily assume they have a friend in their hair girl due to confidences shared when the cape is on. Maybe someone-a walk in, maybe- assumed they were better friends then they thought.

Last thing first. If Sherrill let her guard down with her clients it was not evident in the list of names on the rolodex. About 95% of them were women and were evidently regular customers. Of course we can't assume that there weren't numerous others who we don't know about. The preponderance of known evidence suggests there are no skeletons clanking around in her background that could have resulted in this crime. If the police did what they said they would do they would have essentally confirmed this.

There were two boyfriends that I know of and I am assuming you are referring to Susie's boyfriend. If not, please correct me.

I believe it is correct to say that there was considerable divergence of opinion within the police department regarding who was ruled off the suspect list. I believe your first impression, if I understand you correctly, has much merit. Certainly there was motive. But I would argue that there was something beyond the immediate problem that someone believed required a permanent remedy. What we do know is that if Sherrill was the target, there was more than ample opportunity to have taken her prior to the girls arriving. That suggests a strong probability that Suzie was the more probable target. It also provides a plausible entry into the home. What is not clear to me is what led the various law enforcement agencies to conclude the motive was "sexual assault." That would tend to argue against the former. And this is where Cox could come into the equation. And one final thing, we don't know and may never know who the young man who allegedly came through the neighborhood in a similar van and then disappeared after the abduction. If there is any connection at all it certainly points to a planned event.

There is almost always something in a person's background or circle of friends and relatives who first come on the radar in such an investigation. We don't know if those people and events were properly eliminated before going on to other individuals or motives. If only, if only, that crime scene had not been so badly contaminated we might and probably would have had closure nearly two decades ago. But it was not to be. If nothing else, the perp(s) had luck on their side.

 

[_mb_]

I lived nearby when this happened and was in Springfirld often. I always heard rumors that Sherril was dating someone in law enforcement and that he was married. Of course, you can't always trust small town rumors, but after nearly 20 years, I can't help but wondering if that has some truth to it. Gives me a reason as to why the investigation doesn't seem to go anywhere--no digging up the hospital, no warrant to search the house the rings/clippings were found in, etc.

But then there is the strange behavior by friends of the girls. And then there is the proximity of Cox & Garrison...so many directions that this can take.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I lived nearby when this happened and was in Springfirld often. I always heard rumors that Sherril was dating someone in law enforcement and that he was married. Of course, you can't always trust small town rumors, but after nearly 20 years, I can't help but wondering if that has some truth to it. Gives me a reason as to why the investigation doesn't seem to go anywhere--no digging up the hospital, no warrant to search the house the rings/clippings were found in, etc.

But then there is the strange behavior by friends of the girls. And then there is the proximity of Cox & Garrison...so many directions that this can take.

Did these people who claimed that Sherrill was dating someone on the police department ever reveal where they heard these rumors? Truth is that such rumors have been around "forever" but like so many rumors no one seems to know where they originated.

If I were to have heard this from someone who actually had first hand information such as having seen them dine together or at a movie together or some other public gathering it would strike me as particularly critical to know. On the other hand, if the source of the rumor can't trace its way back to the starting point it doesn't mean too much. It is at best, just hearsay. Although discussion of the case should not be viewed in the context of a jury trial for some reason the origin of such rumors is always, or seemingly so, clouded in mystery.

For example, I have heard or read somewhere that she dated a "businessman" which apparently had originated from what someone who claimed that Suzie had said this to someone. But since no one has ever come forth and claimed that they heard it directly from Suzie I tend to doubt it. At the time many believed that this alleged "businessman" was Gerald Carnahan and most probably because the Jackie Johns murder was fresh on everyone's mind. Now he is behind bars for her murder and we seldom hear much about him or this rumor any more.

Then we hear about "drugs" as though it were established fact. But when pressed, no one really seems to have first hand information. One would think the SPD would have run all of these rumors down to eliminate them from consideration.

 

[glorias]

Last thing first. If Sherrill let her guard down with her clients it was not evident in the list of names on the rolodex. About 95% of them were women and were evidently regular customers. Of course we can't assume that there weren't numerous others who we don't know about.

I've been re-reading this thread tonight and what you said here reminds me of what you said very early on in the first thread a few years ago: Follow the money. If we think of Sherrill being the target because she had money with her that day from work, then it wouldn't just be clients who would be suspected, but also co-workers and friends/relatives of co-workers. Anyone even tangentially connected could have possibly found out when Sherrill collected her pay, got a lot of tips, etc.

But the real problem with robbery as the motive is that it doesn't explain why the robber(s) took the women out of the home. That is a risky thing to do, because of potential witnesses and the difficulty of controlling the women. There would be no need for it unless this is a sort of "In Cold Blood" situation where the robber(s) thought the women had money hidden and knew the location of a large sum of money.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I've been re-reading this thread tonight and what you said here reminds me of what you said very early on in the first thread a few years ago: Follow the money. If we think of Sherrill being the target because she had money with her that day from work, then it wouldn't just be clients who would be suspected, but also co-workers and friends/relatives of co-workers. Anyone even tangentially connected could have possibly found out when Sherrill collected her pay, got a lot of tips, etc.

But the real problem with robbery as the motive is that it doesn't explain why the robber(s) took the women out of the home. That is a risky thing to do, because of potential witnesses and the difficulty of controlling the women. There would be no need for it unless this is a sort of "In Cold Blood" situation where the robber(s) thought the women had money hidden and knew the location of a large sum of money.

The real problem with all of this is that the crime scene was so badly contaminated. As soon as the first people to scene came upon the broken globe on the porch and went into the home everything that came afterwards is just speculation. What could have been in the home, such as hair, DNA, blood or whatever could have been cleaned up. That's the overriding problem of this case and always has been.

When I said we should follow the money I had the idea that if Sherrill's shoes were disheveled it indicated to me that someone was looking for something and I surmised that if she was in possession of large sums of money that she might conceal some in her shoes. That may sound like a screwy idea but it seemed plausible. At that time I was working off the assumption that she was concerned about her husband's creditors, who she was still on the hook for, would try to garnishee her bank accounts and she didn't want to leave money there to be taken so easily. Dealing with cash prevents this in that a creditor cannot just go into one's home and start rifling through a person's personal effects short of a court order and the sheriff's department. It was a theory.

Subsequent to this idea we learn that about four agencies who have looked at this case have concluded that it was a crime of "sexual assault." We don't know if they concluded this in the absence of any other motive as they have not told us what led them to that conclusion. Which brings us back to the fact the crime scene was so badly contaminated by people, up to 20?, who came later.

As to why the women were taken, it removes witnesses to the crime and it keeps the case as three missing women; not three murdered women which, as we all know, is actually the case.

I have argued that there is one suspect, who feels it is necessary to have extra alibis who could have accomplished this by himself and that would have been Robert Cox. He alone, among all of the suspects possessed the requisite martial arts skills to have subdued all three women inside the home. I don't know his total criminal background but if he had any proven sexual assaults on his resume then this would be a reasonable conclusion to have drawn. We have other individuals like Garrison and Carnahan on the periphery but who do not possess the skills to have done this although it is entirely possible they are involved somehow. Garrison in particular was suspected and was questioned by the police, escaped and then raped a college coed. He was later convicted and sent away for life. Cox is doing life as is Carnahan for the Jackie Johns murder. Then there are the speculated "biker gangs" which through folklore have been tied to this crime.

It really boils down to the contamination of the crime scene which I now believe is at the root of this unsolved case. If not for that I believe this case would have been solved 19 years ago.

 

[glorias]

Thanks, MM. After re-reading these threads, I too wondered if there was a reason to believe Sherrill had a lot of money in the house.

Your posts here have been fascinating, thanks for all the work you've done. I lurked here for years because the case really stuck with me, since I practically grew up at my grandmother's house in Springfield, relatively close to the Delmar area.

 

[_mb_]

Did these people who claimed that Sherrill was dating someone on the police department ever reveal where they heard these rumors? Truth is that such rumors have been around "forever" but like so many rumors no one seems to know where they originated.

If I were to have heard this from someone who actually had first hand information such as having seen them dine together or at a movie together or some other public gathering it would strike me as particularly critical to know. On the other hand, if the source of the rumor can't trace its way back to the starting point it doesn't mean too much. It is at best, just hearsay. Although discussion of the case should not be viewed in the context of a jury trial for some reason the origin of such rumors is always, or seemingly so, clouded in mystery.

For example, I have heard or read somewhere that she dated a "businessman" which apparently had originated from what someone who claimed that Suzie had said this to someone. But since no one has ever come forth and claimed that they heard it directly from Suzie I tend to doubt it. At the time many believed that this alleged "businessman" was Gerald Carnahan and most probably because the Jackie Johns murder was fresh on everyone's mind. Now he is behind bars for her murder and we seldom hear much about him or this rumor any more.

Then we hear about "drugs" as though it were established fact. But when pressed, no one really seems to have first hand information. One would think the SPD would have run all of these rumors down to eliminate them from consideration.

I've always wrote these off as just unfounded rumors. They always seemed to be "a friend of a friend of a sister who's in-law knew Sherril/Suzie from school/church/beauty shop/etc". I've never been able to make a connection between these rumors and fact (as well as the "buisnessman" and "drugs" rumors that I also had heard). Every once in a while though, I tend to think about the rumors that I've heard and wonder if there is any truth to them. I would assume that all of these angles have been covered by LE, and there is no evidence to back them, but sometimes I just go back through and question every scenario that I've previously dismissed.

Sometimes I wonder if Suzie was supposed to be home that night. Late, after her graduation celebrations, but the plan was for her to be home. We don't know if there really were plans for a hotel or not. Maybe the person/persons were waiting for Suzie to show up after having Sheril restrained.

Maybe Stacy was somehow involved. I don't mean knowingly. I wonder if the person who convinced Stacy to tell her mother that they were staying in a hotel in Branson also helped convince her to keep Suzie out of the house until a certain time (according to Shane, Suzie had a stomach ache, when did she start complaining of this? Was it early in the night and someone convinced them to hit another party instead of going back home?).

I keep thinking that there is a personal element in this case. That three women don't just disappear because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But then again, I read an article this morning in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about Michael Devlin and how he just drove country roads until he found a boy to kidnap. Could this have been as simple as someone following the girls home? Maybe thinking they were college students living alone (or with another girl of the same age)?

Link to the Devlin article for those interested here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_d46ce33c-e7aa-5ef3-8ab9-ad3c9c6854f1.html

 

[Missouri Mule]

I've always wrote these off as just unfounded rumors. They always seemed to be "a friend of a friend of a sister who's in-law knew Sherril/Suzie from school/church/beauty shop/etc". I've never been able to make a connection between these rumors and fact (as well as the "businessman" and "drugs" rumors that I also had heard). Every once in a while though, I tend to think about the rumors that I've heard and wonder if there is any truth to them. I would assume that all of these angles have been covered by LE, and there is no evidence to back them, but sometimes I just go back through and question every scenario that I've previously dismissed.

Sometimes I wonder if Suzie was supposed to be home that night. Late, after her graduation celebrations, but the plan was for her to be home. We don't know if there really were plans for a hotel or not. Maybe the person/persons were waiting for Suzie to show up after having Sherill restrained.

Maybe Stacy was somehow involved. I don't mean knowingly. I wonder if the person who convinced Stacy to tell her mother that they were staying in a hotel in Branson also helped convince her to keep Suzie out of the house until a certain time (according to Shane, Suzie had a stomach ache, when did she start complaining of this? Was it early in the night and someone convinced them to hit another party instead of going back home?).

I keep thinking that there is a personal element in this case. That three women don't just disappear because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But then again, I read an article this morning in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about Michael Devlin and how he just drove country roads until he found a boy to kidnap. Could this have been as simple as someone following the girls home? Maybe thinking they were college students living alone (or with another girl of the same age)?

Link to the Devlin article for those interested here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_d46ce33c-e7aa-5ef3-8ab9-ad3c9c6854f1.html

You have hit on something that has bothered me a long time. That pizza was from a meal that she had at home right after the graduation ceremony. (based on my recollection) That would have been about 8:30 PM or so. But she went out to celebrate until about 2:00 AM or about 5 and 1/2 hours. The impression that this was somehow related on her decision to return home. Somehow that doesn't compute for me. How long was she complaining about her stomach? Whoever she was around should have been able to establish the time when she first started complaining about this. If, on the other hand, she only started mentioning or complaining at 2 AM as a pretext to leave I find that interesting. I think that should have been looked at closely to see if there was an underlying problem we don't know of.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Thanks, MM. After re-reading these threads, I too wondered if there was a reason to believe Sherrill had a lot of money in the house.

Your posts here have been fascinating, thanks for all the work you've done. I lurked here for years because the case really stuck with me, since I practically grew up at my grandmother's house in Springfield, relatively close to the Delmar area.

Thanks for the kind comments but all I have really done is to speculate based on information that is publicly written or through contacts I deem reliable. I've had several different theories over the years. Some that I have discarded I have resurrected. Right now my primary interest is in the activities which proceeded from their exodus to the Delmar address. Almost nothing which came afterward and which is all hearsay satisfies me in the least. We know absolutely nothing about Suzie and Stacy after they left for the Delmar address. We can't even be certain about the van sighting as that has been disputed depending on who one talks to. I tend to think it is reliable based more on its sighting on Kentwood. As you know this is a narrow street and would not be easily overlooked by the newspaper carrier. The "porch lady" didn't surface until several days afterward.

What is needed most of all is a motive. All of these various theories could be put into a paper bag and they would all fall out at the same time.

 

[Jaya]

Sometimes I wonder if Suzie was supposed to be home that night. Late, after her graduation celebrations, but the plan was for her to be home. We don't know if there really were plans for a hotel or not. Maybe the person/persons were waiting for Suzie to show up after having Sheril restrained.

Maybe Stacy was somehow involved. I don't mean knowingly. I wonder if the person who convinced Stacy to tell her mother that they were staying in a hotel in Branson also helped convince her to keep Suzie out of the house until a certain time (according to Shane, Suzie had a stomach ache, when did she start complaining of this? Was it early in the night and someone convinced them to hit another party instead of going back home?).

I keep thinking that there is a personal element in this case. That three women don't just disappear because they were in the wrong place at the wrong time. But then again, I read an article this morning in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch about Michael Devlin and how he just drove country roads until he found a boy to kidnap. Could this have been as simple as someone following the girls home? Maybe thinking they were college students living alone (or with another girl of the same age)?

Link to the Devlin article for those interested here: http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_d46ce33c-e7aa-5ef3-8ab9-ad3c9c6854f1.html

I have a couple of thoughts about this. Didn't the friend that Sherill talked to on the phone say that Sherill had said that Suzie was out for the night? I have always been under the impression that Sherill's plan was to be at home by herself all night. But you make a good point.... has it ever explicitly been stated that Suzie was going to stay at the hotel with the other girls? We know that Stacy was because of Janice's statements, but do we know if Sherill was referring to being at home alone for the evening (i.e., Suzie would be home late) or overnight? If she was expecting Suzie home late, that could explain why the blinds were partway up in her bedroom and it looked as though she had been reading: she may have been trying to stay awake until Suzie got in and had the blinds open so that she could see her headlights when she pulled in.

We know of several cases like this news article you reference... in fact, many disappearance cases that go unsolved for so long are those of someone who was walking home or heading from point a to point b and taken randomly with no evidence. The issue I have with this idea is that those are crimes of convenience, as you mention in this case with the guy driving around until he found a child to take. He probably drove by several houses that he could tell had children living in them, but he waited for an opportune situation. If someone did think that these girls would be an easy snag and followed them home, they would have seen that it wasn't an opportune situation when they found an additional car in the drive, etc. Why not keep driving and wait for an easy target, which wouldn't have taken that long at 2 a.m. on a Saturday, especially with MSU (then SMS) and the downtown area being so close. Like you, I've always thought this was personal and have always had a problem with the idea that it was a random hit.

 

[_mb_]

You have hit on something that has bothered me a long time. That pizza was from a meal that she had at home right after the graduation ceremony. (based on my recollection) That would have been about 8:30 PM or so. But she went out to celebrate until about 2:00 AM or about 5 and 1/2 hours. The impression that this was somehow related on her decision to return home. Somehow that doesn't compute for me. How long was she complaining about her stomach? Whoever she was around should have been able to establish the time when she first started complaining about this. If, on the other hand, she only started mentioning or complaining at 2 AM as a pretext to leave I find that interesting. I think that should have been looked at closely to see if there was an underlying problem we don't know of.

Yeah. I've wondered before if it was more of an excuse. Like something wasn't right at the party/someone was there that didn't make her comfortable or for some reason she was worried about her mother's safety at home. From what the articles say, Suzie & Stacy parked their cars at Janelle's, so someone was driving them around all night and Suzie couldn't just drive back. Maybe this has been covered before somewhere, but could the girls not just go back around the corner and sleep on a couch at the party that they just left--instead of driving all the way across town? I assume drinking was involved, and I know that not all 18 year olds feel this way, but the last thing I wanted to do after having a few drinks underage was to drive around unnecessarily (especially on a night where cops are looking for this sort of thing).

Which brings up something else I never thought of--why the separate cars? I assume that they were meeting back around Battlefield that morning to go to Whitewater. Wouldn't it have been easier to leave a car behind and come back for it either in the morning or after the water park trip? The aerials from Janelle's neighborhood don't look very populated. I don't see there being a problem leaving one of the cars behind.

We know of several cases like this news article you reference... in fact, many disappearance cases that go unsolved for so long are those of someone who was walking home or heading from point a to point b and taken randomly with no evidence. The issue I have with this idea is that those are crimes of convenience, as you mention in this case with the guy driving around until he found a child to take. He probably drove by several houses that he could tell had children living in them, but he waited for an opportune situation. If someone did think that these girls would be an easy snag and followed them home, they would have seen that it wasn't an opportune situation when they found an additional car in the drive, etc. Why not keep driving and wait for an easy target, which wouldn't have taken that long at 2 a.m. on a Saturday, especially with MSU (then SMS) and the downtown area being so close. Like you, I've always thought this was personal and have always had a problem with the idea that it was a random hit.

I feel like if it were a crime of opportunity, the girls would have been taken from the yard. They would not have taken off their makeup, they would not have had their purses inside, and Sherill would have been left behind. I also have an issue with the women not taking anything with them if there was a "utility emergency". I didn't realize this until recently, but a week ago I was in a hotel that caught fire (it was contained in a room, and from what I heard, a trash can) the building was evacuated in the middle of the night. I grabbed my purse/cell phone/car keys without even thinking about it.

I think that either Sherril or Suzie were the intended target, with the other either knowing or being able to point to the abductor. I think if that it was Stacy/Suzie and Sherril unable to point any fingers, they wouldn't have made it into the house.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I think that four things are probable.

1) They would have gone in one car. The other two cars would have logically been left at Janelle's house which offered better parking in a better area. There is no logic in believing they would have taken more than one car.

2) They could have overnighted in Battlefield but chose not to. This suggests to me there were underlying reasons for the change in plans. If so, what were they? And we can probably assume, although I hate to do that, they had some adult beverages so the 11 mile drive was somewhat hazardous.

3) I believe this was a planned event which brings up the obvious question. What was the motive? And as stated, if either Sheriill or Suzie remained alive they could surely point to a perpetrator(s) as they were very close as mother and daughter. That suggests the killer or killers waited until Suzie was home to strike as Sherrill was available nearly all night long.

4) The purses were forgotten with the money. The television was left in haste. The door was unlocked in the rush to leave. And the globe was broken which probably spooked the perp(s) to leave immediately since it could have been heard and daylight was fast approaching. It would have been to the perp(s) advantage to have taken the purses, turned off the television, locked the door and cleaned up the broken globe as it would have delayed discovery of the crime scene. That suggests to me that the final victim may have been the one who kicked the globe off the wall breaking it which forced the quick exit. Had that not happened, I believe it would have been much wiser to have taken the purses, turned off the TV, locked the door and simply left with all three victims. There was no logical reasons to have overlooked these four clues that something was not right in that house.

 

[Trooogrit]

I think that four things are probable.

1) They would have gone in one car. The other two cars would have logically been left at Janelle's house which offered better parking in a better area. There is no logic in believing they would have taken more than one car. I would have never left my car anywhere when I was 18.

2) They could have overnighted in Battlefield but chose not to. This suggests to me there were underlying reasons for the change in plans. If so, what were they? And we can probably assume, although I hate to do that, they had some adult beverages so the 11 mile drive was somewhat hazardous. They could have stayed there, but it definately would have been easier to go home. A crowded house versus a 10 minute drive to my bed is no match. I would have gone home. We also have never known how drunk or sober these girls were, we can assume that they had been drinking, but to excess? We have no idea.

3) I believe this was a planned event which brings up the obvious question. What was the motive? And as stated, if either Sheriill or Suzie remained alive they could surely point to a perpetrator(s) as they were very close as mother and daughter. That suggests the killer or killers waited until Suzie was home to strike as Sherrill was available nearly all night long. A planned event has some problems. We do not have a motive for a planned event. Why go after 3 women when 1 is the target? I also think that if someone was going into a house with 3 women, then the phone lines would be cut. There is no feel for a pro hit to me.

4) The purses were forgotten with the money. The television was left in haste. The door was unlocked in the rush to leave. And the globe was broken which probably spooked the perp(s) to leave immediately since it could have been heard and daylight was fast approaching. It would have been to the perp(s) advantage to have taken the purses, turned off the television, locked the door and cleaned up the broken globe as it would have delayed discovery of the crime scene. That suggests to me that the final victim may have been the one who kicked the globe off the wall breaking it which forced the quick exit. Had that not happened, I believe it would have been much wiser to have taken the purses, turned off the TV, locked the door and simply left with all three victims. There was no logical reasons to have overlooked these four clues that something was not right in that house. If it were a pro hit then yes it would make more sense, but if it were something different, and by people who were in a hurry to get out of town quickly, I could see all of that being left that way.

 

[Hurricane]

I have a question concerning public records and death certificates, Perhaps someone doing geneology work can answer for me. What is the rule concerning privacy? I heard that it was 72 yrs but have found published death certificates up thru 1950. Anyone know if it is possible to obtain a death certificate from within the last 20 yrs and not be a relative of the deceased? I'm looking for COD? Any way to determine that without a death certificate? I don't think an obit was published and I doubt that a COD was listed if it was.

 

[Jaya]

Usually when a missing person is declared dead without any physical remains, cause of death will read "in absentia," which means that there was reasonable evidence to presume them dead even though there is a complete lack of physical evidence to determine the information usually needed for a death certificate (location, date, COD, etc).

In the U.S., death certificates are public domain unless the deceased is a minor. The difference is "general" death certificates versus full death certificates. General death certificates are public domain, whereas full death certificates may be restricted to immediate family, law enforcement, and government. The difference between the two is in the documentation of cause of death. A general death certificate will specify accidental, homicide, suicide, in absentia, or natural death (illness, health conditions, disabilities, disorders, etc). A full death certificate will have details of the natural death, such as the specific injury or illness that led to demise. If a person was under age 18 when he or she died, the legal guardian can request that the death certificate not become public record. In these cases, it will only ever be able to be accessed by immediate family.

The thing is, those are the national regulations put in place by the U.S. But, each state is allowed to expand upon them and make additional restrictions. In Missouri (that is, deaths that occurred in Missouri- that is how they are regulated, based on the state that the person died in), the release of certificates are restricted to authorized persons: guardian, spouse, child, descendant (genealogical research), legal representative, or professional genealogical researcher.

The Missouri guideline for death certificates becoming public records is 50 years. So, if you wanted the death certificate of someone you are not related to who died less than 50 years ago, you would need to find a business licensed genealogical researcher to work on your behalf. I believe that it is Canada that has implemented the 72 year rule nationally. Delaware also has a really long waiting period... I think that theirs is about that, as well. Texas only has a 25 year restriction. So, you can see how it is going to vary greatly depending on what state you are working with. U.S. census data also has a 72 year restriction, is that maybe what you were thinking of?

Sorry this got kind of long, but I hope it helped!

 

[Hurricane]

Usually when a missing person is declared dead without any physical remains, cause of death will read "in absentia," which means that there was reasonable evidence to presume them dead even though there is a complete lack of physical evidence to determine the information usually needed for a death certificate (location, date, COD, etc).

In the U.S., death certificates are public domain unless the deceased is a minor. The difference is "general" death certificates versus full death certificates. General death certificates are public domain, whereas full death certificates may be restricted to immediate family, law enforcement, and government. The difference between the two is in the documentation of cause of death. A general death certificate will specify accidental, homicide, suicide, in absentia, or natural death (illness, health conditions, disabilities, disorders, etc). A full death certificate will have details of the natural death, such as the specific injury or illness that led to demise. If a person was under age 18 when he or she died, the legal guardian can request that the death certificate not become public record. In these cases, it will only ever be able to be accessed by immediate family.

The thing is, those are the national regulations put in place by the U.S. But,

each state is allowed to expand upon them and make additional restrictions. In Missouri (that is, deaths that occurred in Missouri- that is how they are regulated, based on the state that the person died in), the release of certificates are restricted to authorized persons: guardian, spouse, child, descendant (genealogical research), legal representative, or professional genealogical researcher.

The Missouri guideline for death certificates becoming public records is 50 years. So, if you wanted the death certificate of someone you are not related to who died less than 50 years ago, you would need to find a business licensed genealogical researcher to work on your behalf. I believe that it is Canada that has implemented the 72 year rule nationally. Delaware also has a really long waiting period... I think that theirs is about that, as well. Texas only has a 25 year restriction. So, you can see how it is going to vary greatly depending on what state you are working with. U.S. census data also has a 72 year restriction, is that maybe what you were thinking of?

Sorry this got kind of long, but I hope it helped!

That is what I had understood concerning kinship. Thanks.

 

[twidger]

regarding your swimming pool question, there is/was a public swimming pool (in phelps grove park) which is very close to the delmar house.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Just a note to say that the "Three Missing Women" show is being repeated at 7 pm ET during the Disappeared marathon today (Monday, Memorial Day).

 

[Kat]

http://ozarksfirst.com/fulltext?nxd_id=468767

Vigil Marks 19th Anniversary of Missing Women Case

Video at link, article too short to snip.