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

[Jack]

I'm not sure if it was this thread or another but someone mentioned a dog owner would never leave a purse where it could be gotten into...that has stuck with me. One thought is maybe they were gathered up by one of the girls under command of the intruder then forgotten about in an ensuing struggle. Another thought is maybe they were stacked there by a girl themselves to hide them from someone in the house that they knew but thought was shady. My parent's house was a revolving door when my brother and I were teenagers and often doors were left unlocked, garage doors left open, etc by my brother b/c teens forget about house security with a houseful of people.

Haven't all the newest posts on this thread but this strikes me and I have to say something about it. The purses were gathered up by the people who first entered the house looking for the occupants. They were evidently looking for clues as to where they could have gone. This has been admitted and documented in police records. So there really shouldn't be any question as to why the purses were lined up and left where they were.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Haven't all the newest posts on this thread but this strikes me and I have to say something about it. The purses were gathered up by the people who first entered the house looking for the occupants. They were evidently looking for clues as to where they could have gone. This has been admitted and documented in police records. So there really shouldn't be any question as to why the purses were lined up and left where they were.

Can you cite the source of this information? I'd like to read that again. I'm not getting why the occupants would do this. Why would they do that?

But even if that is a fact, it doesn't negate the possibility that the purses were left behind because of a panic setting in by the perp(s) as they took the last victim from the house, would it not? So regardless, either scenario is not mutually exclusive. Am I wrong?

Not to be repetitious it is still a fact, as I see it, that leaving the purses behind only enhanced the likelihood that anyone responding to that house would be more likely than not to wonder why all three women would leave the house unlocked, porch lamp on, and their purses behind if they were over at the "Sub" store to purchase something. On the other hand, if they had their purses; even one of them, one could logically conclude they had money with them to buy whatever they went to eat, if in fact they went out to grab a sandwich. Said another way, the perp(s) would want the house to appear "normal" such that anyone coming to that home would think everything was in relative good order and not leave hints that something was not right. That's why I believe leaving the purses behind was something that happened which was not according to the original plans. But as I said, it is merely a theory.

We still don't know the motive for a certainty and we don't know who the caller from Florida was. Therein lies the solution to the case in my opinion.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Ruling Cox in or out is solely in the hands of Cox himself. There is no evidence pointing to him. There is no scenario that has shown his ability to carry out this crime. What vehicle did he drive at the time? At that hour of the morning (3 a.m -6 a.m) what did he do with them? What were his movements the rest of the day? Why would he pick that house? How do you get around his parents alibi? What were the locations in the area where he had worked the previous 30 days? Cox is a suspect in this case because he made himself one. I do not know if anyone has ever even done any research on his habits, his friends, his girlfriends, his relatives. In the I-70 cases the FBI looked at him and they found he was in the area of those crimes because of his work records. This crime is entirely different. What does anyone really know about this guy that makes him any different than any other convict in the area at the time? I wish there was someone who knew something about him to make him a stronger suspect. He fits well into the suspect role, but nobody has any hard research to support his being involved. It would be hard for me to believe him if he confessed, many of these type criminals confess to crimes they did not commit. Why have they left him alone since 1996? 15 years since they spent any time on the guy? What gives? If someone had done some hard research on the guy and could answer any of those questions I would be interested in hearing them.

I disagree on two major points. Cox DID have the ability to carry out this crime as a sole act. There is no doubt in my mind he could have done that with his Ranger training. They are trained not to act on sheer brainpower but on their instincts. He could easily disarm and render defenseless these women with very little difficulty.

The second point is his alibi. I said this before but let me say it again. He had no reason to concoct ANY alibi. So why did he say he was at church with his girlfriend which was later disproved? And I don't know how his parents claiming he was in his room constitutes any proof whatever that he couldn't have gone out a bedroom window in the middle of the night if he chose to do so. Do we have any evidence that he lived in a home with locked bedroom windows or on a second or third floor making it more difficult to get out of the home? One can't possibly believe that his parents were in his bedroom that entire night and knew he was there. We have no idea how soundly they slept or what time they got up in the morning. He may have said he wanted to turn in early and went to bed at 10 PM that night and slipped out the bedroom window and returned not too long after sunrise. More likely than not his bedroom door was locked and I can't imagine his parents would have broken down his door to check on his whereabouts. I'm not getting this belief that they provided any kind of believable alibi. In any event, EVEN HE didn't believe it was any good being that he lied with a fictitious alibi. Who should we believe? The facts or him? He has no credibility.

We know he worked the neighborhood and we know he had a long history of this kind of conduct. And let us not forget that when he finally went to the slammer it was after he was discovered in his car with a "kill kit" with the duct tape and all. This guy was a dangerous criminal then and he would be today if he were out on the street.

Why won't the cops pursue him further? Well, for one thing, he isn't going anywhere soon and more likely than not, will never get out of prison. While they can't prove beyond a doubt in a jury trial that he committed that crime they don't have to worry about him repeating it.

Until I see a better suspect, he remains my #1 suspect. I've seen nothing to dissuade me that he could not have committed that crime.

It has occurred to me that it was not necessary for him to have been in the vehicle all the way to the final location. Let us hypothesize that he had "Steve" with him, and then tied and subdued Suzie up, if in fact she was the driver, and then "Steve" let him off at his parent's home at sometime after 6 AM. "Steve" with three victims in the back of the van could have gone on to Rogersville or wherever they are believed to have gone. Cox could have gone back into his parent's home, made an appearance, and then gone out to the "Safe House" in Rogersville to do whatever he did. His parents could easily have been duped into believing he was in the bedroom the entire night until the morning.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

The purses shou,d have only been iseful to the first people who found them, as strong indicators that something was wrong, e.g., the women would have been unlikelynto leave with purses, keys, and/or vehicles.

None of that means the abductor(s) had to care about the purses. There are many missing women whose purses, keys, and othe raffects were left in their homes or cars. What it does tell us is that ordinary robbery wasn't a motive.

And Cox is my #1 also, because ofmthe analysis I did of his letters, many moons ago.

 

[Missouri Mule]

"The women’s purses were still in the house, piled up on the steps of Suzie’s sunken bedroom.

Suzie and her mother, Sherrill, had left behind their cigarettes. That was odd, Janelle thought. The two were constantly smoking, and rarely went anywhere without smokes.

Puzzled, Janelle and Mike went to a friend’s house, wondering if Suzie and Stacy had gone there before meeting for the trip to Branson. But their friend Shane hadn’t seen the girls. In fact, he was still in bed.

Janelle and Mike returned to 1717 E. Delmar St. one more time. Nothing.

It suddenly occurred to them that the women might have walked to a neighborhood sub shop for lunch, so they hurried over there but, again, found nothing." ...

(Snip)

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/day1.html

 

[Trooogrit]

The purses shou,d have only been iseful to the first people who found them, as strong indicators that something was wrong, e.g., the women would have been unlikelynto leave with purses, keys, and/or vehicles.

None of that means the abductor(s) had to care about the purses. There are many missing women whose purses, keys, and othe raffects were left in their homes or cars. What it does tell us is that ordinary robbery wasn't a motive.

And Cox is my #1 also, because ofmthe analysis I did of his letters, many moons ago.

Actually the purses were moved. The location of the purses before they were moved is anyones guess, but if someone put the purses in the same spot intentionally it would make sense to me. When people converged on that house that would have been the smart thing to do.



"Knowles said the disturbance of evidence at Levitt's home hampered the investigation. For example, the womens purses were moved, and witnesses gave conflicting information he said." NL July 8, 1992

 

[Trooogrit]

I disagree on two major points. Cox DID have the ability to carry out this crime as a sole act. There is no doubt in my mind he could have done that with his Ranger training. They are trained not to act on sheer brainpower but on their instincts. He could easily disarm and render defenseless these women with very little difficulty. This conflicts directly with the other crimes he was either convicted of or prisoned for. He has not shown this stealthy elite ranger status in any of his crimes to this point. Pretty hapless when it comes to abduction and very messy in killing. He left the Rangers in 1985 with his failed abduction attempt in California.

The second point is his alibi. I said this before but let me say it again. He had no reason to concoct ANY alibi. So why did he say he was at church with his girlfriend which was later disproved? And I don't know how his parents claiming he was in his room constitutes any proof whatever that he couldn't have gone out a bedroom window in the middle of the night if he chose to do so. Do we have any evidence that he lived in a home with locked bedroom windows or on a second or third floor making it more difficult to get out of the home? One can't possibly believe that his parents were in his bedroom that entire night and knew he was there. We have no idea how soundly they slept or what time they got up in the morning. He may have said he wanted to turn in early and went to bed at 10 PM that night and slipped out the bedroom window and returned not too long after sunrise. More likely than not his bedroom door was locked and I can't imagine his parents would have broken down his door to check on his whereabouts. I'm not getting this belief that they provided any kind of believable alibi. In any event, EVEN HE didn't believe it was any good being that he lied with a fictitious alibi. Who should we believe? The facts or him? He has no credibility. His parents must have some credibility because you still have to get around there account of that night in a courtroom.

We know he worked the neighborhood and we know he had a long history of this kind of conduct. And let us not forget that when he finally went to the slammer it was after he was discovered in his car with a "kill kit" with the duct tape and all. This guy was a dangerous criminal then and he would be today if he were out on the street. We know he worked the neighborhood? When and where exactly? That should be easy enough to find, they only lived there for 2 months.

Why won't the cops pursue him further? Well, for one thing, he isn't going anywhere soon and more likely than not, will never get out of prison. While they can't prove beyond a doubt in a jury trial that he committed that crime they don't have to worry about him repeating it. They cannot prove anything about him at all, nothing, zip, zero. No fingerprints, DNA, no proof he knew the women. It is all hunches and gut feelings with Cox.

Until I see a better suspect, he remains my #1 suspect. I've seen nothing to dissuade me that he could not have committed that crime.

It has occurred to me that it was not necessary for him to have been in the vehicle all the way to the final location. Let us hypothesize that he had "Steve" with him, and then tied and subdued Suzie up, if in fact she was the driver, and then "Steve" let him off at his parent's home at sometime after 6 AM. "Steve" with three victims in the back of the van could have gone on to Rogersville or wherever they are believed to have gone. Cox could have gone back into his parent's home, made an appearance, and then gone out to the "Safe House" in Rogersville to do whatever he did. His parents could easily have been duped into believing he was in the bedroom the entire night until the morning.

This friendship is so unlikely it is not even worth mentioning. Steve Garrison and Robert Cox are polar opposites. Garrison was out only three weeks when this crime occurred. There is no evidence that they knew each other at all. What Cox was doing by mentioning his name is to let people know he has been reading the papers and at that time Garrison was in the papers a lot.

Cox wants to be a suspect, he fits the suspect role, but that is all there is on Cox. You obviously believe him, I do not.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Actually the purses were moved. The location of the purses before they were moved is anyones guess, but if someone put the purses in the same spot intentionally it would make sense to me. When people converged on that house that would have been the smart thing to do.

"Knowles said the disturbance of evidence at Levitt's home hampered the investigation. For example, the womens purses were moved, and witnesses gave conflicting information he said." NL July 8, 1992

The date of Knowles statement predated the article prepared by Laura Bauer the primary reporter for the story. She wrote her story on June 3, 2002.

Either she was misinformed, sloppy with the facts or Knowles was wrong when he claimed the purses were moved. I'm more inclined to go with the reporter who was very familiar with the case and wrote it 10 years after Knowles made his statement. In my opinion Knowles fouled this case up with his taking the investigation into his hands early on and ruling people out as viable suspects. He may have big credentials but it doesn't mean that he wasn't dead wrong with the facts. It also appeared several investigators shared this view as well. And the prosecutor couldn't believe how sloppy and unprofessional the investigation was. Knowles could delegate authority but he couldn't delegate responsibility.

Where is the evidence that the purses were moved? And as I pointed out earlier, does it make a material difference? How could the women be out at the local sandwich shop buying their lunch with no money in their possession?

Knowles made the claim he never heard about his micromanagement of the case while he was police chief. Yet we have numerous people who worked the case who give an entirely different take. In my opinion had this case been run as a typical homicide by experienced detectives this crime would have been solved in 1992. With this many people who knew these women and interacted with them it is incomprehensible to me that someone couldn't point to someone or a group immediately as the likely culprits.

 

[Missouri Mule]

This friendship is so unlikely it is not even worth mentioning. Steve Garrison and Robert Cox are polar opposites. Garrison was out only three weeks when this crime occurred. There is no evidence that they knew each other at all. What Cox was doing by mentioning his name is to let people know he has been reading the papers and at that time Garrison was in the papers a lot.

Cox wants to be a suspect, he fits the suspect role, but that is all there is on Cox. You obviously believe him, I do not.

I don't quite know where to begin. What is one to make of "this friendship is so unlikely....?" How is it that we know this? How does one know they are "polar opposites?" While there may be no evidence that they knew one another, where is the evidence they didn't know one another? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How do we know that when Cox mentioned "Steve" that he got that from the newspapers? How do we even know that he wasn't referring to an entirely different "Steve?"

How do we know he "wants to be a suspect?"

Let me put it to you this way. And try to chew this over and see the logic. When Cox put his girlfriend up to lying for him with a phony alibi, he more likely than not, believed that his allegedly "good alibi" with his parents wasn't going to stand up. I would suggest that he suspected he may have left something behind in the house and NEEDED an unshakable alibi. Since it would have been impossible to have been in two places at one time, if he were in fact in church, that would have met the criteria for such an alibi. The fallback alibi that he was home with his parents doesn't meet that standard because he can't prove it.

I would argue this is exactly why he needed that church alibi. "But officer, I couldn't have done it, I was in church with my girlfriend. Everyone saw me there. If anything of mine was in the home it must have been planted there by a crooked police officer." No prosecutor would have gone into court when it can be proven a person can't be in two places at the same time. With the phony alibi gone, that argument is null and void. He has no alibi.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I was perusing some old posts from Thread #2 and happened onto this gem and would ask Hurricane to expand. I cannot recall having seen this before. Here is the post in full from 07-27-2008.

"Punta Gorda is in the Port Charlotte area, north of Ft. Myers. The AMW call originated from Jacksonville on New Year's Eve, 1992. When Bartt first left Springfield he moved to Arkansas and if memory serves me, was still living there at the end of the year."

I had not seen this before documented anywhere, or if I had did I did not recall having seen it. Can you elaborate on this statement? I'd like to take a look at possible suspects who lived in the Jacksonville area during that time. Thank you in advance.

 

[Trooogrit]

I am going to try to explain my opinion of Cox.

Cox is a guy that had a past when it came to abducting (or attempting to abduct) women. He failed twice in California doing this. Once he was talked out of it.

He then is convicted of the Zellers murder, which he adomently denied all the way through. He never implied he was involved. Now my personal opinion of the evidence in that case is that if DNA existed at that time he would have been executed. This did not occur, many people felt this was an injustice. He knew this. He also knew that every single time that a crime occurred in his area he would be a suspect. H probably did not appreciate that very much.

Now he is emboldened by his new found freedom he goes home to Springfield. This crime occurred and he knew because of his past that the police likely would be coming to talk to him. This was expected he said so himself. Now my take on the police questioning him is this. They come to see him, he is ready, doesnt care much for them asking him questions. The officers ask him where he was on that saturday. He says he was at a golf tournament, they ask him where he was that night, he says he was at home. They ask him about the morning he sarcastically says, "I was at church" Now this is about as sarcastic as a convicted kidnapper, murder suspect could be. We do not know the context of his conversation so it is not easy to determine.

Now taking into consideration his complete denial in the Zellers case. Why would he insert himself into this case making remarks that are leading people to believe he was involved? That to me is the most telling of all his BS. He knows he is going to be a suspect, he is not involved, but he knows that no one believes him so he is jerking their chain, toying with them.

Fact is he does not take interviews without having questions ahead of time. He doesnt take visitors without having them answer his questions, his letters to the news leader he had all the time in the world to word those just right. He does this so he can basically answer the questions in a manner that is leading and captivatiing the public. The handwriting expert concluded he was slow witted. Other handwriting experts have said the opposite. Personally I believe that neither can make a statement on a letter that was not a spontaneous production, with one draft.


Now as far as "Steve" goes I fully believe he was referring to Garrison. Garrison is described as a "hippy" he describes himself as "a badass biker" long hair, tattoos. Cox on the other hand was a ranger, an athlete clean cut, a golfer???. Garrison was a substance abuser, Cox was not. Garrison was out three weeks? Where and how did they meet, enough to trust the other in a crime like this? Just doesnt make any sense.

 

[Trooogrit]

I was perusing some old posts from Thread #2 and happened onto this gem and would ask Hurricane to expand. I cannot recall having seen this before. Here is the post in full from 07-27-2008.

"Punta Gorda is in the Port Charlotte area, north of Ft. Myers. The AMW call originated from Jacksonville on New Year's Eve, 1992. When Bartt first left Springfield he moved to Arkansas and if memory serves me, was still living there at the end of the year."

I had not seen this before documented anywhere, or if I had did I did not recall having seen it. Can you elaborate on this statement? I'd like to take a look at possible suspects who lived in the Jacksonville area during that time. Thank you in advance.

I do not think his movement to Arkansas is correct, I think he went to the Northeast.

 

[Hurricane]

I was perusing some old posts from Thread #2 and happened onto this gem and would ask Hurricane to expand. I cannot recall having seen this before. Here is the post in full from 07-27-2008.

"Punta Gorda is in the Port Charlotte area, north of Ft. Myers. The AMW call originated from Jacksonville on New Year's Eve, 1992. When Bartt first left Springfield he moved to Arkansas and if memory serves me, was still living there at the end of the year."

I had not seen this before documented anywhere, or if I had did I did not recall having seen it. Can you elaborate on this statement? I'd like to take a look at possible suspects who lived in the Jacksonville area during that time. Thank you in advance.

On Friday, March 12, 1993 America's Most Wanted announced on their program in a follow up to this case that the New Year's Eve call originated in Jacksonville, FL. In their Saturday, March 13, 1993 edition the N-L also reported that fact and added the fact that SPD had recently went to Jacksonville.

As far as where Bartt went and when, after first going to see his daughter I would ask him. He has just recently denied being the caller. Based on the timeline and his history in FL I don't believe that he was the Jacksonville caller either.

 

[Hurricane]

I do not think his movement to Arkansas is correct, I think he went to the Northeast.

You are correct; my mistake.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I am going to try to explain my opinion of Cox.

Cox is a guy that had a past when it came to abducting (or attempting to abduct) women. He failed twice in California doing this. Once he was talked out of it.

He then is convicted of the Zellers murder, which he adamantly denied all the way through. He never implied he was involved. Now my personal opinion of the evidence in that case is that if DNA existed at that time he would have been executed. This did not occur, many people felt this was an injustice. He knew this. He also knew that every single time that a crime occurred in his area he would be a suspect. H probably did not appreciate that very much.

Now he is emboldened by his new found freedom he goes home to Springfield. This crime occurred and he knew because of his past that the police likely would be coming to talk to him. This was expected he said so himself. Now my take on the police questioning him is this. They come to see him, he is ready, doesn't care much for them asking him questions. The officers ask him where he was on that Saturday. He says he was at a golf tournament, they ask him where he was that night, he says he was at home. They ask him about the morning he sarcastically says, "I was at church" Now this is about as sarcastic as a convicted kidnapper, murder suspect could be. We do not know the context of his conversation so it is not easy to determine.

Now taking into consideration his complete denial in the Zellers case. Why would he insert himself into this case making remarks that are leading people to believe he was involved? That to me is the most telling of all his BS. He knows he is going to be a suspect, he is not involved, but he knows that no one believes him so he is jerking their chain, toying with them.

Fact is he does not take interviews without having questions ahead of time. He doesn't take visitors without having them answer his questions, his letters to the news leader he had all the time in the world to word those just right. He does this so he can basically answer the questions in a manner that is leading and captivating the public. The handwriting expert concluded he was slow witted. Other handwriting experts have said the opposite. Personally I believe that neither can make a statement on a letter that was not a spontaneous production, with one draft.

Now as far as "Steve" goes I fully believe he was referring to Garrison. Garrison is described as a "hippy" he describes himself as "a badass biker" long hair, tattoos. Cox on the other hand was a ranger, an athlete clean cut, a golfer???. Garrison was a substance abuser, Cox was not. Garrison was out three weeks? Where and how did they meet, enough to trust the other in a crime like this? Just doesn't make any sense.

Well, we agree on Garrison. He is the one I believe Cox referred to as well.

I find it interesting about Garrison's description. Could he perhaps be the individual driving through the area prior to the abductions? Typically, the Hippies had a reputation for long hair; in fact a song was made about this during that time called of all things -- "Hair." As you know, the driver of vehicle was described as having long hair that he had to keep wiping out of his face as he was driving around the neighborhood. Could Garrison fit that description? I think he could. We have a van; which could simply be painted over; two very evil people and a motive; namely "sexual assault."

I would call your attention to the post that Steve Zellers made on Air Alex in 2007.

Steve

Monday, 3/5/07, 12:22 PM

"I have felt all along that Cox is involved in some way, just as he was involved in kidnapping two women in California and the murder of my sister here in Orlando. I remember speaking with his parole officer in Springfield, and the parole officer was not even aware of what happened in Orlando, it was not even in his file as the Florida Supreme Court had released him from death row and wiped his slate clean for him to go out and continue his murder spree. After all, he was on death row with Bundy and he saw the notoriety that Bundy had. If I had not seen the 48 Hours program, I'm not sure if the Springfield Police Department would ever have known who he was.

From:Orlando

As to Bundy, he made a statement which I will paraphrase. He stated that when he murdered his victims he felt as "God" as the life drained out of their bodies. Recently I was watching a repeat of the "Closer" of a serial murderer, who said that it was like "sex" when he stabbed his victims to death and watched the blood drain from their bodies.

I would end on this note. If Cox felt it was necessary to offer up a phony alibi, why did he do that? To my mind it makes all the sense in the world that he was trying to cover up the possibility that he may have left something that could be tied to him. And as I said, if he could prove he couldn't have been in that home during those hours he would never be brought to trial on these murders. I can think of no other logical reason because, the truth is, simply, that he didn't even have to have an alibi.

I refer you to your own take above on Cox. "Now my personal opinion of the evidence in that case is that if DNA existed at that time he would have been executed."

There is your motive for the phony alibi. He barely slipped the noose in Florida but knew technology had moved forward and was covering his bases as best he knew. Now, I happen to agree that his offering up his alibis to the police is logical. But in order to make this work when push comes to shove, he has to have a willing accomplice; someone willing to lie for him; his girlfriend, who under threat of perjury finally comes clean during the GJ proceedings. So I would simply ask, if he was being flippant, why go to the bother of bringing an unreliable girlfriend into the mix who would later turn on him?

The problem with lies is as old as the hills. When one tells a lie they inevitably have to tell more lies to cover up the first lie. When everything goes to pot, he decides to play games in order to frustrate the investigation. After all, what has he got to lose? He's not going anywhere anytime soon.

 

[Jack]

Can you cite the source of this information? I'd like to read that again. I'm not getting why the occupants would do this. Why would they do that?

But even if that is a fact, it doesn't negate the possibility that the purses were left behind because of a panic setting in by the perp(s) as they took the last victim from the house, would it not? So regardless, either scenario is not mutually exclusive. Am I wrong?

I believe it was in the original police report, I read it at one time but I'm going to have to find it again.

I think the purses were left behind simply because whoever took them was not there to steal from them. If one of them had a gun to their heads the last thing anyone of them would have thought to do is grab their purse on the way out of the house.

 

[Jack]

"Imagine how it must feel to have watched one week ago the incomprehensible massacre of innocents committed by someone who had lost some essential part of his humanity ... and to have heard in the coverage of that tragedy voices accusing you of complicity in it," he writes. It's easy to understand "how strong a need someone would fee...l to defend him or herself against such a slur."

John McCain

Interesting. There are plenty of political threads this could be posted on. Why here? Has someone been accused and feels the need to defend themselves?

 

[Jack]

I believe it was in the original police report, I read it at one time but I'm going to have to find it again.

I think the purses were left behind simply because whoever took them was not there to steal from them. If one of them had a gun to their heads the last thing anyone of them would have thought to do is grab their purse on the way out of the house.

OK, so I found the police report and it does say the officers were advised by the subjects present at the house that they had looked into the purses. It doesn't specifially say where the purses were found originally or whether they were moved from their original location(s).

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/documents/report.pdf

 

[Missouri Mule]

OK, so I found the police report and it does say the officers were advised by the subjects present at the house that they had looked into the purses. It doesn't specifially say where the purses were found originally or whether they were moved from their original location(s).

http://springfield.news-leader.com/specialreports/threemissingwomen/documents/report.pdf

Which begs the question. Why did the police chief in 1992 specifically say they were moved when the 2002 report by the long time reporter say they were stacked that way to begin with?

Frankly, I'm at a loss to explain the inexplicable actions that were taken by high officials in the SPD during that time.

If we can rule out robbery as the motive, which seems obvious, it makes infinitely more sense for the various agencies to conclude this was sexual assault.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Regarding Cox: Why would he need an alibi if he had nothing to do with the disappearance of the three women? At the very least, a statement analysis of his letters shows that he is likely lying about nearly everything he says. I will try to find the work I did on those letters and bump it forward. Statement analysis won't tell us if he is the killer, but it would suggest questions that investigators should follow up on, or perhaps tried to follow up and got nowhere. And if I am looking for someone who could make three women disappear, it might be the guy in the area who was convicted of murdering another woman because he didn't hide the body well enough. Psychopaths can have a learning curve.