Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #7

[Betty P]

The woman from the convenience store I am sure come forward and it wasn’t Sherrill.

But I’m intrigued that the woman and men seen at George’s never came forward if it wasn’t the 3 woman.

I don’t know why as LE said it wasn’t true but I still think George’s could of happened. If the Waitress knew them from previous visits why would she of gotten confused and why did the woman who were there never come forward?

I think it’s possible the girls got home and were still on a high from graduation and the parties and decided to go out for some food and Sherrill went with them.

Yes, I wouldn't rule out them going to George's.

What about the accounts of store guy who said he saw Streeter come in for cigarettes and that McCall was in a car outside? Other than their high school friends saying that didn't happen, did anyone else come forward? I'm reading those accounts and the description of a gold or brown car in old news accounts, wondering how those reports were ruled out.

ETA: Also, what happened with the brown Dodge van police were looking for that had been stolen around the time they disappeared. It was seen near Sherrill's home around 4:30 am with two white men inside.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Why are you discouraging people to ask questions or suggest different ideas. If you want the case solved and you think you know who did it give clear clues. Also you haven't said why you suspect a certain person. I feel like you are just playing a game.

I apologize if you believe I am playing a “game.”

I have tried to be as candid as possible about why I believe it was a certain person.

I do not believe that any of the other “usual” suspects are viable suspects for a number of reasons. If we do not have a clear motive we have to go with what we do have. When every other person can be ruled out then we have to look elsewhere.

The individual I have in mind is totally consumed about the case.

I have talked or communicated personally with three of the most obvious suspects. The kids being considered as suspects is just silly. That they acted the way they did was very unfortunate as they contaminated the crime scene.

But that cannot be undone. My source who had close LE ties saw the name in confidential files and tracked him for a decade. He saw him on the job. I trust him implicitly.

If you wish to think I am playing a game I apologize for not being more specific. But I am not going to go further than I have thus far.

 

[cherrymeg]

I apologize if you believe I am playing a “game.”

I have tried to be as candid as possible about why I believe it was a certain person.

I do not believe that any of the other “usual” suspects are viable suspects for a number of reasons. If we do not have a clear motive we have to go with what we do have. When every other person can be ruled out then we have to look elsewhere.

The individual I have in mind is totally consumed about the case.

I have talked or communicated personally with three of the most obvious suspects. The kids being considered as suspects is just silly. That they acted the way they did was very unfortunate as they contaminated the crime scene.

But that cannot be undone. My source who had close LE ties saw the name in confidential files and tracked him for a decade. He saw him on the job. I trust him implicitly.

If you wish to think I am playing a game I apologize for not being more specific. But I am not going to go further than I have thus far.

Why do you think the person you have in mind is capable of making three women vanish? You don't need to say a name I just want to know if they are suspected in other crimes. Are they a danger to other people. You said your source didn't give you a suspect you just have one that matches a description. What has your source been tracking him for and are there other crimes.

 

[k-mac]

This is so true as I have started to read thread one and so many posts about how I have heard something but I can’t possibly say anything. So then why even mention it ?!

In the UK we would call that baiting!

yes
unfortunately by the one consistant poster.

 

[k-mac]

I apologize if you believe I am playing a “game.”

I have tried to be as candid as possible about why I believe it was a certain person.

I do not believe that any of the other “usual” suspects are viable suspects for a number of reasons. If we do not have a clear motive we have to go with what we do have. When every other person can be ruled out then we have to look elsewhere.

The individual I have in mind is totally consumed about the case.

I have talked or communicated personally with three of the most obvious suspects. The kids being considered as suspects is just silly. That they acted the way they did was very unfortunate as they contaminated the crime scene.

But that cannot be undone. My source who had close LE ties saw the name in confidential files and tracked him for a decade. He saw him on the job. I trust him implicitly.

If you wish to think I am playing a game I apologize for not being more specific. But I am not going to go further than I have thus far.

if you have nothing to offer ,refuse to share information why are you here???
boasting about all your inside info isn't exactly helpful to us or to springfield three.

it is not 'silly' thinking the grave robbers or the high school kids had involvement.

you have a bias perspective because you have taken hook line and sinker the perspective of one of the suspects.
what did you think he would tell you????
yes yes I did.

you have no authority you are not a verified poster so you have no right to dismiss posters comments.

 

[Missouri Mule]

if you have nothing to offer ,refuse to share information why are you here???
boasting about all your inside info isn't exactly helpful to us or to springfield three.

it is not 'silly' thinking the grave robbers or the high school kids had involvement.

you have a bias perspective because you have taken hook line and sinker the perspective of one of the suspects.
what did you think he would tell you????
yes yes I did.

you have no authority you are not a verified poster so you have no right to dismiss posters comments.

I am not dismissing anyone’s comments. I could be wrong.

I am not boasting about inside information. I just believe he knows what he has told me.

I’ll stand by what I believe, however. In the end people will believe what they want to believe. I have no desire to argue. I apologize for the inartful use of “silly”. I should have been more circumspect. It is just viewing them as viable suspects is not productive in my opinion.

 

[cherrymeg]

I am not dismissing anyone’s comments. I could be wrong.

I’ll stand by what I believe, however.

Than offer reasons you think you know who did it. No one else is pretending to know what happened. We are trying to figure out how 3 women disappeared with almost no sign of a struggle. Most mothers would take a bullet if it meant their kid could get away.

 

[Missouri Mule]

To my knowledge this was the last informative statement issued by the Springfield Police Department. Note the singularity of the possible perp.

"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence."

The individual I have in mind meets those criteria.

 

[Betty P]

To my knowledge this was the last informative statement issued by the Springfield Police Department. Note the singularity of the possible perp.

"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence."

The individual I have in mind meets those criteria.

That's all pretty standard profiling for this type of crime. It's what one would expect when looking at the case. It's the kind of stuff LE says to the public to encourage them to think about anyone they know who might be a suspect or who might have seen something suspicious.

I hope you don't mind my asking, but with your inside information, what was/were the motives for these crimes? Revenge? Removing a threat to the killer? Rage? Pure psychopathy? Sexual psychopathy? Money? Drugs? Thrill killing? Need for control? Sadism? To protect someone else? To silence them?

Choose any one or a combination or add your own. It would have taken some strong motivation to kidnap and kill three healthy women. Apologies if this has been previously asked and answered.

 

[Satchie]

But I am certain he follows this case very, very closely.

You mean, like, follows Websleuths?

 

[Missouri Mule]

You mean, like, follows Websleuths?

This and one other unregulated forum.

My personal opinion is that this was as originally stated a sexual assault crime.

 

[MooseMeMuch]

It boils down to this. If someone knows who’s responsible because they did their homework tell LE, and get that gold star!!

You tell 'em Talullah
Exactly....if someone knows 'who dunnit'......talk to LE. Get this thing resolved

 

[MooseMeMuch]

Sorry to pop in the middle of the discussion here. I'm glad the discussion has been renewed a little, with people looking at more angles.

Why was the tv on when Janelle went into the home? If it appeared that the women had been in bed when the crime/kidnapping occurred, why would the tv be on in the living room? Were they not actually in bed at the time of abduction? Seems unlikely the killer would have awakened them, taken them to the living room, turned on the tv and let them all have a smoke.

Okay, I chuckled at your last sentence....good one! Lol (guess I should not giggle...but...hey!)
This might be on the Street blog....anyway, Suzie suffered from insomnia and as I understand it, she slept on the living room couch with the TV on.

 

[cherrymeg]

This and one other unregulated forum.

My personal opinion is that this was as originally stated a sexual assault crime.

Is he a member? And if he is watching maybe he can tell us who he is.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The standard reply is that the police know who did it but lack sufficient evidence to indict. I’ve been hearing this for well over a decade. That it would take a confession. The unanswered question seemed to be whether it was possible for a single person to have committed the crime. The last police statement said “kidnapper.” I don’t know who any more blear that could be.

After being in vigorous disagreement, and based on the police’s last official statement, I no longer have any interest in plowing the same ground over and over.

When looking at every conceivable scenario it seems that what I was advocating was in reality pushing on a string.

I don’t expect to see anything new that hasn’t already been beat to death.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Is he a member? And if he is watching maybe he can tell us who he is.

Yes, and I’m out.

 

[Betty P]

Okay, I chuckled at your last sentence....good one! Lol (guess I should not giggle...but...hey!)
This might be on the Street blog....anyway, Suzie suffered from insomnia and as I understand it, she slept on the living room couch with the TV on.

So, she didn't usually sleep in the new king sized water bed? From the photos I've seen, it doesn't look like anyone had slept in that bed that night. Were the two girls sitting in the LR watching tv when the killer came to the house?

 

[cherrymeg]

So, she didn't usually sleep in the new king sized water bed? From the photos I've seen, it doesn't look like anyone had slept in that bed that night. Were the two girls sitting in the LR watching tv when the killer came to the house?

I thought Janelle had the new bed.

 

[Betty P]

Yes, and I’m out.

Thanks for the information. Can you tell us how you know he is a member here? Is it something you've heard elsewhere or do you recognize something in what he posts? Does he participate in the discussions here? TIA

 

[cherrymeg]

The standard reply is that the police know who did it but lack sufficient evidence to indict. I’ve been hearing this for well over a decade. That it would take a confession. The unanswered question seemed to be whether it was possible for a single person to have committed the crime. The last police statement said “kidnapper.” I don’t know who any more blear that could be.

After being in vigorous disagreement, and based on the police’s last official statement, I no longer have any interest in plowing the same ground over and over.

When looking at every conceivable scenario it seems that what I was advocating was in reality pushing on a string.

I don’t expect to see anything new that hasn’t already been beat to death.

It doesn't matter is ideas are beaten to death. It's about keeping people talking about the case. If the guilty person is watching this thread then good. Let them lurk.

 

[MooseMeMuch]

To my knowledge this was the last informative statement issued by the Springfield Police Department. Note the singularity of the possible perp.

"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence."

The individual I have in mind meets those criteria.

On the night of graduation .......that description fit a lot of people to include those 'silly kids'.
And 'familiar with the area'...jeez, the house is right off of Glenstone. LE needs to toss out a bigger bone for us to gnaw on.