The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #4

[Indianagirl]

So, Cox has never been my favorite suspect.
However, I was looking through old news archives and found an article where the Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit thought Cox should be looked at again. This was reported in January of 1996. The Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit is the same unit that concluded in November of 1995, sexual assault was the motive rather that drug dealing.

Snip from article:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...22518&dq=women+disappear+from+home+1992&hl=en
"However, after examining his criminal record this fall, the Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit concluded Cox should be looked at again. Police hedge on how Cox was classified by the group.
“There was not then and is not now enough to push him over into that strong suspect category,” Capt. Darrell Crick said. “Before you’ve got a real suspect you need some direct evidence or some testimony toward that person being a suspect.”
Nothing investigators have found puts Cox near Levitt’s home on or before June 7, 1992, when the women were kidnapped, Crick said." The below statement made by Janis McCall recently seems to answer this question.

Recent statement by Janis McCall:
"He [Cox] was working outside Sherrill and Suzie's house at the time, doing underground cable work."

This info coupled with Janis McCall's recent statement has really peeked my interest in Cox. Obviously, LE wanted to look at him again, as he was part of a grand jury, I believe in 1996. I guess, it's just different for me once I see the same unit that classified this crime most likely as sexual assault, also found that Cox should be looked at again.

 

[Trooogrit]

So, Cox has never been my favorite suspect.
However, I was looking through old news archives and found an article where the Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit thought Cox should be looked at again. This was reported in January of 1996. The Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit is the same unit that concluded in November of 1995, sexual assault was the motive rather that drug dealing.

Snip from article:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...22518&dq=women+disappear+from+home+1992&hl=en
"However, after examining his criminal record this fall, the Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit concluded Cox should be looked at again. Police hedge on how Cox was classified by the group.
“There was not then and is not now enough to push him over into that strong suspect category,” Capt. Darrell Crick said. “Before you’ve got a real suspect you need some direct evidence or some testimony toward that person being a suspect.”
Nothing investigators have found puts Cox near Levitt’s home on or before June 7, 1992, when the women were kidnapped, Crick said." The below statement made by Janis McCall recently seems to answer this question.

Recent statement by Janis McCall:
"He [Cox] was working outside Sherrill and Suzie's house at the time, doing underground cable work."

This info coupled with Janis McCall's recent statement has really peeked my interest in Cox. Obviously, LE wanted to look at him again, as he was part of a grand jury, I believe in 1996. I guess, it's just different for me once I see the same unit that classified this crime most likely as sexual assault, also found that Cox should be looked at again.

Well I do believe Cox would fit under sexual assault as his motivation. If you read about his murder in Florida it appears that it was a sexual assault that went bad.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Well I do believe Cox would fit under sexual assault as his motivation. If you read about his murder in Florida it appears that it was a sexual assault that went bad.

It certainly does. A "tag team" of Cox and "Steve" is highly possible. In fact, it is the one scenario that dovetails virtually everything known about the case. Now both have totally clammed up, obviously fearing the death penalty. That might explain why the cops are no longer actively working the case. These guys aren't going anywhere soon and probably will be carried out of prison with a toe tag in a pine box. I seriously doubt they will be paroled into the general population; especially Cox. I don't think they have even begun to scratch the surface on his crimes.

The statement by Mrs. McCall almost certainly had to have come from within the police investigation.

 

[Indianagirl]

Well I do believe Cox would fit under sexual assault as his motivation. If you read about his murder in Florida it appears that it was a sexual assault that went bad.

Yeah, I just find it interesting that it appears the violent crimes unit is the one that put the spotlight back on Cox.

 

[Trooogrit]

Yeah, I just find it interesting that it appears the violent crimes unit is the one that put the spotlight back on Cox.

Well at the time of the crime, Cox was looked at, but they didnt know much about him. He was suspect in several other crimes and incarcerated in Texas in 95. So it was easier to make a call like that in my opnion.

 

[Hurricane]

So, Cox has never been my favorite suspect.
However, I was looking through old news archives and found an article where the Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit thought Cox should be looked at again. This was reported in January of 1996. The Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit is the same unit that concluded in November of 1995, sexual assault was the motive rather that drug dealing.

Snip from article:
http://news.google.com/newspapers?i...22518&dq=women+disappear+from+home+1992&hl=en
"However, after examining his criminal record this fall, the Missouri Violent Crime Support Unit concluded Cox should be looked at again. Police hedge on how Cox was classified by the group.
“There was not then and is not now enough to push him over into that strong suspect category,” Capt. Darrell Crick said. “Before you’ve got a real suspect you need some direct evidence or some testimony toward that person being a suspect.”
Nothing investigators have found puts Cox near Levitt’s home on or before June 7, 1992, when the women were kidnapped, Crick said." The below statement made by Janis McCall recently seems to answer this question.

Recent statement by Janis McCall:
"He [Cox] was working outside Sherrill and Suzie's house at the time, doing underground cable work."

This info coupled with Janis McCall's recent statement has really peeked my interest in Cox. Obviously, LE wanted to look at him again, as he was part of a grand jury, I believe in 1996. I guess, it's just different for me once I see the same unit that classified this crime most likely as sexual assault, also found that Cox should be looked at again.

I realize that is a quote from the recent AOL article but that is not accurate or supported by the evidence of 1992. Without digging it out I believe that even Cox himself said that he knew where the house was and that he had worked in the area. Cox worked as a utility line locator and "sniffed" out underground utility lines and marked them. He neither worked for the cable TV provider (which has been but forth before) or did any underground cable work.

 

[Trooogrit]

It certainly does. A "tag team" of Cox and "Steve" is highly possible. In fact, it is the one scenario that dovetails virtually everything known about the case. Now both have totally clammed up, obviously fearing the death penalty. That might explain why the cops are no longer actively working the case. These guys aren't going anywhere soon and probably will be carried out of prison with a toe tag in a pine box. I seriously doubt they will be paroled into the general population; especially Cox. I don't think they have even begun to scratch the surface on his crimes.

The statement by Mrs. McCall almost certainly had to have come from within the police investigation.

I have never found a link between these two. They seem like two different types of people, just dont believe they ever met.

 

[Indianagirl]

I realize that is a quote from the recent AOL article but that is not accurate or supported by the evidence of 1992. Without digging it out I believe that even Cox himself said that he knew where the house was and that he had worked in the area. Cox worked as a utility line locator and "sniffed" out underground utility lines and marked them. He neither worked for the cable TV provider (which has been but forth before) or did any underground cable work.

Thanks! Are you saying she is more than likely basing that belief on Cox's statement about watching the house when it was being processed as a crime scene rather than having inside info about his work schedule?

 

[Hurricane]

Thanks! Are you saying she is more than likely basing that belief on Cox's statement about watching the house when it was being processed as a crime scene rather than having inside info about his work schedule?

There are no records concerning where he was dispatched to on any given day while he worked for SM&P. They don't keep such records and could not produce anything at the time. Cox did make the statement about watching the house as it was being processed but he doesn't say anything about working in the area that day. If it is true that he watched then it most likely was from the parking lot behind the building across the street to the SE toward Glenstone. I don't think that there is any inside info from his work records to be had and I think that Mrs. McCall more than likely misspoke when she made that statement in the recent AOL article.

 

[Hurricane]

I have never found a link between these two. They seem like two different types of people, just dont believe they ever met.

I agree. They never went to school together; Garrison was locked up for the 12-13 yrs before getting out 21 days before the abduction of the women. Hardly time to have formed such a fast friendship with Cox that would have led them to be partners in such a crime; especially since we know what Garrison was doing and it was with those he had served time with who came to Springfield to continue the relationship with him.

And the same can be said about Garrison being a biker at that time. The only Harley he had ever been on, at least in a long, long time was in a dream from within the walls of one prison after another.

 

[wfgodot]

Glad to see this thread alive and kicking. You were on hiatus too long. Hoorah!

 

[Missouri Mule]

I have never found a link between these two. They seem like two different types of people, just dont believe they ever met.

Obviously I can't establish that they knew one another. It was my sense judging from Cox's letters that he was talking about Garrison. What other "Steve" would he be referencing? I suppose he could be talking about Garrison and referring to him as "Steve" and not actually have met but it seemed to me (my sense of the tenor of his statement) that he actually did know him. I found the familiarity more than coincidental, since everything else in his letters was carefully couched in ambiguity. If he actually didn't know Garrison, I would think he would have referred to him somewhat differently; perhaps as the convicted rapist or something that would distance him from Garrison but not on a first name basis. This "Steve" business has always intrigued me as a slip on Cox's part.

So let me pose this question. If it could definitively be established that they did have personal contact would it change your mind in any way?

 

[Missouri Mule]

There are no records concerning where he was dispatched to on any given day while he worked for SM&P. They don't keep such records and could not produce anything at the time. Cox did make the statement about watching the house as it was being processed but he doesn't say anything about working in the area that day. If it is true that he watched then it most likely was from the parking lot behind the building across the street to the SE toward Glenstone. I don't think that there is any inside info from his work records to be had and I think that Mrs. McCall more than likely misspoke when she made that statement in the recent AOL article.

Seems to me that is a rather significant "misspeaking" on her part. She made a categorical statement. Is there any reason to believe she would have had that information short of getting it from the police investigation?

This is the actual quote: Seems fairly specific to me. How would she have known the was doing "underground cable work." Perhaps some enterprising investigative reporter should ask her to clear this up.

"He was working outside Sherrill and Suzie's house at the time, doing underground cable work," Stacy McCall's mother, Janis McCall, told AOL News.

I don't believe there is any controversy as to the fact he did work in the area, however. We can all agree on that. But the "underground cable work" is more; actually quite specific. That does need to be cleared up.

 

[Trooogrit]

Obviously I can't establish that they knew one another. It was my sense judging from Cox's letters that he was talking about Garrison. What other "Steve" would he be referencing? I suppose he could be talking about Garrison and referring to him as "Steve" and not actually have met but it seemed to me (my sense of the tenor of his statement) that he actually did know him. I found the familiarity more than coincidental, since everything else in his letters was carefully couched in ambiguity. If he actually didn't know Garrison, I would think he would have referred to him somewhat differently; perhaps as the convicted rapist or something that would distance him from Garrison but not on a first name basis. This "Steve" business has always intrigued me as a slip on Cox's part.

So let me pose this question. If it could definitively be established that they did have personal contact would it change your mind in any way?

If they knew each other I would be very suprised. Cox is playing a game with the police. He is an ego maniac. He likes toying with them. Think of it this way, we can agree that Cox is guilty of something, but it has been overshadowed by the 3MW case from that period of time. This fact probably irriates him. He uses the fact he is a suspect to his advantage. He has the power to say anything to make himself look like a strong suspect or a weak one, he knows they dont have enough to convict him of the crime. He is well thought out in his answers. WHich means he is probably well read about the case. I am not sure when he went to Texas, but he may very well have been in Springfield when Garrison took them to Webster County.

Now on the other hand Garrison was not a suspect. He inserted himself into the case by using the story. Does this make sense? If the police arent even looking at you why come forward with information that is a lie, knowing full well it is gonna shine the light on him. Maybe he is just plain stupid, I do not know.

 

[Missouri Mule]

If they knew each other I would be very surprised. Cox is playing a game with the police. He is an ego maniac. He likes toying with them. Think of it this way, we can agree that Cox is guilty of something, but it has been overshadowed by the 3MW case from that period of time. This fact probably irritates him. He uses the fact he is a suspect to his advantage. He has the power to say anything to make himself look like a strong suspect or a weak one, he knows they don't have enough to convict him of the crime. He is well thought out in his answers. Which means he is probably well read about the case. I am not sure when he went to Texas, but he may very well have been in Springfield when Garrison took them to Webster County.

Now on the other hand Garrison was not a suspect. He inserted himself into the case by using the story. Does this make sense? If the police aren't even looking at you why come forward with information that is a lie, knowing full well it is gonna shine the light on him. Maybe he is just plain stupid, I do not know.

Is that true? Who were the three subjects of the federal grand jury? I remember quite clearly the many news articles about Garrison during the early 1990s in the daily crime reporting in the News-Leader. I may not be the smartest person in the world but of the description of the grand jury suspects one seemed to fit the profile of Garrison although as we know these individuals were never named publicly as required by law. I suppose it is possible another person who had a similar background also was part of the group of people being investigated. I just don't recall anyone in the news reports of that time who so closely fit that description.

Are you aware of anyone else? I'm not.

As to your question in particular, it makes little sense to deliberately insert oneself into an investigation if they either played no part in the crime nor actually had actionable information. I'm not understanding his motivation although I suppose I don't really understand the motivation of most criminals. Perhaps, as you state, he is just stupid.

That Cox is playing games is undisputed. That he is innocent is a separate thing. He may very well be guilty. Certainly his background speaks to his capability to commit such a crime.

The parts that we have to fit together is the agreed upon motive of "sexual assault", the lack of evidence of anyone outside the known visitors to that home and what some believe (as I do) that this was a staged crime scene. If Cox (or anyone) was laying in wait for the women to arrive in order to grab all of them, they arrived at or about 3 PM. That left a full three hour envelope of opportunity to take them and clean the scene of evidence if the criminal(s) were practiced in the "art" of destroying or obliterating evidence.

Cox could have done it. He had the means and training to subdue the women and he knew from past experience where he was tripped up in the past and one of those experiences was that it would be a problem if any bodies were left at the residence. The most difficult homicide cases are those where the bodies cannot be inspected to determine such things as time and cause of death. Taking them elsewhere allows all the time in the world to dispose of the bodies and if the crime scene is clean, terribly hard to solve.

If Garrison came forth and said to the police he would take them to the location of the remains it had to be because of either direct or indirect knowledge if he actually knew. To not produce actionable information gives him no leverage. To believe he was acting on advice of counsel that this would subject him to the death penalty as an accessory after the fact seems the most reasonable explanation. He realized he had a choice of a long sentence for the rapes or death for murder. That's an easy choice. He then simply clammed up as he has done to the present day.

 

[Trooogrit]

Is that true? Who were the three subjects of the federal grand jury? I remember quite clearly the many news articles about Garrison during the early 1990s in the daily crime reporting in the News-Leader. I may not be the smartest person in the world but of the description of the grand jury suspects one seemed to fit the profile of Garrison although as we know these individuals were never named publicly as required by law. I suppose it is possible another person who had a similar background also was part of the group of people being investigated. I just don't recall anyone in the news reports of that time who so closely fit that description.

Are you aware of anyone else? I'm not.

As to your question in particular, it makes little sense to deliberately insert oneself into an investigation if they either played no part in the crime nor actually had actionable information. I'm not understanding his motivation although I suppose I don't really understand the motivation of most criminals. Perhaps, as you state, he is just stupid.

That Cox is playing games is undisputed. That he is innocent is a separate thing. He may very well be guilty. Certainly his background speaks to his capability to commit such a crime.

The parts that we have to fit together is the agreed upon motive of "sexual assault", the lack of evidence of anyone outside the known visitors to that home and what some believe (as I do) that this was a staged crime scene. If Cox (or anyone) was laying in wait for the women to arrive in order to grab all of them, they arrived at or about 3 PM. That left a full three hour envelope of opportunity to take them and clean the scene of evidence if the criminal(s) were practiced in the "art" of destroying or obliterating evidence.

Cox could have done it. He had the means and training to subdue the women and he knew from past experience where he was tripped up in the past and one of those experiences was that it would be a problem if any bodies were left at the residence. The most difficult homicide cases are those where the bodies cannot be inspected to determine such things as time and cause of death. Taking them elsewhere allows all the time in the world to dispose of the bodies and if the crime scene is clean, terribly hard to solve.

If Garrison came forth and said to the police he would take them to the location of the remains it had to be because of either direct or indirect knowledge if he actually knew. To not produce actionable information gives him no leverage. To believe he was acting on advice of counsel that this would subject him to the death penalty as an accessory after the fact seems the most reasonable explanation. He realized he had a choice of a long sentence for the rapes or death for murder. That's an easy choice. He then simply clammed up as he has done to the present day.

This is assumed that he acted on counsel. There was even a story that a sherriff told him he could be in trouble. Funny part is that guy wasnt sherriff for another 8 years. Garrison either had bad information or he took them to the wrong location intentionally. They searched the location. Nothing was found. By the time he took them to the location he was already in a lot more trouble and no amount of information was going to get him out of that.

 

[Missouri Mule]

This is assumed that he acted on counsel. There was even a story that a sheriff told him he could be in trouble. Funny part is that guy wasn't sheriff for another 8 years. Garrison either had bad information or he took them to the wrong location intentionally. They searched the location. Nothing was found. By the time he took them to the location he was already in a lot more trouble and no amount of information was going to get him out of that.

If that is true, then I would think he took them to the wrong location on purpose. By doing so, he would be assumed to be unreliable and the spotlight would be off him entirely, which would be a smart move if he wanted to keep off death row. All he had to do was simply to say he was mistaken.

I'm not sure why he would have told a future sheriff. So far as I know that would be the officer with the MSHP. I wonder how he became involved for if it is him it was my recollection that they were told to take a hike by the SPD as their help was unneeded. Weird.

http://www.greenecountymo.org/sheriff/past_sheriff.php

Interesting site. I see they have 14,872 outstanding warrants.

 

[Trooogrit]

If that is true, then I would think he took them to the wrong location on purpose. By doing so, he would be assumed to be unreliable and the spotlight would be off him entirely, which would be a smart move if he wanted to keep off death row. All he had to do was simply to say he was mistaken.

I'm not sure why he would have told a future sheriff. So far as I know that would be the officer with the MSHP. I wonder how he became involved for if it is him it was my recollection that they were told to take a hike by the SPD as their help was unneeded. Weird.

http://www.greenecountymo.org/sheriff/past_sheriff.php

Interesting site. I see they have 14,872 outstanding warrants.

what I was saying is that the story had grown out of proportion to include Ron Worsham as the sherriff who told Garrison he could be a suspect. This is in error though because Worsham was not Sherriff until 2001. My point being that these rumors are taken as factual information when they are not completely factual.

 

[Missouri Mule]

what I was saying is that the story had grown out of proportion to include Ron Worsham as the sheriff who told Garrison he could be a suspect. This is in error though because Worsham was not Sheriff until 2001. My point being that these rumors are taken as factual information when they are not completely factual.

I'm really confused now. I thought you were taking about the Greene County sheriff. All I remember about Worsham is that he left his position with the Greene County SPD and became sheriff of Webster County sometime within the year or so after the abductions, or so I thought. (I was unable to determine his time in office.) And of course we have the somewhat questionable goings-on in Webster County during his term of office. I didn't know that he had approached Garrison or had contact with him after he left the SPD.

One source merely told me that someone, who evidently was involved, was going to give up the bodies. Another person, on this site, indicated some individual never gave up anything that could be verified. It had been my assumption that this person was Garrison.

So I suppose that you are saying is that this whole business about Garrison perhaps never even happened. I don't recall ever reading or hearing anything about this situation until perhaps three years or so ago when it first came to my attention. Then I recalled this post years ago, which I will excerpt. This was from 10/2005.

"As for the gentleman in jail - he is looking for a way out and volunteered much information to local authorities (some of whom I know personally), none of which panned out. He is destined to serve his jail time as he has told nothing that has been of use or verifiable. Dead ends are the only thing he has ever provided."... (Snip)

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=8961&highlight=stacy+mccall&page=13

Although I cannot know for certain I would think this post pertained to Garrison. And the writer seemed to be speaking from personal knowledge and perhaps in LE. I don't recall reading or hearing about this matter while I lived in Springfield. If it was published it escaped my attention.

I wish to add that I'm not trying to play "20 questions" with you. I'm just trying to tidy up the time line of events and actual facts. I could have sworn that Worsham left the SPD within a year or so after the abductions to become sheriff of Webster County. I suppose I am getting senile in my old age.

 

[Hurricane]

If they knew each other I would be very suprised. Cox is playing a game with the police. He is an ego maniac. He likes toying with them. Think of it this way, we can agree that Cox is guilty of something, but it has been overshadowed by the 3MW case from that period of time. This fact probably irriates him. He uses the fact he is a suspect to his advantage. He has the power to say anything to make himself look like a strong suspect or a weak one, he knows they dont have enough to convict him of the crime. He is well thought out in his answers. WHich means he is probably well read about the case. I am not sure when he went to Texas, but he may very well have been in Springfield when Garrison took them to Webster County.

Now on the other hand Garrison was not a suspect. He inserted himself into the case by using the story. Does this make sense? If the police arent even looking at you why come forward with information that is a lie, knowing full well it is gonna shine the light on him. Maybe he is just plain stupid, I do not know

.

My take on when Garrison became a suspect is slightly different than yours. Garrison had been sitting in jail on the weapons charge for over 4 months in July 93 when SPD had his bond lowered in hopes that he would bond out and agree to talk to them about the 3MW case. SPD obviously saw him as a suspect at that time, or at a minimum thought that he had information concerning the abduction. How that all came about except for the fact that he was an ex-con is not publicly known.

While with SPD at a motel on 7/29 Garrison runs off. He is out on lawful bond; never the less SPD can’t find him to talk with him further. On 8/08 he rapes the college coed. He is finally rearrested on 8/17. Then 11 days later he leads LE on the search after providing information claiming that a friend had confessed to killing the women at a drunken party.

Isn’t it quite possible that Garrison was told in his friends confession that the women’s bodies were disposed of on the farm property but not know the exact spot? Perhaps he thought that once he took LE there that the bodies could be found easily and they were not? Or perhaps his attorney representing him on the weapons charge advised him to shut up. He may very well have been trying to leverage a better deal for himself on the weapons charge, which he was eventually convicted on later that year. He was not yet a suspect in the rape of the coed and was not hooked up on that charge until the following year.

My point is that he was a suspect in the 3MW case beginning sometime during the March – August 93 time frame before coming forth with the confession story, and may have been a developing suspect in LE’s eyes even before that.