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

[Kittycat01]

I'm wondering if it's possible Sherrill could have been a police informant? If Sherrill knew about drug dealing going on in the hair dressing community that might have put her in danger. If she were she would be dealing with at least 1-2 cops. That might explain her letting someone into her home whether it was 11:30 pm or 3:00 am. This is only hypothetical, but what if she was dealing with a "bad cop/s" who needed to silence her? We hate to think there are rogue cops but there are. This might also explain why the SPD have never "solved" the crime. They might have discovered some of their brothers in blue were involved.

 

[wfgodot]

I'm wondering if it's possible Sherrill could have been a police informant? If Sherrill knew about drug dealing going on in the hair dressing community that might have put her in danger. If she were she would be dealing with at least 1-2 cops. That might explain her letting someone into her home whether it was 11:30 pm or 3:00 am. This is only hypothetical, but what if she was dealing with a "bad cop/s" who needed to silence her? We hate to think there are rogue cops but there are. This might also explain why the SPD have never "solved" the crime. They might have discovered some of their brothers in blue were involved.

Anything's possible.

Having read and re-read all threads including the missing #2 and #3, Sherrill seemed to me to be someone more likely to find trouble due to lifestyle and less likely to have been an informant, however.

It's a very good observation, though.

Of course there are rogue cops. One reads about them much too often. Combining that with the Sherrill-as-informant possibility -- very good observation.


.
.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Richard, you have an undeniable amount of knowledge and history looking into this case. Do you remember posts made about 4 years ago on Topix by someone who claimed they may have possibly witnessed a van around the time the women were believed to have disappeared? I remember something about the relatives of Francis Robb and how this poster was somehow romantically involved with one of his nephews. I could be misremembering information here because it has probably been about a year since I read those posts, but they seemed legitimate to me.

I do recall that but it seemed to die on the vine.

There have been other claims but evidently led nowhere.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I'm wondering if it's possible Sherrill could have been a police informant? If Sherrill knew about drug dealing going on in the hair dressing community that might have put her in danger. If she were she would be dealing with at least 1-2 cops. That might explain her letting someone into her home whether it was 11:30 pm or 3:00 am. This is only hypothetical, but what if she was dealing with a "bad cop/s" who needed to silence her? We hate to think there are rogue cops but there are. This might also explain why the SPD have never "solved" the crime. They might have discovered some of their brothers in blue were involved.

I doubt that, her being a police informant.

The rogue cop is an argument I have, myself made. I find myself moving away from that theory.

According to the best source I have ever had, he said there was someone, "a bad dude," who lived not that far away who had a "terrible" alibi. I don't know who that was. I am fairly certain he was someone moving back and forth from Missouri and Arkansas.

The perp was said to be known but I can't say who that would be as I was never told. He was said to live far from Springfield "but not too far."

He was identified at his place of his employment and described as a "sexual deviant."

 

[Kittycat01]

As I've stated, I was very, very, very peripherally around some "bad people" due to my husband being a musician at that time. Drugs were everywhere, and these people involved took it seriously.
​

 

[Kittycat01]

I understand what you say however about a "bad dude". Does anyone remember the Virgil Fox murders? If memory serves this happened in the late 70's; early 80's.

Fox was from Joplin, Mo. (where we lived at the time). He was a badass and I don't mean that in a complimentary way. He was owner or co-owner of "The Ranch" in Galena, Ks. He had some marijuana fields near Asbury, Mo. He was a major player in the drug scene at that time. 2 young men from Pittsburg, Ks snuck onto one of his fields to steal some weed.....bad plan.

They were caught, tortured, beat in the head with a hammer or some instrument, and shot. Their bodies were dumped in a strip mine somewhere in Kansas. I think some people think that people from Missouri were Hillbillies, nope, these people were as ruthless as the Colombian Cartel. I once met Fox at The Ranch and he was as cold as ice albeit very respectful to me. I told my husband "please stay away from that man", he was scary as hell.

The point ultimately I'm making is people like that would stop at nothing to protect their interests.

 

[Kittycat01]

Missouri Mule, I'm struggling, deep in your heart do you really believe this was a sex crime? I'm struggling with that, if you could subdue the 3 women, gag them (sorry this is gross and I'm actually crying as I type this), rape them, kill them would you take the time and effort to move them from the home? It's so gross, but I think of the Gainesville Ripper, why wouldn't you subdue them, and do whatever? Why wouldn't you just have your way (gag) and leave?

I think they were taken somewhere, tortured to get information and then killed. I am convinced this was not a sex crime, but I totally respect the energy and effort you have put into researching this crime.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Missouri Mule, I'm struggling, deep in your heart do you really believe this was a sex crime? I'm struggling with that, if you could subdue the 3 women, gag them (sorry this is gross and I'm actually crying as I type this), rape them, kill them would you take the time and effort to move them from the home? It's so gross, but I think of the Gainesville Ripper, why wouldn't you subdue them, and do whatever? Why wouldn't you just have your way (gag) and leave?

I think they were taken somewhere, tortured to get information and then killed. I am convinced this was not a sex crime, but I totally respect the energy and effort you have put into researching this crime.

I know how frustrating and difficult to understand this case. It is all too easy to get caught up in it to the point it can even affect one's own personal health.

To answer your question, I don't know if this was a sexual case. One would have to review the police statement over the years for guidance.

I get the impression there were multiple individuals although some believe only one person could have done that. I don't agree. I am strongly inclined to believe that two at a nminimum were involved.

I am strongly inclined to believe the "trusted" one never thought it would come to this. His associate or associates (I think two at the outset) didn't care of what horror was to come. Both Garrison and Cox would seem by all signs could have taken advantage once they were out of the home. And there were other bad actors who could have done this.

I would think long and hard who logically might be trusted to gain entry. I just don't see that many individuals who could have gotten Sherrill to open the door. I would start there.

 

[TexasT]

Odds say an assault wasn't the original motive . Otherwise there would simply be an assault and no missing persons , much less three . Certainly not definitive , but less likely .

What convolute's that theory however is the region had MORE then fair share of murder/ rapist . Carnahan . Cox . I-70 killer , Rush , Chaney on and on . Most communities don't have that in a lifetime . Not sure any of those really fit their MO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeymann]

Ok.....I'm going to add this. One of the early Springfield News-Leader stories, contained a quote by one of the detectives saying that, "Sherrill had made some bad choices in the months leading up to the disappearance".

They didn't elaborate beyond this statement. But I've always wondered what they were referring to.

 

[monkeymann]

Odds say an assault wasn't the original motive . Otherwise there would simply be an assault and no missing persons , much less three . Certainly not definitive , but less likely .

What convolute's that theory however is the region had MORE then fair share of murder/ rapist . Carnahan . Cox . I-70 killer , Rush , Chaney on and on . Most communities don't have that in a lifetime . Not sure any of those really fit their MO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Rush and Chaney were quite the pair. I'm convinced they were responsible for more murders than Trudy Darby. Here's an excerpt from Jess Rush's Appeals Trial.....

"For example, Defendant wrote to Edward Thomas that “I never told you about them other *****'s․”  With regard to some evidence, he wrote “because if it gets found by accident it can get us involved in killing them other ****ing *****'s․”  Furthermore, Defendant wrote “hey dog I tried to explain a little about them other *****'s I hope your not mad at me․”  Defendant also explained to Edward Thomas in a letter that “the cops don't even know about my brother and me killing any other *****'s except Mack's Creek.”  

[h=3][/h]

 

[Jennifer17]

Long time reader, first time posting.
Just throwing this into the mix. Hairdressers are known to attract stalkers and deviants. Those men who convince themselves because a woman touched them in the commission of her work, she is coming on to them. My daughter was a hairdresser for 15years and in that time, in a quite small town, she had 4 stalkers, (anonymous abusive and obscene phone calls, knocks on doors at 1am, creepy deliveries of unwanted gifts).
The salon where she worked kept a list of which men could not be booked into which hairdresser because of various level of creepy behaviour.
I am not sure where the younger girls fit in, but maybe that was a bonus.

 

[monkeymann]

Long time reader, first time posting.
Just throwing this into the mix. Hairdressers are known to attract stalkers and deviants. Those men who convince themselves because a woman touched them in the commission of her work, she is coming on to them. My daughter was a hairdresser for 15years and in that time, in a quite small town, she had 4 stalkers, (anonymous abusive and obscene phone calls, knocks on doors at 1am, creepy deliveries of unwanted gifts).
The salon where she worked kept a list of which men could not be booked into which hairdresser because of various level of creepy behaviour.
I am not sure where the younger girls fit in, but maybe that was a bonus.

So do you have any insight into the prevalence of Drug Use in that industry?

I used to know a hair dresser who swore that Cocaine and Meth were very prevalent in that industry?

 

[Blue Girl1991]

Ok.....I'm going to add this. One of the early Springfield News-Leader stories, contained a quote by one of the detectives saying that, "Sherrill had made some bad choices in the months leading up to the disappearance".

They didn't elaborate beyond this statement. But I've always wondered what they were referring to.

Wow ! Thanks for sharing. This is very important and significant quote , I think this is the key to solve the case.

Maybe sherrill had a contact with people who were involved with crimes,
as a result she had knowledge that in some point made her under severe danger, or maybe it is possible she done something which made those people angry? and the outcome was the kidnapping and murder.
Suzie was a target too becouse those people had a concern that sherril shared some information with her daughter.

If the police know that " "Sherrill had made some bad choices in the months leading up to the disappearance" they must know what were those decisions, Right? so it is very strange that there is still no progress in this case.

 

[javacoder]

If the police know that " "Sherrill had made some bad choices in the months leading up to the disappearance" they must know what were those decisions, Right? so it is very strange that there is still no progress in this case.

Couple that with what the FBI profiler said.

"If you look into the records of missing persons every year, you would not come across many cases like this"...
"I think they (other people) were brought into this not knowing what was going to happen. It's quite possible that the primary person did not know what was going to happen"...
"There are people that have knowledge who don't feel good about the knowledge they have. They may not be the primary person"....​

Anything jump out?

Someone mentioned in a few posts back about their husband getting involved with the wrong people, and people taking the culture very seriously. So if you take the Officer's statement - made some bad choices and got crossed up with the wrong people - that is not un-normal (or rather, that is "normal"). When you combine that with the FBI's statement, it almost sounds like there are three parties. Sherrill, a group/or person that she got involved, and another group that THAT person got involved with. What makes this missing persons case interesting ("you would not come across many cases like this") is Sherrill's connection/interaction with that third party. The he person Sherrill knew may not have known she and her daughter (and her daughter's friend) were going to be killed (raped?). Just my stream of consciousness, I know it's nothing novel.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Wow ! Thanks for sharing. This is very important and significant quote , I think this is the key to solve the case.

Maybe sherrill had a contact with people who were involved with crimes,
as a result she had knowledge that in some point made her under severe danger, or maybe it is possible she done something which made those people angry? and the outcome was the kidnapping and murder.
Suzie was a target too becouse those people had a concern that sherril shared some information with her daughter.

If the police know that " "Sherrill had made some bad choices in the months leading up to the disappearance" they must know what were those decisions, Right? so it is very strange that there is still no progress in this case.

I have a very vague recollection of that statement. I am somewhat surprised that might have been on the record. Such a statement prejudices the public to believe the victim is sonehow to blame. As background that might be appropriate but it would seem the officer who would be in hot water without clearing that for public consumption. I find this troubling.

I would be very interested in knowing who that officer was.

 

[Jennifer17]

So do you have any insight into the prevalence of Drug Use in that industry?

I used to know a hair dresser who swore that Cocaine and Meth were very prevalent in that industry?[/QUOTE

No, not where I lived. Cocaine use at that time was pretty much restricted to the wealthy, smart set.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Couple that with what the FBI profiler said.

"If you look into the records of missing persons every year, you would not come across many cases like this"...
"I think they (other people) were brought into this not knowing what was going to happen. It's quite possible that the primary person did not know what was going to happen"...
"There are people that have knowledge who don't feel good about the knowledge they have. They may not be the primary person"....​

Anything jump out?

Someone mentioned in a few posts back about their husband getting involved with the wrong people, and people taking the culture very seriously. So if you take the Officer's statement - made some bad choices and got crossed up with the wrong people - that is not un-normal (or rather, that is "normal"). When you combine that with the FBI's statement, it almost sounds like there are three parties. Sherrill, a group/or person that she got involved, and another group that THAT person got involved with. What makes this missing persons case interesting ("you would not come across many cases like this") is Sherrill's connection/interaction with that third party. The he person Sherrill knew may not have known she and her daughter (and her daughter's friend) were going to be killed (raped?). Just my stream of consciousness, I know it's nothing novel.

I have seen this statement many times. The first and last statements are not inconsistent but ultimately tell us little.

The middle sentence tells us that people other than the "primary person" may have surfaced at some point. As I read that statement there is only one certain person. As always information is leaked out that is troubling but the ones having that information fail to act on that information for whatever reason.

It also tells us one other thing. The "primary person" may never have intended any of this to have happened.

 

[Missouri Mule]

This is another police statement worthy of note: I would ask one question?

Who does this NOT exclude?

"The suspect 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 suspect had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the suspect 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 suspect may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.
-
Around the time of the crime, the suspect 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 suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.
-
People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence" ....

I don't have the precise link but I believe that is verbatim taken from the official accounts as rendered on the 20th anniversary.

I would quickly add that I DO NOT believe this individual is the one or more who actually murdered the women. That could have been anyone, including some of the "usual suspects."

 

[monkeymann]

This is another police statement worthy of note: I would ask one question?

Who does this NOT exclude?

"The suspect 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 suspect had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the suspect 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 suspect may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.
-
Around the time of the crime, the suspect 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 suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims.
-
People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence" ....

I don't have the precise link but I believe that is verbatim taken from the official accounts as rendered on the 20th anniversary.

I would quickly add that I DO NOT believe this individual is the one or more who actually murdered the women. That could have been anyone, including some of the "usual suspects."

Richard, you were pretty spot on with that quote. And I would agree with parts of the quote by LE.

I find it interesting that they said "HE". Implying that it might have just been ONE PERSON. Or at least LE thought so. Why did LE not just said "THEY".

LE specifically said "HE". And to me that stands out as a CLUE as to what LE's angle on the 3MW crime was.

To me.......they clearly, by this statement alone, think it was one person.

Any thoughts on this???