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

[pittsburghgirl]

I agree. It seems to me that it is reasonable to conclude that people promoting such notions may be the actual perp or perps. It effectively takes the focus off real suspects.

This has been going on, quite successfully for 28 years.

I think it's social class prejudice. Or maybe prejudice about divorced families or working mothers.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I think it is not implausible that there was not some evil force came to that house that morning. I can come up with about five possible scenarios. One would be that it was a one off crime and the perp has kept his nose clean for the past 28 years. At the same time I think he has followed this case like a bloodhound.

I dunno, Mule. Somebody with an appetite for this sort of crime would have a hard time not wanting to do it again--or so I think. But it may be that those appetites were fed in other ways that we have no insight into. I used to think the perp was Robert Craig Cox. I know he lied in the letters he's written that have made public. But he's gotten caught in other, simpler crimes. But I agree with you that the person or persons who did thing, if still alive, follows this case.

 

[Nixaeagle]

I dunno, Mule. Somebody with an appetite for this sort of crime would have a hard time not wanting to do it again--or so I think. But it may be that those appetites were fed in other ways that we have no insight into. I used to think the perp was Robert Craig Cox. I know he lied in the letters he's written that have made public. But he's gotten caught in other, simpler crimes. But I agree with you that the person or persons who did thing, if still alive, follows this case.

What has he gotten away with we don’t know about ? I know some members of his family think he’s responsible for the 3MW .
Hard to imagine he started abducting / killing women in the 70’s and the only crimes were the 4 -5 he was caught ? Nah .

 

[skoogmagoo]

What if one of them worked in a construction or similar job, where they were relocated every year or so?

Does everyone think the suspect(s) are people who are still living in or near the Springfield area? Pardon, but I'm trying to update myself again on this case.

ETA: I'm also trying to recall something pertinent about the way LE handled this investigation that made me think most of the facts given about the case so far needs to be questioned. That usually only happens when LE has been dishonest about something very important. I'll have to go back to find it, pretty sure it came up in one of the news stories.

I think the killer could have moved over the last 28 years, but since the bodies have never been found, I would think it is someone very familiar with area and lived there at the time of the killings.

 

[skoogmagoo]

Unless they never looked or were in a BIG hurry .. but that’s the problem with GJ1& GJ2 they were convicted several times of stealing . They aren’t leaving that cash behind if they saw it .

Sounds to me like the killer didn't need the money. Think about that. They didn't need the money, and that was a lot of money back then.

 

[madfrank]

It also means it quite possibly was a professional job: clean, quick, nothing unnecessary. Local candidates were clumsy and doltish. Pros aren't.

 

[skoogmagoo]

It also means it quite possibly was a professional job: clean, quick, nothing unnecessary. Local candidates were clumsy and doltish. Pros aren't.

Killing teenagers doesn't seem very " professional" and how much experience would be needed to be considered a professional at kidnapping and killing a grown woman and two teenage girls? With no bodies found ? This murder seems much more personal.

 

[skoogmagoo]

They may have been kidnapped from another location entirely. Without force how do you control three women? There didn't seem to be a sign of violence or struggle. A gun can be scary but being moved from your home to a vehicle is scarier. If you think you are being robbed or even assaulted you might comply in your home. Then there still should have been signs of a struggle, blood, semen, etc. Maybe there is some DNA or evidence that has been held back. Once someone tries taking you from a home your chance of survival goes way down. If you are being moved that is the ideal time to break away because kidnappers don't have complete control. They have to worry about outside elements like neighbors, people on the street, cops and they might not be willing to shoot after someone running if it will draw attention. They might have a gun but not be a great shot. Your odds are always better than getting into their vehicle.

Not when it comes to the mother / daughter dynamic. When someone has a gun to your daughters head, you do what you are told, no exceptions, no hero moves.

 

[asyousay]

Not when it comes to the mother / daughter dynamic. When someone has a gun to your daughters head, you do what you are told, no exceptions, no hero moves.

But Stacey wouldn’t hold such loyalty. She is definitely the spanner in the works.

In theory we all think of how we would behave in such a situation and for all I know I would freeze but I’m saying here and now I would fight and certainly I would be all about protecting myself. We all know enough that you don’t just follow a man with a gun because once they tie you up and get control it’s over.


MOO

 

[Nixaeagle]

Sounds to me like the killer didn't need the money. Think about that. They didn't need the money, and that was a lot of money back then.

Excellent point . If you’re two weeks out of Prison ,You need cash .

 

[Nixaeagle]

Not when it comes to the mother / daughter dynamic. When someone has a gun to your daughters head, you do what you are told, no exceptions, no hero moves.

Exactly what Sherrill’s sister said . Only way someone would get the best of her is to hold a gun on her daughter .

 

[Missouri Mule]

It also means it quite possibly was a professional job: clean, quick, nothing unnecessary. Local candidates were clumsy and doltish. Pros aren't.

It also might mean that the killer was a “student” of police tactics and how to carry out crimes.

I’m a bit of a nut in my old age and nothing intrigues me more than how certain criminals get away for long periods of time while others seemingly never get caught. It is true that many are the lowest of the low but they also run with their kind. In this case I think a person with an intelligence above room temperature could have pulled it off if he successfully covered his tracks. Until I see a motive I lean heavily toward the one individual with testosterone poisoning who wanted what he wanted and he wasn’t going to be denied.

The only two cases I have ever studied is this one and Zodiac. I see five plausible scenarios and wouldn’t be surprised if any one of them was the answer.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

3 years before the kidnapping in Springfield, Joan Rogers and her 2 daughters, on vacation at the beach, got on a boat with a man they didn't really now, and he murdered them and put them in the ocean. From Wikipedia:

Autopsies showed all three victims had water in their lungs, proving they had been thrown into the water while still alive.Michelle, who was identified as the second body found, had freed one hand from her bonds before she drowned. The partially dressed state of the three bodies indicated the underlying crime was sexual assault. Ropes with a concrete block at the other end had been tied around the victims' necks to ensure they died from either suffocation or drowning, and that their bodies would never be found. The bodies, however, bloated as a result of decomposition, and floated to the surface.​

One man, on a boat, with a guy, rapes and murders a mother and her two daughters. We don't know why 3 women couldn't overpower him. It's important to remember that many people freeze in crisis situations. A psychopath who commits a crime against multiple people has one huge advantage: he knows what's coming. The victims don't. There are many crimes where families have been annihilated by both one person they know (the McStay, husband, wife, 2 kids) and one person they don't (the Rogers family, above). WE can speculate all we want, but we only know that the perpetrator(s) here got all 3 women out of the house and they were never seen, for sure, again. Evidence suggests that a gun is an effective tool to do that.

 

[TheArtfulDetective]

Killing teenagers doesn't seem very " professional" and how much experience would be needed to be considered a professional at kidnapping and killing a grown woman and two teenage girls? With no bodies found ? This murder seems much more personal.

Agreed. This doesn't seem to suggest a random opportunity like finding helpless isolated victims stranded on the roadside or at a remote campsite. Also, wouldn't there be more easily manageable opportunities involving less people like a lone babysitter for example?
A personal connection could also explain the lack of disarray at the scene and possibly how easy it was to coerce and manipulate the three away from the house.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Sorry for the typos. I'm doing online teaching and my brain is fried.

 

[Alfonsina Storni]

I wonder if this could be a Homolka-Paul Bernardo case.

 

[cherrymeg]

Agreed. This doesn't seem to suggest a random opportunity like finding helpless isolated victims stranded on the roadside or at a remote campsite. Also, wouldn't there be more easily manageable opportunities involving less people like a lone babysitter for example?
A personal connection could also explain the lack of disarray at the scene and possibly how easy it was to coerce and manipulate the three away from the house.

If they weren't taken from the house that would change things. If something happened to Stacy and Suzie at a party or on the way to a party they could have been as vulnerable as girls stranded on the side of the road. If the perp or perps moved cars and staged the Delmar home they would have had to know Suzie and/or Stacy. They also would have likely known who else was in the home. Or at least felt like they wouldn't be at risk by parking cars or showing up in the middle of the night. It's also possible the perp/perps didn't think Sherrill would be awake or home. I think it's likely Sherrill was lured out or abducted. I don't see a house being that clean if 3 women are abducted. moo

 

[cherrymeg]

Agreed. This doesn't seem to suggest a random opportunity like finding helpless isolated victims stranded on the roadside or at a remote campsite. Also, wouldn't there be more easily manageable opportunities involving less people like a lone babysitter for example?
A personal connection could also explain the lack of disarray at the scene and possibly how easy it was to coerce and manipulate the three away from the house.

If they weren't taken from the house that would change things. If something happened to Stacy and Suzie at a party or on the way to a party they could have been as vulnerable as girls stranded on the side of the road. If the perp or perps moved cars and staged the Delmar home they would have had to know Suzie and/or Stacy. They also would have likely known who else was in the home. Or at least felt like they wouldn't be at risk by parking cars or showing up in the middle of the night. It's also possible the perp/perps didn't think Sherrill would be awake or home. I think it's likely Sherrill was lured out or abducted. I don't see a house being that clean if 3 women are abducted. moo

 

[cherrymeg]

Not when it comes to the mother / daughter dynamic. When someone has a gun to your daughters head, you do what you are told, no exceptions, no hero moves.

Moving them from house to car that's where things get tricky. Also without violence how can someone convince me they are willing to kill me in my home? If it's just a gun or a threat how do I know it's serious? I know once I'm in a car it's very serious.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Conventional wisdom is that killers move victims in order to get them to a place where they are safer in carrying out their crimes. That's why people are advised to fight to stay where they are if someone tries to abduct them. When kidnappers want to move a victim, they have a reason (although we may not full understand that reason. There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of victims who were abducted and then killed elsewhere, just as there are victims killed in the home.

I just watched a video series on shocking serial killings near Pittsburgh in the late 1970s, in which a man did home invasions, killing the husband, usually by shotgun, and then abducting the wife. Here you have someone willing to kill in the home (and using that to gain cooperation) but who wanted to remove the women from the home to carry out the next phase of his crimes. In the one case where the crime was interrupted, and the wife survived, the killer nearly beat the woman to death because she resisted leaving the home. He left the children in the home, unharmed. He committed planned killings, selected according to his own psychological needs (single story home of married couples) , random crimes of opportunity, and one known killing where he apparently "settled" for a victim outside his pattern. One killing of a couple was of a pair of teenagers in a car at a lover's lane, where the location differed but the rest of the pattern held.

Here is a link to the video segment in which law enforcement discusses the psychology of this killer.

In the case of the Rogers family, the killer planned a ruse to get the vacationing Rogers women onto his boat, voluntarily. The killer has also been linked to another murder by DNA. In this case, he slashed a woman's tires while she was at work and kidnapper her at that point. So some of the behavior (identifying victims, planning a scenario) was the same, but the scenarios differed. In the Rogers murders, the killer tried to dispose of the bodies in the ocean while he left the body of the other known victim in a place where she was found. So we see that even among known serial killers, there is a range of behaviors.

My point, I guess, is that we can't start with what either the perpetrator or victims in this case thought or believed. We have to look at what we know, the evidence we have. We know that this starts as a kidnapping. We know that the kidnappers didn't want to carry out their full crime against the women in the Levitt home--or that would be the only crime scene. There are many, many home invasion killings (see above). We know that either the women were removed from that home or taken as a group while out of the building (e.g., they were outside for some reason before the abduction or elsewhere, e.g., George's Steakhouse theory). We know that the vehicles remained with the home, along with the purses and other items significant to the women (money, shoes) and so it is most likely that the house is the first crime scene. The only other alternative is that kidnappers returned to the house after abducting the women and returned those purses, which is theoretically possible but not plausible.

We have actual evidence that they were taken from the home, including Stacy's shoes and clothes, the wet washcloths indicating the girls were getting ready for bed, the purses, the trace of blood found at the scene. We can speculate on how and why the kidnappers were successful at getting the women out of the house but we can speculate with high likelihood of correctness that it wasn't voluntary (Sherrill leaving cigarettes, Stacy barefoot).

I've never bought the idea that the Springfield women were targeted for something they knew or some kind of revenge. It may be that some event brought Sherrill and Suzie or Suzie and Stacy to someone's attention or to the attention to a pair or trio of killers. But the motive is almost certainly rape and murder for the sake of it. If someone was watching any of the three, the arrival of the girls posed an opportunity to fulfill some hidden fantasy.