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

[marable]

I had not thought of the upcoming case about the desecrated bodies that Suzie was to testify .....Did Stacy 's mother know about this case do you think? Chilling to think that Stacy lost her life simply because she spent the night at Suzie and Sherrils....

So was the case dismissed since Suzie was not available to testify?

Thanks...

 

[Valiant]

Not entirely sure what you mean about directing people into the crime scene. Isn't that what has been suggested if the front door was, as I believe, left deliberately unlocked?

The more I think about this is that the cleaning up of the glass shards may, in the end, have been the most important of the contamination. If it could have been established that the glass globe fell in a struggle or was it deliberately broken would have provided a way forward to viable theories of what happened. While many have speculated that it was broken to bring someone to the door, I would be inclined to believe it was broken on exit and in a struggle or it was done purposely to further ensure visitors would enter the house. The bottom line is that had that door been locked the crime scene would have been pristine when the police finally came on the scene. With that 90% of the questions would have been answered which we are still debating even today.

Leaving a door unlocked is hardly a guarantee the crime scene would become contaminated. In most cases, no one or maybe only one person enters the crime scene before police are called.
It's a big gamble, and really statistically unlikely, to count on many people coming and going from the house before police are called.
In my opinion, this was either an accidental happening that benefited the perp(s) or the perp(s) had some role in getting so many people to come and go before the police were called.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Leaving a door unlocked is hardly a guarantee the crime scene would become contaminated. In most cases, no one or maybe only one person enters the crime scene before police are called.
It's a big gamble, and really statistically unlikely, to count on many people coming and going from the house before police are called.
In my opinion, this was either an accidental happening that benefited the perp(s) or the perp(s) had some role in getting so many people to come and go before the police were called.

How would people have gotten into the house if it had been locked?

 

[Valiant]

How would people have gotten into the house if it had been locked?

That's not the point. The point is leaving a door unlocked does not mean people are going to come into the house. Most people would have probably knocked, rang the door bell, and left if there was no answer.
Just leaving the door unlocked does not guarantee the crime scene would be over-ran - it's unlikely so many people would have come into the house but it happened here. In most cases the scene is not disturbed before law enforcement is called, even when a door is left unlocked.

 

[Missouri Mule]

That's not the point. The point is leaving a door unlocked does not mean people are going to come into the house. Most people would have probably knocked, rang the door bell, and left if there was no answer.
Just leaving the door unlocked does not guarantee the crime scene would be over-ran - it's unlikely so many people would have come into the house but it happened here. In most cases the scene is not disturbed before law enforcement is called, even when a door is left unlocked.

You could be right. I disagree, however.

 

[monkeymann]

That's not the point. The point is leaving a door unlocked does not mean people are going to come into the house. Most people would have probably knocked, rang the door bell, and left if there was no answer.
Just leaving the door unlocked does not guarantee the crime scene would be over-ran - it's unlikely so many people would have come into the house but it happened here. In most cases the scene is not disturbed before law enforcement is called, even when a door is left unlocked.

I would have to agree with Valiant on this issue. The odds that the perp's thought that by leaving the door unlocked, that the crime scene would become irreversibly contaminated, are very slim.

The door being unlocked probably only happened for one of two reasons:

1.) Left unlocked inadvertently as hasty exit is made from the house, as crime is being committed.

2.) Left unlocked with the purpose of returning to the house.

Considering that all they had to do is take one of the women's keys with them if they had intentions of returning........I would choose number one.

Just my opinion.

 

[Jennibee]

I don't necessarily think the perp(s) would care whether the door was locked. However, it could be that one of the girls broke the globe with their foot and this caused them to flee even more quickly. This is how I believe the globe came to be broken.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[wfgodot]

If the perps were sophisticated enough to plan for accidental third-party contamination of the crime scene, then the perps were cops.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I don't necessarily think the perp(s) would care whether the door was locked. However, it could be that one of the girls broke the globe with their foot and this caused them to flee even more quickly. This is how I believe the globe came to be broken.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Most believe that and it could be true in fact. It certainly is the logical conclusion. But the more I thought about it and with others who concurred I thought perhaps it should be thought of as being deliberate. I do believe many, if not most believe the crime scene was staged. Det. Asher said (I believe) that the crime scene didn't look right; meaning it was not what one would customarily view at a crime scene. I can recall when our home was burglarized and it looked "right." In the Levitt house, it didn't appear that the women were abducted or the police would have been called sooner.

If there was blood to be found, things knocked over, disheveled, etc., that would have set off the alarm bells. That being the case isn't it also logical to conclude that the door was itself part of a plan to get away with murder. Reversing it, if the door was locked, the crime scene would not have been viewed or compromised at all for at least a day or more. There is no law against people leaving of their own volition. It is not very likely that someone would have taken it upon themselves to break the door down or pick the lock. Speaking for myself, if I were to have done this, it would be in my interest to have a compromised crime scene. What is the worst that could happen if the door was deliberately left unlocked?

But to think about this, if it were not possible to lock the door using the typical door lock in addition to the dead bolt, it would not have been possible to lock it at all. For example, my own front door cannot be locked without locking the dead bolt. The regular lock has no ability to be locked apart from the dead bolt. So if someone such as a repairman comes to the house and we are out, they have merely to close the door and leave it unlocked which is not ideal but we are usually not gone very long so it is not a security concern. So I guess we need to know if the regular (lower) door knob could be locked. I'm going to ask someone who may know.....

 

[TexasT]

Where has it ever been stated or inferred that MH had ever been at the house before? Give me a reference source. Never heard or seen him stating that before........EVER.

Sorry just saw your question .
But you already answered it .
"Janelle said" I "had never been to the house they just moved there recently . "
Inferring Mike had been there or at least knew where it was . The question is why did Mike know and her friend Janelle did not .

 

[monkeymann]

Sorry just saw your question .
But you already answered it .
"Janelle said" I "had never been to the house they just moved there recently . "
Inferring Mike had been there or at least knew where it was . The question is why did Mike know and her friend Janelle did not .

This is What JK Said, "Mike, my boyfriend picked me up, so we went to Suzie's house, I had never been to the house before, they had just moved there recently" Verbatim!

She never suggests, implies nor infers that MH had ever been to the house. She simply states that "WE" went to Suzie's house, and that she had never been there before. She doesn't say, imply, nor infer that MH had been to the house. She never states how either of them knew where Suzie lived. You're reading too much into her statement. And applying inferences to MH that were never made.

Just trying to help........

 

[monkeymann]

What I would look at in JK's statement referred to above is, why does JK feel it necessary to state, We went over to Suzie's house, I had never been there before. Why does she feel the need to explain that she had never been there before, but then doesn't try and explain how she knew where Suzie lived. Personally, I think that's is as telling as her, "That Other Girl" comment.

Just My Opinion

 

[TexasT]

This is What JK Said, "Mike, my boyfriend picked me up, so we went to Suzie's house, I had never been to the house before, they had just moved there recently" Verbatim!

She never suggests, implies nor infers that MH had ever been to the house. She simply states that "WE" went to Suzie's house, and that she had never been there before. She doesn't say, imply, nor infer that MH had been to the house. She never states how either of them knew where Suzie lived. You're reading too much into her statement. And applying inferences to MH that were never made.

Just trying to help........

I appreciate the replys ..

If neither knew where SS lived how the heck did they get there ?

There may be a logical explanation that I just missed is why I asked . Just strikes me as odd .

Maybe MH helped the ladies move furniture when they moved? " to do a nice thing " like sweeping up the broken globe .

 

[TexasT]

What I would look at in JK's statement referred to above is, why does JK feel it necessary to state, We went over to Suzie's house, I had never been there before. Why does she feel the need to explain that she had never been there before, but then doesn't try and explain how she knew where Suzie lived. Personally, I think that's is as telling as her, "That Other Girl" comment.

Just My Opinion

Agreed


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[monkeymann]

I appreciate the replys ..

If neither knew where SS lived how the heck did they get there ?

There may be a logical explanation that I just missed is why I asked . Just strikes me as odd .

Maybe MH helped the ladies move furniture when they moved? " to do a nice thing " like sweeping up the broken globe .

Texas T……I think you have a valid issue, but in a different way. The Springfield News-Leader Aug 3,1992, listed a whole page of Resolved Issues, Unresolved Issues, and Issues for further investigation. Among thoseUnresolved/Inconsistencies that were listed by Police was, “Police are still trying to confirm the wear bouts of a young male that was one of the 1[SUP]st[/SUP]responders to the house that morning (June7th). He has given various accounts of his wear bouts between 9am-9pm on June 7[SUP]th[/SUP].

I’m pretty sure I know who police are talking about in this statement. My questions here is this, with all of the various police agencies, including the FBI, why had Police not already resolved this issue……3-months into the investigation.
There had to be something there for police to not have pinned him down on where he was between those hours.
His story also must have conflicted with JK’s. So why is this. Something with his stories wasn’t right…..forPolice to still have questions about his wear bouts on June 7[SUP]th[/SUP]…….after 3-Solid Months of investigation into the 3MW case.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

What I would look at in JK's statement referred to above is, why does JK feel it necessary to state, We went over to Suzie's house, I had never been there before. Why does she feel the need to explain that she had never been there before, but then doesn't try and explain how she knew where Suzie lived. Personally, I think that's is as telling as her, "That Other Girl" comment.

Just My Opinion

In any use of statement analysis, that statement would stand out. First, it's unnecessary information--but information she wants us to have. She wants people to know she had never been "to the house" before, and she wants people to know that Suzie and Sherrill had move there recently. Why?

The issue that TexasT raised above is somewhat supported by statement analysis principles; not the shift from "we went" to to "I had never been there"? What about Mike? Why wasn't it "we"? Statement analysis tells us to always pay attention to shifts in language, and certainly in pronoun use. There were things Janelle knew she wasn't telling. I'd bet a lot on that.

 

[Missouri Mule]

In any use of statement analysis, that statement would stand out. First, it's unnecessary information--but information she wants us to have. She wants people to know she had never been "to the house" before, and she wants people to know that Suzie and Sherrill had move there recently. Why?

The issue that TexasT raised above is somewhat supported by statement analysis principles; not the shift from "we went" to to "I had never been there"? What about Mike? Why wasn't it "we"? Statement analysis tells us to always pay attention to shifts in language, and certainly in pronoun use. There were things Janelle knew she wasn't telling. I'd bet a lot on that.

I have tended to discount the importance of this. On the other hand it is, as pointed out in the previous post, a strange way of explaining what actually happened from her point of view.

I would say two things about this.

1) Could a young teenager be able to withstand vigorous interrogation by experienced police detectives? Would they have been able to coordinate their versions of the events of that day?

2) For quite a long time I was in touch with someone who claimed he had solid information into the investigation. He said the kids had been cleared. On the other hand I can't recall if it was explicitly stated by the police had in fact cleared them. My source was providing hearsay information but in my view he was truthful and knowledgeable. He also has said he knows who the perp is and had followed him for a decade even to the point of tracking him to his place of employment stating "he was far from Springfield but not too far." If what he said is factual, and I believe it is, it would strongly tend to throw cold water on the kids as being involved. I had also been in touch with a reporter who had connections into the investigations and knew the investigating officers and she essentially concurred.... I need to take another look at those emails as the are on a laptop hard drive I should be able to access shortly.

My opinion is that these kids were not involved but I will continue to have an open mind.

As earlier conceded, theat does seem to be an odd choice of words of which has never been adequately explained in the news media that I know about.

Don't we need a motive? I'm not seeing it with these kids. But of course I could be quite wrong.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I'm not sure the kids were involved. I do thing they were at least evasive in their responses to police. Statement analysis is useful because looking at grammatical choices bypasses conscious attempts at deception. It makes me wonder, for example, if Mike had been there before, or if (perhaps) Janelle didn't know whether he had or perhaps assumed that of course he hadn't. That shift from "we" to "I" means something. A good investigator and interviewer would have probed that a bit and perhaps been able to dismiss it.

 

[snowblossom2]

What I don't get about a "contaminated crime scene" is why can't law enforcement get names, buccal swabs for dna and fingerprints of anyone who was in that house the day these women went found missing? Yes, it would be more work for them , it makes no sense that they would just give up on a potential crime scene that could have held valuable evidence.....

I also agree that the phone calls were made by at least one of the abductors( if there were more than one ) as a means of returning to the crime scene, abducting and probably killing these three women wasn't enough for this sicko, he wanted to frighten and taunt the family and friends.....

The really frightening thing about this is that any one of us could become victims in our own homes like these women were....

This was 1992 and DNA collection and analysis was new. OJ/Nicole is two years later

 

[TexasT]

I wouldn't exclude anyone based on age . Just a few " kids" in the area .

Jesse Rush 15 : kidnapped and brutally assaulted / murdered Trudy Darby just north of Springfield . Motive ? None other then pure meaness . May have Commited more according to his confessions ..
Were they in Springfield during graduations in '92 ?

Kylr Yust 18
Looking like prime suspect in disappearence of Kara Kopesky of Belton Mo . Currently charged with arson for burning another missing woman's car .
Strangled and beat his pregnant gf . Beat two kittens ? And drown them .

Edwin Hall 26 :
Abducted Kelsey Smith from a Target parking lot in Overland Park KS in the daytime . Assaulted / murderd her . At 15 he threatened a step sister with a knife and hit someone in the head with a baseball bat .




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk