Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #9

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
scadagirl28 said:
As a outsider looking in, I kind of get Joe's pov. It seems from the timeline that the Gold Exchange calling cops about Dusty and the gold teeth started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

It did in a way, but Dusty told police he did it for a stranger at first. When the police told him about the Crime Stoppers call that is when he admitted what happened and wrote the statement. The complete conversation is in the case file.
 
scadagirl28 said:
As a outsider looking in, I kind of get Joe's pov. It seems from the timeline that the Gold Exchange calling cops about Dusty and the gold teeth started the ball rolling.
Click to expand...

On 3-5-92 when they brought Dusty in they tried to do an interview with both Joe and Dusty in the same room. Dusty asked for a lawyer so the interview did not continue with him, but while in the same room Dusty told Joe about the call from the person at the party and told him that his bragging was why they were caught.
 
SpringfieldMan341 said:
Well she let her daughter move out and experimented with drugs. Both smoked in the house. She was out partying frequently. Had boyfriends (plural) who "liked to smack her around a bit" (Dave Asher - 48 Hours).

Not a typical upbringing.
Click to expand...

And how do we know Suzie was out partying frequently? She also went to school and had a PT job. IMO.....Suzie looked healthy in the graduation day photo......pink cheeks, bright clear eyes...is that how frequent 'partiers' look?

I dunno...does any of the three girls look like frequent fliers?
 

Attachments

  • Screen-Shot-2017-05-03-at-12.51.36-PM.png
    Screen-Shot-2017-05-03-at-12.51.36-PM.png
    691.5 KB · Views: 4
Not meaning to play devils advocate here but something doesn't make any sense.

3/02/92 Police receive a call regarding the mausoleum being vandalized.

Then 3/02/92 Police get "Another Call" the "same day" that the mausoleum is reported being vandalized from the Gold Exchange regarding the pawning/selling of the gold teeth.

That doesn't sound right.
 
Scooby Doo 4U said:
Not meaning to play devils advocate here but something doesn't make any sense.

3/02/92 Police receive a call regarding the mausoleum being vandalized.

Then 3/02/92 Police get "Another Call" the "same day" that the mausoleum is reported being vandalized from the Gold Exchange regarding the pawning/selling of the gold teeth.

That doesn't sound right.
Click to expand...

Putting more info

Crime Stopper call received on 3-2-92 by Officer Bruce Waterman @ 10:15 hours

Officer Ronnie Long says he was contacted on 3-2- 92 (no time) by phone by the three Gold Exchange located in Springfield.
On 3-3-92 Officer Long contacted in person to see records he requested.

It is worded strangely. Not sure if the officer contacted them to just review their records or they contacted him. Again it reads exactly like this. “On 03-02-92 I was contacted by phone the three Golf Exchanges located in Springfield. I requested that they review their records pertaining to dental gold being sold to their store on it after 02-21-92. I advised my suspects would be white male 17-21 yrs old.”

Ok you were right it is off. I misread the first time. The officer called the three pawn shops on the tip from the Crime Stoppers call NOT that they called the police. Thanks good catch. The officer writes strangely and misread it.
 
MooseMeMuch said:
Please keep Mrs. McCall in your prayers, she has battled this for 26 years and needs our support.

IF you are (truly) interested in solving this case (versus having to be 'right' and everyone else 'wrong') let's urge the Cold Justice Team to visit Springfield and solve this case, here's a place to start:

Cold Justice Tip Line

Greene County
Contact: Springfield Missouri Police Department

You can also contact SPD through their CrimeStoppers internet site here:

P3 Tips

If you've never watched 'Cold Justice'.....Netflix and Oxygen are 2 avenues to access....I've also watched a few on You Tube.
Click to expand...

This case needs fresh eyes.
 
MooseMeMuch said:
And how do we know Suzie was out partying frequently? She also went to school and had a PT job. IMO.....Suzie looked healthy in the graduation day photo......pink cheeks, bright clear eyes...is that how frequent 'partiers' look?

I dunno...does any of the three girls look like frequent fliers?
Click to expand...

I believe Mrs. Clay has even said that Suzie wasn't know to party. If Suzie was 18 when she moved in with her brother there isn't much her mom could do. She still graduated as you pointed out. Locking a teenager up sometimes makes things worse. Suzie seemed to admire her mom wanting to be like her, but that doesn't mean they didn't butt heads. She also made the decision on her own to move back in with her mom. Maybe she had freedom but she didn't seem to go overboard with it. In the end she seemed like she was capable of making good choices.
 
She moved back in with her mom after she and her brother Bartt had a PHYSICAL altercation.
 
Seriously? I'm not suggesting that Suzie did anything to make her a victim, much less party. I'm pointing out that she moved back home after having a physical fight with her brother who had been abusing alcohol and didn't even let his mother and sister know initially when he came back to town. He is STILL the only person known to have laid hands on ANY of the women in anger. Suzie was presumably afraid of staying with him any longer and moved back with her mother.
 
cherrymeg said:
This case needs fresh eyes.
Click to expand...

Exactly......also.....yes, SPD/LE took 'evidence' and paperwork to 'experts in the field' and spent 2 or 3 days going over everything...but CJ does MORE than shuffle papers around.

It is not like any of the I.D. re-enactment shows and there is no 'mystery' element that all the other shows implement to boost their ratings.
This does not need to be a mystery any longer.
 
Suzie partied quite a bit. Revising history because you don't like her image as a "partier" (not that she was, technically, but she did attend quite a few) doesn't help this case, it hinders it.

No one is slamming Levitt or Streeter. Only presenting the facts.

It's not even bad that she partied or that she experimented with drugs. No reason to feel the need to get defensive about reputations. I think all three women were great. Their characters aren't the issue.
 
MooseMeMuch said:
Exactly......also.....yes, SPD/LE took 'evidence' and paperwork to 'experts in the field' and spent 2 or 3 days going over everything...but CJ does MORE than shuffle papers around.

It is not like any of the I.D. re-enactment shows and there is no 'mystery' element that all the other shows implement to boost their ratings.
This does not need to be a mystery any longer.
Click to expand...
I don't think this case is a hard one to solve.

It was probably as easy as "here's who we think is the perp(s), here's why we can't go to trial" and then that's the end of it. Can't do much without proof.
 
SpringfieldMan341 said:
Suzie partied quite a bit. Revising history because you don't like her image as a "partier" (not that she was, technically, but she did attend quite a few) doesn't help this case, it hinders it.

No one is slamming Levitt or Streeter. Only presenting the facts.

It's not even bad that she partied or that she experimented with drugs. No reason to feel the need to get defensive about reputations. I think all three women were great. Their characters aren't the issue.
Click to expand...

What facts?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 227 more.
Total: 2,870 (members: 228, guests: 2,642)

Online statistics

Members online
228
Guests online
2,642
Total visitors
2,870
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,661
Messages
18,097,906
Members
230,897
Latest member
sarahburhouse
Back
Top