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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm not convinced Stacy and Suzie made it to Sherrill's but I'll throw this out there since varnishing furniture inside makes no sense to me. Officer Bookout, who went to Sherrill's to take the missing persons report from Janis McCall, said the varnish fumes hit him hard when he got to Delmar. If the fumes lingered that much after 24 hours-with people in and out all day-how could anyone have slept there? Sherrill's windows were raised but would that be enough? Maybe she went to sleep in Suzie's room-away from the fumes-and took her purse with her. Three average sized women could sleep in a king size bed.

That may be possible although I have never seen that postulated as likely. However, we still have the matter of the clothing known that she must have been wearing. The clothing that the girls were wearing is evidently not known.
 
The clothing makes me think Sherrill went somewhere after that 9:30 phone call with her friend. She was too neat and immaculate to have handled varnish in a dress-especially one she wore to Suzie's graduation. I think, when she got home, she put on ratty clothes to wear to work on the chair, and for some reason (alluded to in an erased message?) put back on the floral dress missing from her closet. Maybe she left to get away from the fumes.
 
I found the following information on the Charley Project Website.
Sherrill clothing/jewelry description: Floral print dress
Suzanne clothing/jewelry description: A white t-shirt, jeans and pink shoes
Stacy clothing/jewelry description: Yellow shirt, flowered bikini pants, a fourteen-inch gold herringbone chain necklace, a flat gold initial ring, and a ring with a small diamond.

If these clothing descriptions are factual, to my mind, this indicates that this was an ongoing all-night event. I agree with Talullah, Sherrill surely would have changed into grubbies to stain, varnish, paint or whatever she was doing to the piece of furniture. I think the primary event (the only planned event) concerned Sherrill. If she was in the middle of changing out of those grubbies or perhaps already had nightclothes on and someone “known” to her knocked on the door, I can see her throwing the dress back on. I believe whatever happened to Sherrill happened relatively early in the evening and she was already gone when the girls got to the house.

The girls weren’t expected at the house and I think they would have tried to be as quiet as they could when they got to the house. This is pure speculation on my part, but I can picture Suzie telling Stacy to “go ahead and go to my room and put in a movie – I’ll be right back”. We have no idea where the dog was when the girls got home, but if Cinnamon was yapping and carrying on, Suzie would have tried to get it to a) shut up and b) probably let it outside immediately. Once the dog was outside, she would have gone to her Mom’s room. This could lead to the secondary unplanned event of that night. If Suzie surprised someone in her Mom’s room she would have reacted immediately, if Stacy was in Suzie’s room, with the TV on, she might not have heard anything at first and continued to get undressed. So, if the clothing statements are factual , that would explain Suzie being fully dressed and Stacy half undressed.

This doesn’t really get us any further on what happened, but I do believe a scenario along the lines of what I posted above is very plausible. It hits on several “key” items that have been posted during the years such as:

  1. The TV being on
  2. Reports of a dog barking in the early morning hours
  3. Someone being out and about during the night and early hours of the next morning
  4. How entry was made (Sherrill willingly opened the door and once she was gone the perp could come and go as he pleased).
  5. How many perps were involved (Just one at the house, he lured Sherrill away first, was surprised by the girls later and was able to maintain control of two teenagers)

I know I am not expressing myself well, but I think this two separate events scenario makes a lot of sense. Sherrill willing let someone and willing left with them, wearing the dress she wore to graduation. Whatever happened to Sherrill happened then. This would also fit with the trusted one not knowing what was going to happen – he was actually a delivery man – I need to talk to Sherrill, get her here.

Why would he go back to the house? Perhaps to find something (weren’t there rumors of Sherrill’s closet being a mess), perhaps to return Sherrill’s purse, keys, etc. to make it more difficult to find out what happened to her, perhaps to make sure he didn’t leave anything behind to identify who he was. Regardless, I think the girls surprised him, and they immediately became a problem.

Does any of this make sense?
 
The trouble dismissing the GJ3 is you can't present a case " these are some criminals in the state might have done it "
Other words you need some probable cause and articulable facts . Grand jury's are interesting and just because they failed to get true billed doesn't mean they were innocent .
I'd guess since it was not presented again no more facts since that date have been discovered . If true , very discouraging .


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I found the following information on the Charley Project Website.
Sherrill clothing/jewelry description: Floral print dress
Suzanne clothing/jewelry description: A white t-shirt, jeans and pink shoes
Stacy clothing/jewelry description: Yellow shirt, flowered bikini pants, a fourteen-inch gold herringbone chain necklace, a flat gold initial ring, and a ring with a small diamond.

If these clothing descriptions are factual, to my mind, this indicates that this was an ongoing all-night event. I agree with Talullah, Sherrill surely would have changed into grubbies to stain, varnish, paint or whatever she was doing to the piece of furniture. I think the primary event (the only planned event) concerned Sherrill. If she was in the middle of changing out of those grubbies or perhaps already had nightclothes on and someone “known” to her knocked on the door, I can see her throwing the dress back on. I believe whatever happened to Sherrill happened relatively early in the evening and she was already gone when the girls got to the house.

The girls weren’t expected at the house and I think they would have tried to be as quiet as they could when they got to the house. This is pure speculation on my part, but I can picture Suzie telling Stacy to “go ahead and go to my room and put in a movie – I’ll be right back”. We have no idea where the dog was when the girls got home, but if Cinnamon was yapping and carrying on, Suzie would have tried to get it to a) shut up and b) probably let it outside immediately. Once the dog was outside, she would have gone to her Mom’s room. This could lead to the secondary unplanned event of that night. If Suzie surprised someone in her Mom’s room she would have reacted immediately, if Stacy was in Suzie’s room, with the TV on, she might not have heard anything at first and continued to get undressed. So, if the clothing statements are factual , that would explain Suzie being fully dressed and Stacy half undressed.

This doesn’t really get us any further on what happened, but I do believe a scenario along the lines of what I posted above is very plausible. It hits on several “key” items that have been posted during the years such as:

  1. The TV being on
  2. Reports of a dog barking in the early morning hours
  3. Someone being out and about during the night and early hours of the next morning
  4. How entry was made (Sherrill willingly opened the door and once she was gone the perp could come and go as he pleased).
  5. How many perps were involved (Just one at the house, he lured Sherrill away first, was surprised by the girls later and was able to maintain control of two teenagers)

I know I am not expressing myself well, but I think this two separate events scenario makes a lot of sense. Sherrill willing let someone and willing left with them, wearing the dress she wore to graduation. Whatever happened to Sherrill happened then. This would also fit with the trusted one not knowing what was going to happen – he was actually a delivery man – I need to talk to Sherrill, get her here.

Why would he go back to the house? Perhaps to find something (weren’t there rumors of Sherrill’s closet being a mess), perhaps to return Sherrill’s purse, keys, etc. to make it more difficult to find out what happened to her, perhaps to make sure he didn’t leave anything behind to identify who he was. Regardless, I think the girls surprised him, and they immediately became a problem.

Does any of this make sense?

Makes perfect sense.

The only thing that I would differ is that the Charley Project is discussing what the women were wearing as seen by others earlier that evening. If Suzie's clothing was in the hamper it misleads us to think she was wearing that when she went missing.

sherrill on the other hand did not have the floral print dress in the home. One could therefore conclude she was wearing that when she went missing. We have no idea what the girls were wearing other than Stacy only had on her panties. Her mother would have known what clothing she had and that she would not fit into Suzie's clothing.

Personally I doubt Sherrill was there when the girls arrived. Obviously if the dog was yapping It would have woken Sherrill.

That is why the time the dog was heard barking is relevant.
 
Even though I'm Polish and live in Cracow, Poland, I've been following this case since I saw "48 Hours Mystery". Terrible. How come after all these years no one knows anything?
One thing that came to my mind earlier today is that it could've been a person pretending (or not) to be a cop.
Picture this: "Good evening (say he came around 3 am), I'm sergeant XYZ from the Witness Protection Program and I'm going to take you to a safe place due to the upcoming testimony Suzie is going to make (next week or so). Please leave all your personal belongings at home, one of our officers will come to pick them up shortly. Preferably, leave all your documents and money in one spot so we can collect them easily, without making mess. We will also pick the dog, so no worries, it's gonna last not more than 1 hour until one of our officers will be here."

It's just a thought and perhaps someone has already come up with a similar theory (I didn't follow all threads here, I've just registered here, actually), but what do you make of it? Perhaps (the so called) police were waiting for the graduation to take place and then could make sure Suzie and her mom are safe...

As for the clothing, this could've been a person in plain clothes (undercover investigation), and the three women may not have realized until they left the house and ... (1) either saw that the car waiting for them wasn't a police car (but this could have been explained - undercover operation) OR, and here's what I think, they opened the back door of the car and told them to come in, and there they SAW the perps with gun etc and they realized this was all fake....

It's just a theory but who knows..
 
Even though I'm Polish and live in Cracow, Poland, I've been following this case since I saw "48 Hours Mystery". Terrible. How come after all these years no one knows anything?
One thing that came to my mind earlier today is that it could've been a person pretending (or not) to be a cop.
Picture this: "Good evening (say he came around 3 am), I'm sergeant XYZ from the Witness Protection Program and I'm going to take you to a safe place due to the upcoming testimony Suzie is going to make (next week or so). Please leave all your personal belongings at home, one of our officers will come to pick them up shortly. Preferably, leave all your documents and money in one spot so we can collect them easily, without making mess. We will also pick the dog, so no worries, it's gonna last not more than 1 hour until one of our officers will be here."

It's just a thought and perhaps someone has already come up with a similar theory (I didn't follow all threads here, I've just registered here, actually), but what do you make of it? Perhaps (the so called) police were waiting for the graduation to take place and then could make sure Suzie and her mom are safe...

As for the clothing, this could've been a person in plain clothes (undercover investigation), and the three women may not have realized until they left the house and ... (1) either saw that the car waiting for them wasn't a police car (but this could have been explained - undercover operation) OR, and here's what I think, they opened the back door of the car and told them to come in, and there they SAW the perps with gun etc and they realized this was all fake....

It's just a theory but who knows..

That is one of the two most viable theories. Very possible. Even some of the police have said as much and quoted to that effect.

One of the two unfortunate aspects of this case was the poor management of the case. The other was the contamination of the crime scene.

The one I like best is the "trusted" individual that has been suggested by many. That does not necessarily rule out a police officer.
 
If we could theorise why someone wanted them to be silenced, could we solve the crime?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I always come back to the drugs angle. I don't know why. Just a gut feeling. It had to be something serious for 3 people to have been murdered. People get very serious about drugs.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I always come back to the drugs angle. I don't know why. Just a gut feeling. It had to be something serious for 3 people to have been murdered. People get very serious about drugs.
Agreed.
 
On the drug angle, this has always been suggested from the very beginning. However, I was confided in by someone who knew her personally. Evidently she didn't even know much about drugs. Hard to believe but it may have come up with regard to someone she knew. I have never heard anything with respect to Suzie into dealing drugs.

I could buy the idea they may have overheard something that could cause problems. But there is an abundance of people in Springfield who knew who dealt drugs. Why weren't there bodies stacking up because they knew that. Why these women?

I could buy the idea that it was a "sexual assault" if something could be produced to substantiate that claim. I would not assume that this was a typical sexual assault. (Are they ever?) Where is the evidence for that claim?

The question always comes back to me to how entry was gained. We have been told that exit was from the front door. Nothing, to my knowledge, has ever been said as to how entry was gained. Speculation, yes. But certainty, no.

There are three questions I would like to know the answers to.

1) Who is the lone male who flunked the polygraph as of June 23, 1992 and specifically described as a male. My recollection is that this included some 21 individuals, none of whom were identified by name. It would not surprise me if he was told he passed in order to have him let down his guard and lead the police to the location of the bodies.

2) When was Sherrill taken? Why do we know what she was wearing (the print floral dress) but we only know that Stacy could only have had on her panties and shirt? We haven't a clue what Suzie was wearing if her clothes from that day were in the hamper.

3) When did the dog bark?

In the end absent an actual drug connection, one person comes to mind, but I could be entirely wrong. I can't imagine how anyone else would have been trusted enough to gain entry unless it was a cop; not at that late hour. But a cop could also be the trusted individual as well. He had to be someone either Sherrill or Suzie knew and trusted.

It has also be repeated to me over and over that the perp is known and only a confession will bring the case to a conclusion. I can buy that idea. But it has also been stressed that the kidnapper/perp and the killer or killers were not the same. I find that interesting.
 
One of the oddest comments is from a detective who said Suzie craved acceptance, it was everything to her and she desperately wanted to fit in. This followed a discussion of the differences in Stacy's and Suzie's worlds.
Maybe Suzie didn't do drugs but surely she met people who did through her brother or ex boyfriend. Maybe she hit them up to get drugs for people she wanted to impress and fit in with. I doubt they're missing because of drugs.
Stacy could easily have had clothes her parents didn't know about. She worked and I'm sure she shopped with friends. I don't mean skimpy clothes but the McCalls seem strict/protective and may not have approved of Stacy's clothing choices. Mrs. McCall said in one of a million articles the tee shirt was missing that Stacy wore with the floral shorts found at Sherrill's. There's scant information about Suzie's clothes-jeans, tee shirt and pink shoes. I wonder if any clothes were found that smelled like varnish. It wouldn't surprise me if the best evidence is clothing taken from Sherrill's house.
Another interesting statement from one of the McCalls is Stacy hadn't spent the night at Sherrill's in 8 years. It's specific and suggests to me that something happened to prompt this rule. I could be overthinking and the McCalls just didn't approve of Sherrill's parenting. They lived out of state for a few years. Janelle said Suzy and Stacy being together that night was a freak occurrence. (I wish she'd said why they were together.) Did Mrs. McCall not want people thinking they were friends and that Stacy only agreed to stay the night at Suzie's because she was a nice person? If we knew their reasons it'd fill in some blanks.
 
I can't help but feel drugs were at the root of this. Suzie's ex boyfriend was robbing graves (ugh) and pawning the tooth fillings at a pawn shop for money. Money for what? Drugs perhaps?
 
She was going to testify against him the following week, was she going to tell more than just the grave robbing? Drugs and drug dealing?
 
She was going to testify against him the following week, was she going to tell more than just the grave robbing? Drugs and drug dealing?

The timing sure does seem 'convenient'.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Yes Jennibee, almost too convenient. I've always believed that Suzie or Sherrill knew their abductor/s or they let someone in a police uniform in.
I don't know if the ex boyfriend was savvy enough to pull off "the perfect crime", but I feel he was the conduit to get them to open the door. I feel there were very dangerous and powerful people above the boyfriend who had a lot at stake if Suzie talked.
 
She was going to testify against him the following week, was she going to tell more than just the grave robbing? Drugs and drug dealing?

What was the result of the court ? Can you steer me in the direction of what cemetery that he was caught robbing? I live in Springfield and would like to see where some of the locations are that are mentioned.
 
That is one of the two most viable theories. Very possible. Even some of the police have said as much and quoted to that effect.

One of the two unfortunate aspects of this case was the poor management of the case. The other was the contamination of the crime scene.

The one I like best is the "trusted" individual that has been suggested by many. That does not necessarily rule out a police officer.
Dirty cop who would lose a LOT if the court proceedings were to include her testimony?
Same cop that leads them out of the house?
Grasping at straws here I know..just wish we knew more.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G935A using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
137
Guests online
3,705
Total visitors
3,842

Forum statistics

Threads
604,576
Messages
18,173,666
Members
232,680
Latest member
Hills89
Back
Top