MO - Sherrill Levitt, 47, Suzie Streeter, 19, & Stacy McCall, 18, Springfield, 7 June 1992 #14

[Bookkeeper2]

Maybe the perpetrator panicked and didn't want to leave any witnesses. Maybe the perpetrator was on meth or other drugs and felt invincible and capable of murdering three people and getting away with it.

Way too much to unpack there...... but for starters - a perp high on meth in a manic and panicked state was meticulous enough to leave nada, zip, zero evidence behind?

 

[Catmommy]

Even drug dealer psychos generally don't deal with such little fish. And if the trial was about the grave robbing for whatever reason and Suzie was a witness to that, the only things that could be brought up would be related to the grave robbing. Hardly a capitol offense with a catastrophic sentencing had the grave robbers even gone to trail and be found guilty instead of pleading out. Anything else - drug buying, drug dealing, higher ups in the drug trade - wouldn't have been admissible in a court of law. Testimony would've had to have been directly related to what the defendants were accused of.

 

[Catmommy]

DP, thanks Websleuths

 

[Catmommy]

Way too much to unpack there...... but for starters - a perp high on meth in a manic and panicked state was meticulous enough to leave nada, zip, zero evidence behind?

After God and everybody tracked through there two or three times no one had a clue as to what was evidence and what wasn't. We don't know that none was left behind, only that the scene was so incredibly compromised there was no way to tell.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

Even drug dealer psychos generally don't deal with such little fish. And if the trial was about the grave robbing for whatever reason and Suzie was a witness to that, the only things that could be brought up would be related to the grave robbing. Hardly a capitol offense with a catastrophic sentencing had the grave robbers even gone to trail and be found guilty instead of pleading out. Anything else - drug buying, drug dealing, higher ups in the drug trade - wouldn't have been admissible in a court of law. Testimony would've had to have been directly related to what the defendants were accused of.

actually Suzie could say whatever she wanted on trial....theres no rules about what she could have said (she could have brought up a person(s) when asked about something unrelated.....the point is that they didnt want to risk)......and if something got mentioned related to another case...that might scare someone.
Plus does that matter? Drug dealers may not be the most well-versed about what is said in court----only that she was talking to cops and scheduled to testify...that is enough to spook some folks
counter point: suzie wasnt small fish.......she was a big problem (in their psycho mind)

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

After God and everybody tracked through there two or three times no one had a clue as to what was evidence and what wasn't. We don't know that none was left behind, only that the scene was so incredibly compromised there was no way to tell.

Tweeker freaks handle the cleanest crime scene and cover up in history? I think not.......probably safe to fully rule out even. jmo

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

Testimony would've had to have been directly related to what the defendants were accused of.

perps know this for sure ? They dont know defense/prosecution strategies.......... they just want to tie up loose ends (come to the house to scare the girls)

 

[Catmommy]

And murder makes so much more sense?

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

And murder makes so much more sense?

that's easy...they're psychopaths.
Maybe to someone who's shown signs of deviant/psycho behavior previously.....(someone way too familiar with the dead even?) maybe someone who needed to exert power over the situation and his drug dealer group ? Stacy posed a problem,,and they thought on their feet in a psychopathic way

 

[Bookkeeper2]

Even drug dealer psychos generally don't deal with such little fish. And if the trial was about the grave robbing for whatever reason and Suzie was a witness to that, the only things that could be brought up would be related to the grave robbing. Hardly a capitol offense with a catastrophic sentencing had the grave robbers even gone to trail and be found guilty instead of pleading out. Anything else - drug buying, drug dealing, higher ups in the drug trade - wouldn't have been admissible in a court of law. Testimony would've had to have been directly related to what the defendants were accused of.

LE was operating and ascertaining information under the grave robbing umbrella. Clay has posted about undercover cops, wire tapping, harassing his friends. For the graverobbing? Of course not. It was all LE needed to get a foot in the door. Expert detectives leverage information. So - who else were they wire tapping and harassing? Do you think Clay took some heat for that? So, for those feeling the heat - Suzanne was blamed. Think about Clay's infamous outburst? Why would he call his friend Suzanne a ? Because if it was about the interrogation - he would have cussed out the cop. He was pissed at Suzanne.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

LE was operating and ascertaining information under the grave robbing umbrella. Clay has posted about undercover cops, wire tapping, harassing his friends. For the graverobbing? Of course not. It was all LE needed to get a foot in the door. Expert detectives leverage information. So - who else were they wire tapping and harassing? Do you think Clay took some heat for that? So, for those feeling the heat - Suzanne was blamed. Think about Clay's infamous outburst? Why would he call his friend Suzanne a *****? Because if it was about the interrogation - he would have cussed out the cop. He was pissed at Suzanne.

Clapping...bravo
You nailed ! Probably the dead-on motive. I just think maybe we need to look at Riedel a little closer.....he's the unknown/not-talked-about one....the one familiar with the dead....the one cutting deals

@Bookkeeper2, any thoughts on him being linked to this ? Or was he truly out of town ? I just cant see clay doing this but i wonder if he knows more than he leads on....... and then you have garrison and robb.....how do they connect ?

 

[Bookkeeper2]

Clapping...bravo
You nailed ! Probably the dead-on motive. I just think maybe we need to look at Riedel a little closer.....he's the unknown/not-talked-about one....the one familiar with the dead....the one cutting deals

@Bookkeeper2, any thoughts on him being linked to this ? Or was he truly out of town ? I just cant see clay doing this but i wonder if he knows more than he leads on....... and then you have garrison and robb.....how do they connect ?

Doesn't matter in town - out of town - he's linked - crypt vandalism catalyst that drew Suzanne/Mrs. Levitt into the mix. Blabbing all over town - cutting deals - and covering. Reidel/Vocke + Tom + JW burglar - SG's has prison buddies burglars + Robb fencing/drug operation/trafficking. Clay knows more than he's saying - protecting Recla - strong connect SG +JR+JW. Tom+Tuna. All @ GJ. Need bodies - or a confession!

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

Doesn't matter in town - out of town - he's linked - crypt vandalism catalyst that drew Suzanne/Mrs. Levitt into the mix. Blabbing all over town - cutting deals - and covering. Reidel/Vocke + Tom + JW burglar - SG's has prison buddies burglars + Robb fencing/drug operation/trafficking. Clay knows more than he's saying - protecting Recla - strong connect SG +JR+JW. Tom+Tuna. All @ GJ. Need bodies - or a confession!

Target: Annihilated.

So Grand jury includes Recla, Riedel, Clay, JW, JW's mom, Ernesto (Tom), CT........ I fail to see why Ernesto was at the GJ(drug? van connection--what was it?).......need answers to these questions before dismissing it !
Riedel was "out of town"---so why was he at the GJ?

 

[Bookkeeper2]

Target: Annihilated.

So Grand jury includes Recla, Riedel, Clay, JW, JW's mom, Ernesto (Tom), CT........ I fail to see why Ernesto was at the GJ(drug? van connection--what was it?).......need answers to these questions before dismissing it !
Riedel was "out of town"---so why was he at the GJ?

Sorry, burglars REW & MR @ GJ - not Tom that I know (Subway burglar w/ JW). Tuna would know. Clay said Reidel was at GJ - did not speak to him.

 

[lisaNYC]

Doesn't matter in town - out of town - he's linked - crypt vandalism catalyst that drew Suzanne/Mrs. Levitt into the mix. Blabbing all over town - cutting deals - and covering. Reidel/Vocke + Tom + JW burglar - SG's has prison buddies burglars + Robb fencing/drug operation/trafficking. Clay knows more than he's saying - protecting Recla - strong connect SG +JR+JW. Tom+Tuna. All @ GJ. Need bodies - or a confession!

Who was blabbing all over town and cutting deals and covering?

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

Who was blabbing all over town and cutting deals and covering?

Riedel—according to Mike he was a blabber. Also was the one cutting deals against his buddies,,never mentioned in the TV shows which is also suspicious

In addition to grave robbery, Suzie provided police with info on a Subway break-in (involving JR)....not “because she was a theater employee” like some want you to gaslight you to believe

 

[cherrymeg]

Did I say involvement ?
I said connection...

Specifically I said “car”

even if it wasn’t used...she was talking to cops.. and that’s a motive if you’re doing illegal activities and you dont want things exposed at trial

Darrell Moore (decorated DA who is now assistant to attorney general in state of Missouri) says grave robbers aren’t cleared.....he also was a fan of Garrison and Robb connection (2001 Cassville dig...also gag ordered)

You make claims that contradict police reports. They contradict verified members. What about vandalizing a cemetery while high suggests that murder would be the next step?
Getting high in a graveyard is a fairly common. It's about as common as bullying. MOO

 

[cherrymeg]

actually Suzie could say whatever she wanted on trial....theres no rules about what she could have said (she could have brought up a person(s) when asked about something unrelated.....the point is that they didnt want to risk)......and if something got mentioned related to another case...that might scare someone.
Plus does that matter? Drug dealers may not be the most well-versed about what is said in court----only that she was talking to cops and scheduled to testify...that is enough to spook some folks
counter point: suzie wasnt small fish.......she was a big problem (in their psycho mind)

There is no proof she was ever going to be at a trial. That trial still happened. I suggest we all get back to missing women and not a solved case. The Grand Jury dealt with the three missing women and maybe someone else. Obviously that was more serious but it wouldn't have been needed if the women hadn't gone missing. Making three women disappear shed more interests on local criminals.

 

[lisaNYC]

Riedel—according to Mike he was a blabber. Also was the one cutting deals against his buddies,,never mentioned in the TV shows which is also suspicious

In addition to grave robbery, Suzie provided police with info on a Subway break-in (involving JR)....not “because she was a theater employee” like some want you to gaslight you to believe

Where does it state that Suzie provided police with information on the break-in?

 

[cherrymeg]

actually Suzie could say whatever she wanted on trial....theres no rules about what she could have said (she could have brought up a person(s) when asked about something unrelated.....the point is that they didnt want to risk)......and if something got mentioned related to another case...that might scare someone.
Plus does that matter? Drug dealers may not be the most well-versed about what is said in court----only that she was talking to cops and scheduled to testify...that is enough to spook some folks
counter point: suzie wasnt small fish.......she was a big problem (in their psycho mind)

That is not how a trial works. Have you ever been to one?