Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #10

[cherrymeg]

Ditto.

"Ditto" isn't an answer. It would be nice if you could dial down the rudeness. Thanks!

 

[Hurricane]

Traded for drugs?
Nope. Doesn’t work that way. Small time drug dealers only want cash.

Mike, other than weed in your opinion would it be common for dealers to also be users? Or would a dealer typically steer clear; strictly business for them?

Did you ever hear or know (perhaps thru Dusty) if Garrison was using drugs other than weed?

I know you have said you didn't know the other 2GJ suspects. Did you know of Garrison's (ex) brother(s)-in-law [no name(s) please]? If so, ever hear if they were users of drugs other than weed or if they were dealers, perhaps selling for Garrison?

Again, no names necessary. Not trying to "out" anyone. Thanks.

 

[Santachrist]

Doesn't surprise me. I expect nothing less.
More manipulative games - your speciality.

I answer your questions when I didn’t need to and you call me manipulative? Why? Because they weren’t the answers you wanted? You are incredibly rude. If you think my answers are not on the level, please give some examples of your evidence to back that accusation up.

 

[Santachrist]

Mike, other than weed in your opinion would it be common for dealers to also be users? Or would a dealer typically steer clear; strictly business for them?

Did you ever hear or know (perhaps thru Dusty) if Garrison was using drugs other than weed?

I know you have said you didn't know the other 2GJ suspects. Did you know of Garrison's (ex) brother(s)-in-law [no name(s) please]? If so, ever hear if they were users of drugs other than weed or if they were dealers, perhaps selling for Garrison?

Again, no names necessary. Not trying to "out" anyone. Thanks.

Most people I’ve met that sell weed, smoked weed.

I have never heard anything about any drugs Garrison was into from anyone other than posters on the various internet sites. I don’t trust what I’ve read as factual.

I’ve never met and don’t know any of Garrisons family and I’ve never even read anything about them other than Garrison had a brother.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Mike, other than weed in your opinion would it be common for dealers to also be users? Or would a dealer typically steer clear; strictly business for them?

Did you ever hear or know (perhaps thru Dusty) if Garrison was using drugs other than weed?

I know you have said you didn't know the other 2GJ suspects. Did you know of Garrison's (ex) brother(s)-in-law [no name(s) please]? If so, ever hear if they were users of drugs other than weed or if they were dealers, perhaps selling for Garrison?

Again, no names necessary. Not trying to "out" anyone. Thanks.

Is this “ex’s Brother in law” in the Robb family tree? And I don’t mean one named on forums...

Garrison was a frequent user of drugs(weed and meth)—documented. A lot of dealers are users.

I answer your questions when I didn’t need to and you call me manipulative? Why? Because they weren’t the answers you wanted? You are incredibly rude. If you think my answers are not on the level, please give some examples of your evidence to back that accusation up.

I think the problem with your answers is that they range so widely in specificity. It’s vague and full of things like “Dustin likes driving her GT” (remember your wife just said she didn’t even know it was a new car so I found that odd but oh well)—you know damn well what we’re after. We want the truth and your posts sound like you try to frame things in a way that shields you and Dusty. You may have others fooled but not all of us. You also lose credibility when you downplay yours and Dusty’s relationship with Garrison. Remember, others can be reached for corroboration, you’re not the arbiter of informafion.
Thanks for the Subway correction btw....

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but I can't imagine people committing a triple murder over weed.

I'm thinking about the profiler theory that multiple people were involved, with the "familiar" face getting them into the home but unaware of what was going to happen. But the familiar person had to know that whatever he/she thought was going to happen was neither right nor legal. And that the target (e.g., Sherrill) would be able to identify the familiar person after the fact. So what could possible have been worth that risk? And when the thing went sideways, from the perspective of the familiar person, why didn't he/she stop it? And why wouldn't the others eliminate the familiar person as the weak link?

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but I can't imagine people committing a triple murder over weed.

Incredibly naive/intentionally dishonest if you think that's what is being said here.
The women knew something the fringe dealing/violent criminal crowd didn't want them to know. "Unplanned abduction" tells me the leader of the abduction likely changed course when Stacy entered the picture. I think the order of motives go like this: 1. Silence. 2. Revenge 3. Jealousy. And all not mutually exclusive either...

And that the target (e.g., Sherrill) would be able to identify the familiar person after the fact. So what could possible have been worth that risk? And when the thing went sideways, from the perspective of the familiar person, why didn't he/she stop it? And why wouldn't the others eliminate the familiar person as the weak link?

I don't think the leader thought there was a risk when he was planning to deal with just Sherrill and Suzie. And the leader did stop it--by murdering them and hiding the bodies. I believe the leader keeps people quiet with retaliation threats (like Wright says) .

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Is this “ex’s Brother in law” in the Robb family tree? And I don’t mean one named on forums...

Garrison was a frequent user of drugs(weed and meth)—documented. A lot of dealers are users.


I think the problem with your answers is that they range so widely in specificity. It’s vague and full of things like “Dustin likes driving her GT” (remember your wife just said she didn’t even know it was a new car so I found that odd but oh well)—you know damn well what we’re after. We want the truth and your posts sound like you try to frame things in a way that shields you and Dusty. You may have others fooled but not all of us. You also lose credibility when you downplay yours and Dusty’s relationship with Garrison. Remember, others can be reached for corroboration, you’re not the arbiter of informafion.
Thanks for the Subway correction btw....

Still would not know if it was new by saying it was a GT. That only tells me it was a GT and never asked him what kind of car she had or the year.

 

[Santachrist]

I think the problem with your answers is that they range so widely in specificity. It’s vague and full of things like “Dustin likes driving her GT” (remember your wife just said she didn’t even know it was a new car so I found that odd but oh well)—you know damn well what we’re after. We want the truth and your posts sound like you try to frame things in a way that shields you and Dusty. You may have others fooled but not all of us. You also lose credibility when you downplay yours and Dusty’s relationship with Garrison. Remember, others can be reached for corroboration, you’re not the arbiter of informafion.
Thanks for the Subway correction btw....

I couldn’t tell you off the top of my head what year Suzie’s car was, if it was brand new or if she bought it used. I just remember Dusty picking me up in it one day and we drove around for a while. It was a quick little car. When I asked why he had her car he said it was a fun car to drive because it’s a GT.

Please go to as many sources as you can find and ask them. If they know the answers to your questions and tell the truth I guarantee you none of them will offer up any contradictions to what I post. The truth is the truth. (Whether you believe it or not)

 

[Santachrist]

Maybe I'm just showing my age, but I can't imagine people committing a triple murder over weed.

I'm thinking about the profiler theory that multiple people were involved, with the "familiar" face getting them into the home but unaware of what was going to happen. But the familiar person had to know that whatever he/she thought was going to happen was neither right nor legal. And that the target (e.g., Sherrill) would be able to identify the familiar person after the fact. So what could possible have been worth that risk? And when the thing went sideways, from the perspective of the familiar person, why didn't he/she stop it? And why wouldn't the others eliminate the familiar person as the weak link?

Common sense doesn’t go over too well here apparently. I’ve said the same thing you posted over and over and for some reason certain people just refuse to see it. I’m glad you can.

 

[Santachrist]

Mike, other than weed in your opinion would it be common for dealers to also be users? Or would a dealer typically steer clear; strictly business for them?

Just noticed you said “other than weed”. My apologies for misunderstanding.
I rarely dealt with anyone for anything outside of weed. The girl I used to get Acid from did drop acid every now and then. The guy that would occasionally give me some of his pain pills definitely used them. They were his own prescriptions. Those are the only other “dealers” I really ever dealt with.
I’ve always heard “don’t get high off of your own supply” but I always assumed that was for the heavy drugs like coke, meth and heroin. I didn’t associate with those types of dealers so I can’t give an informed answer.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Common sense doesn’t go over too well here apparently. I’ve said the same thing you posted over and over and for some reason certain people just refuse to see it. I’m glad you can.

lol, come on Mike. The classic "if they don't agree with me, you don't agree with common sense" is the lamest and oldest online debate thing there is. The purveyors of "common sense" have a volatile definition--not surprising. Update your script. It is very possible for those who question you to operate under "common sense." It's painfully obvious what you're doing when you can't wait to smash the like and reply button on all of those who deter from the thinking that you or your pal may have been indirectly involved. I get it--you have a motive, and it's understandable and clear why you're here. "your reply was rude" except when you're rude, right Mike? How many "modsnip-rude" have you had now here? The only reason I call you out is because I know you're a logically sound person and so when I see you go down this route that Bookkeeper2 has pointed out, it's just depressing and sad. You could help these women--but you don't. You play games.

 

[cherrymeg]

lol, come on Mike. The classic "if they don't agree with me, you don't agree with common sense" is the lamest and oldest online debate thing there is. The purveyors of "common sense" have a volatile definition--not surprising. Update your script. It is very possible for those who question you to operate under "common sense." It's painfully obvious what you're doing when you can't wait to smash the like and reply button on all of those who deter from the thinking that you or your pal may have been indirectly involved. I get it--you have a motive, and it's understandable and clear why you're here. "your reply was rude" except when you're rude, right Mike? How many "modsnip-rude" have you had now here? The only reason I call you out is because I know you're a logically sound person and so when I see you go down this route that Bookkeeper2 has pointed out, it's just depressing and sad. You could help these women--but you don't. You play games.

He's answered your questions. More politely than most. It seems like you want to fight more than you want to offer up facts.

 

[Santachrist]

lol, come on Mike. The classic "if they don't agree with me, you don't agree with common sense" is the lamest and oldest online debate thing there is. The purveyors of "common sense" have a volatile definition--not surprising. Update your script. It is very possible for those who question you to operate under "common sense." It's painfully obvious what you're doing when you can't wait to smash the like and reply button on all of those who deter from the thinking that you or your pal may have been indirectly involved. I get it--you have a motive, and it's understandable and clear why you're here. "your reply was rude" except when you're rude, right Mike? How many "modsnip-rude" have you had now here? The only reason I call you out is because I know you're a logically sound person and so when I see you go down this route that Bookkeeper2 has pointed out, it's just depressing and sad. You could help these women--but you don't. You play games.

Common sense would dictate that if these people you suspect were ruthless enough to kidnap and kill three innocent women over something one of them “might” have known, they wouldn’t have stopped with them. They would have eliminated every possible threat to their operation and Dusty, Joe and myself would be missing and presumed dead also.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Common sense would dictate that if these people you suspect were ruthless enough to kidnap and kill three innocent women over something one of them “might” have known, they wouldn’t have stopped with them. They would have eliminated every possible threat to their operation and Dusty, Joe and myself would be missing and presumed dead also.

I agree, except one thing, they don't stop. The perps regularly keep everyone in check. Can't murder everyone--but you can keep quiet/misdirect.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

I agree, except one thing, they don't stop. The perps regularly keep everyone in check. Can't murder everyone--but you can keep quiet/misdirect.

So what is the point of keeping the loudest one alive? Joe not only made the first statement, but got them caught by talking at a party and then made a deal to testify against both Mike and Dusty.

 

[Santachrist]

I agree, except one thing, they don't stop. The perps regularly keep everyone in check. Can't murder everyone--but you can keep quiet/misdirect.

And now you’ve devolved into crazy conspiracy theories. Good luck with that. There’s no point in any further discussions with you if this is what you believe.

 

[Santachrist]

I agree, except one thing, they don't stop. The perps regularly keep everyone in check. Can't murder everyone--but you can keep quiet/misdirect.

That’s actually pretty funny considering the only death threats me and my family get are usually from people on these boards. (Care to comment about that, Dale?)

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

And now you’ve devolved into crazy conspiracy theories. Good luck with that. There’s no point in any further discussions with you if this is what you believe.

It’s somewhat of interest to me that that is what you take away from what I said. The FBI profiler said threats are likely used to keep people quiet, Not I. Threats and misdirection come in different packages. Very volatile. Not always conspiracy zone.

 

[Santachrist]

Yeah what IS the point?

The point is there was no vast conspiracy or group of criminals that wanted to silence the women for what we knew or they would have silenced Joe too.

Edit: ...unless it was unrelated or had nothing to do with Joe, Dusty or myself.