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

[_mb_]

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.

This has always been nagging at me since I first heard/read about Cox as a suspect. I'm not saying he couldn't pull it off. But I feel like, at least from what I read, he didn't really plan out his crimes. They just happened. He was sloppy. He left a trail.

Unfortunately, with the contaminated crime scene, we may never know if he left a trail here. And it is possible that there is a learning curve, as you said, pittsburghgirl. But I can't help but think that if Cox was the one who did this there is (or was) something in that house that pointed to him. Maybe the answering machine messages. Maybe a cigarette butt. Maybe a drop of blood on the broken globe.

One other thing, that I don't recall seeing on this community...Was there really a box of clippings and rings found in a house in Springfield? I would think if there was, a list of possible people involved or knowledgeable about the case could be compiled from rental agreements/homeowner records between 1992 and the time they were found.

 

[Missouri Mule]

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.

This has always been nagging at me since I first heard/read about Cox as a suspect. I'm not saying he couldn't pull it off. But I feel like, at least from what I read, he didn't really plan out his crimes. They just happened. He was sloppy. He left a trail.

Unfortunately, with the contaminated crime scene, we may never know if he left a trail here. And it is possible that there is a learning curve, as you said, pittsburghgirl. But I can't help but think that if Cox was the one who did this there is (or was) something in that house that pointed to him. Maybe the answering machine messages. Maybe a cigarette butt. Maybe a drop of blood on the broken globe.

One other thing, that I don't recall seeing on this community...Was there really a box of clippings and rings found in a house in Springfield? I would think if there was, a list of possible people involved or knowledgeable about the case could be compiled from rental agreements/homeowner records between 1992 and the time they were found.

There were some rings which are/were displayed with photographs over at Air Alex. Going on memory, these were turned over to the police but evidently didn't lead anywhere so far as we know. However, I do believe the house was rented by a close relative of the individual who most believe Cox referenced in one of his two letters.

As to Cox, I keep reading the assertions that he was too sloppy to pull off this crime. Perhaps. But since we do not know and probably will never know how many successful crimes he did pull off this might just happen to be one of those. What we can be virtually 100% certain is that if was able to gain entry to the home, he had it within his physical strength and training to subdue all three women. There is not a scintilla of doubt in my mind he could have done that. Maybe he was just lucky and the forensics gathering (as some have suggested) simply wasn't very good and the evidence was missed.

What is not in question is that he felt it necessary to concoct an unneeded and phony alibi. If he was truly somewhere else, it didn't even matter if his DNA or something was left behind belonging to him. He couldn't have done it. I would argue that is exactly why he persuaded his girlfriend to lie for him that they were in church together when it was a blatant lie. His fallback alibi that he was in his parent's home can't possibly be proven unless they were in the same bedroom with him that night.

If he successfully carried out this crime he did what is perhaps a crime almost unique in criminal history. That may be the reason he does everything short of actually confessing to the crime. He doesn't want to be forgotten about because he is going to be a very old man if he ever does manage to get paroled. He's chosen, evidently voluntarily, to lead a solitary life in administrative segregation where he doesn't come up for parole until 2025 and he is unlikely to gain release even then.

As to whether he planned his crimes, according to a reporter very familiar with this case, when he was finally taken in on his current felony of robbery he had a "kill kit" in his possession which included duct tape and other paraphernalia which someone who planned to commit such crimes would have. Typically that is seen with an "organized" criminal. A "disorganized" criminal makes do with the items he can find at the crime scene. This crime has all the earmarks of a planned operation. The overriding question is the motive. That could be answered if the caller from Florida would finally surface and tell what he or she knows. Unfortunately that is unlikely at this late date.

 

[Bartt Streeter]

I left Springfield Mo. in Sept of 92.
moved to Springfield MA. to see my daughter.
visited Tampa Florida during the summer of 1994.
moved to Little Rock AR in 1995.
Las Vegas in 2000 then moved to Punta Gorda Florida in 2005
I did not call AMW nor do I know who did.
I did not have anything to do with the disappearance of my mother,sister and Stacy McCall.
I also do not share my theories and thoughts on there Disappearance in public.
I have found it is just not a wise thing to do.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Hi, Bartt, thanks for the post. I see your point about not commenting in public and so will respect your decision. While we bicker here and at times annoy one another, all of us here want to see justice in this case for your missing family members and Stacy and some manner of resolution for the families. So, welcome. I hope you at the very least stop by now and again.

If you note above the reference to the rings found in the house in Springfield, it occurs to me that you might possibily recognize those rings if they belonged to your mother or sister. Have you ever seen those pictures? Would you be likely to recognize jewelry that had belonged to them? I can also imagine that reading internet posts about the case is upsetting and painful. However, if you could eliminate the jewelry or identify it or say "maybe," it might help resolve that or move it forward. And I still wonder about the sighting at George's and would welcome your opinion on that. Anyway--welcome.

Regarding Cox not leaving evidence: the crime scene was so compromised that we really don't know what was left behind. If it was, perhaps, a crime of
opportunity for Cox, I can imagine that, like many abductors, his first priority might have been a change of venue, so as to avoid leaving evidence or risking being seen at or near the house. I still lean toward an accomplice.

 

[Trooogrit]

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.

You answer your own question.

Why would he need an alibi if he had nothing to do with the disappearance of the three women?

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.

That is who everybody would look for and he knew this.

His writing appears deceptive because he is lying about his involvement, it is pure fiction.

His alibi for the night of the crime is SOLID, it is the morning after that is in question.

AS far as a change of venue Cox did not leave the area. He was not questioned for two weeks after the crime occured.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You answer your own question.

Why would he need an alibi if he had nothing to do with the disappearance of the three women?

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.

That is who everybody would look for and he knew this.

His writing appears deceptive because he is lying about his involvement, it is pure fiction.

His alibi for the night of the crime is SOLID, it is the morning after that is in question.

AS far as a change of venue Cox did not leave the area. He was not questioned for two weeks after the crime occured.

How is it that we know that? Were there night cameras affixed to his house to all entrances and exits and saw him go into the house and not come out until the morning? Please define "Solid." That's a rather categorical statement of fact. Speaking for myself, I'd hate to hang my hat on speculation or a flimsy alibi that cannot be proven. Please expand, if you please.

I don't disagree that he might be somewhat paranoid about his welfare being that he escaped from a death sentence in Florida. But as I have pointed out, he was under no duty to provide ANY alibi. He could have told the police to jump in the lake and there isn't much they could have done about it absent evidence he was in the home. On the other hand, if he had this alleged "solid" alibi that he could not have been in the home, it wouldn't have mattered whatsoever if his DNA, his clothing, guns, knives, etc., was found all over the house. The simple fact is he couldn't have committed the crime if he was somewhere else. He couldn't possibly have been in two places at the same time which eliminates the "opportunity" to have committed the crime. He and/or his attorney could simply argue that everything found belonging to him was planted by the police department and unless they could prove he could have been in the house no jury would vote to convict him regardless of his past criminal history.

Speaking generally, the first thing any respectable police department will do, if they are following normal protocol, is to eliminate suspects. And no matter how promising a suspect may appear if it can be definitively established that it was impossible for the suspect to have been in the vicinity at the time of the crime he must logically be eliminated.

For example, using an extreme case, there was the matter of a highly respected "city father" with a beautiful family whose wife was murdered. At the time she was murdered in California,he claimed he was in Ohio. At first blush, this seems to be a solid alibi. But upon checking out further, it was discovered that from the time he could be placed in Ohio and the time to drive all the way to California there was adequate time for him to have driven there and driven all the way back to Ohio although he had to drive continuously without rest to accomplish this herculean feat. Once that barrier was overcome, the other evidence and motive came into play and he was convicted of her murder and sentenced.

So in the case of Cox, we have to know beyond any doubt, that he did not have the opportunity to have committed the crime before he can be eliminated. It's really that simple and really that basic to crime solving.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Trooogrit, I think you misunderstood my comment about a change of venue, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean that by its nature, abduction involves removing a victim from the place of original abduction, e.g., pulling someone off the street into a car and driving away, taking a child or a woman out of a home, etc. While a garden-variety rapist might attack a woman in a home or drag her into an alley, etc., abduction involves moving victims from a place in which the abductor doesn't feel comfortable to one he does. That's why women and kids are advised to fight any attempt to remove them from the first place of contact. Cox's history shows he is an abductor, not just a rapist or murderer.

I don't see why being an obvious suspect would stop someone like Cox if he thought he could work out an alibi. Or, given that he ended up in prison anyway, maybe it's that he was willing to push the envelope until he was caught. As to his writing, clearly Cox is trying to play with the media and/or LE. What his writing shows is that his is consciously trying to lead readers one way but he unconsciously reveals what he doesn't want people to know. That is the basis of statement analysis. Clearly he likes to play with people, but his writing suggest a number of avenues that investigators might look at, including his bizarre concern over whether his TV interviews were reviewed by behavioral experts.

You raise a point about his alibi that I can't recall but I will dig back in the threads to refresh my memory. I also think I could better express my major point. An innocent person may offer an alibi if asked by the police about his whereabouts at the time of a crime, but it is in his best interest to tell the truth. Lying just leads to more suspicion and questions. If he is innocent, Cox has no reason to lie, or to change his story, and nothing I have seen in his writing attempts to explain the lies he told to LE. What I was saying is that when someone is guilty, there is a NEED to construct an alibi, and to get people to lie to support that alibi--which is precisely what Cox did.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Trooogrit, I think you misunderstood my comment about a change of venue, or perhaps I wasn't clear. I mean that by its nature, abduction involves removing a victim from the place of original abduction, e.g., pulling someone off the street into a car and driving away, taking a child or a woman out of a home, etc. While a garden-variety rapist might attack a woman in a home or drag her into an alley, etc., abduction involves moving victims from a place in which the abductor doesn't feel comfortable to one he does. That's why women and kids are advised to fight any attempt to remove them from the first place of contact.

I don't see why being an obvious suspect would stop someone like Cox if he thought he could work out an alibi. Or, given that he ended up in prison anyway, maybe it's that he was willing to push the envelope until he was caught. As to his writing, he never tells obvious direct to suggest or deny his involvement. Clearly he likes to play with people, but his writing suggest a number of avenues that investigators might look at, including his bizarre concern over whether his TV interviews were reviewed by behavioral experts.

This is something I have also puzzled over. He already had one strike against him with his conviction; later overturned in Florida of a horrible murder of a young girl; he has a provable lie about his ridiculous alibi and then he worries about his TV interviews. Perhaps, he is really was concerned about Missouri indicting him anyway so he pretends to be playing with the authorities and to a large degree it has been successful.

It doesn't strain the imagination to suspect that he might believe that if he were extradited back to Missouri that his notoriety would finally catch up with him. Although the jurors are supposed to ignore his past criminal history, the reality is that many do know unless they are sequestered and are completely ignorant of the news. He was no O.J. Simpson with a dream team and unlimited resources. He was a dead man walking if he was convicted and he knew it. He had good reason to believe he had overplayed his hand and the jury would convict him even if they didn't have the smoking gun in evidence.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Hi, MM. First I want to clear up why your quotation won't match my post. I am stupidly tired and struggling to make my point more clear regarding Cox's statements. I am also using my iPad, which leads to more typos because of the touchpad.

Anyway, the issue with statement analysis is that it doesn't work on the level of content (whether Cox's statement conform to actual reality or known facts, or even whether he is internally consistent, for example.) Statement analysis looks at the unconscious choices writers make--how they frame sentences, their syntax or word choice, etc. These are things that not even skilled psychopaths can easily fake. For example, someone could say, "I deny I was involved," intending to indicate innocence. That is not as clear or direct a statement as "I didn't do this crime." Someone can deny what he or she knows is true, e.g., denying one is having an affair or committed a crime.

I reread the statement analysis I tried out on the Cox letters (on the Cox thread." I think it hold up. But I want to look again at the alibi(s).

 

[Trooogrit]

OK well I am not sure about this whole statement analysis stuff. I will say that it definately has many different opinions about it. Some believe in it and some say it junk science. Since I do not know how to compare individual reads on this. Let me ask you this. Is Cox slow witted? Based upon your analysis and why would someone else looking at his writing come to that conclusion and you do not? I want to know how people come to that conclusion?

Now I have never said Cox couldnt be the guy who did this. I just believe it is unlikely because there is a lack of information. I base my conclusion on his inability in previous attempts, his sloppy crime scene previously. Hell in Texas he was caught because he was stalking. Doesnt seem to me he is very good at any of this. His alibi is solid unless you know how to discredit his parents. You have to make that go away somehow. You have to find a vehicle he was attached to that would carry out this crime. You have to have him in the Delmar St area previously. He said he knew the area he did not say he had been to that house. If you can do that, then by definition you have a premeditated crime. You have to have him getting up in the middle of the night going to that place specifically for this reason as he lived 3 miles away. What kind of evidence makes this possible, what points to this being likely?

 

[Missouri Mule]

OK well I am not sure about this whole statement analysis stuff. I will say that it definately has many different opinions about it. Some believe in it and some say it junk science. Since I do not know how to compare individual reads on this. Let me ask you this. Is Cox slow witted? Based upon your analysis and why would someone else looking at his writing come to that conclusion and you do not? I want to know how people come to that conclusion?

Now I have never said Cox couldn't be the guy who did this. I just believe it is unlikely because there is a lack of information. I base my conclusion on his inability in previous attempts, his sloppy crime scene previously. Hell in Texas he was caught because he was stalking. Doesn't seem to me he is very good at any of this. His alibi is solid unless you know how to discredit his parents. You have to make that go away somehow. You have to find a vehicle he was attached to that would carry out this crime. You have to have him in the Delmar St area previously. He said he knew the area he did not say he had been to that house. If you can do that, then by definition you have a premeditated crime. You have to have him getting up in the middle of the night going to that place specifically for this reason as he lived 3 miles away. What kind of evidence makes this possible, what points to this being likely?

I think you are comparing apples with elephants. PG is talking about the meaning of words. I think you are referring to profiling or perhaps phrenology where some believe a person's intelligence can be determined by feeling the bumps on a person's head.

Linguistics/semantics are recognized sciences and are certainly not "junk science."

"The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/linguistics#ixzz1BvPgUs00

The person who claimed that Cox was "slow witted", etc., was certainly practicing "junk science." There was no scientific basis for making that statement. A person who was of a genius level of intelligence could write as a slow witted person deliberately. That does not make him or her slow witted.

As to your broader question, I repeat what I have said many times. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's not an original thought but it is sound thinking. UNLESS Cox can be definitively proven not to have had opportunity to carry out the crime he cannot be eliminated as a suspect.

There are three components of a crime; motive, opportunity and means.

The three main reasons for murder are jealousy, revenge and profit. For all we know, and it is speculation, Cox may have initiated contact with Sherrill and was rebuffed. That would provide the motive of revenge, for example, a prime example of the driving force behind many serial murderers.

All that is necessary in Cox's case is to prove he had the opportunity to commit this crime. He certainly had the means (the martial arts skill) and I would argue the motive because this is what his life has been about; much as was Bundy's.




​

 

[Trooogrit]

I think you are comparing apples with elephants. PG is talking about the meaning of words. I think you are referring to profiling or perhaps phrenology where some believe a person's intelligence can be determined by feeling the bumps on a person's head.

No I am not comparing apples to elephants I am comparing statement analysis and handwriting analysis and the question is for Pitt because she would know the difference. If I am correct then one is a facet of the other.

Linguistics/semantics are recognized sciences and are certainly not "junk science."

"The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/linguistics#ixzz1BvPgUs00​

The person who claimed that Cox was "slow witted", etc., was certainly practicing "junk science." There was no scientific basis for making that statement. A person who was of a genius level of intelligence could write as a slow witted person deliberately. That does not make him or her slow witted.

The person who made that statement is well renowned in graphology. Someone who believes in what she is doing or she wouldnt be doing it. Handwriting analysis is centuries old focusing on the physical aspects of writing as it relates to a persons personality. Obviously, people can write deliberately to decieve. A person can write eloquently but may be a babbling idiot. The way that they write the words would determine this. My question to Pitts is this part of statement analysis?



​

As to your broader question, I repeat what I have said many times. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's not an original thought but it is sound thinking.

Your argument is an appeal to ignorance in all situations. Meaning further investigation and answering inquiries about your thought process does not have to be done. Essentially you do not have to prove your point. The last idiot I heard use this phrase was a senile old man in the former presidents staff who helped get us into a war that has cost over 800 billion and counting. It is not sound logic based on fact it is based on the unknown and is guessing. In the case of Cox, all I have asked for is more solid information to support your conclusion. He is a suspect because of his past, no one can prove he was even remotely involved in this case. The only thing that makes him interesting is what he tells the public.


UNLESS Cox can be definitively proven not to have had opportunity to carry out the crime he cannot be eliminated as a suspect.

​

There are three components of a crime; motive, opportunity and means.

The three main reasons for murder are jealousy, revenge and profit. For all we know, and it is speculation, Cox may have initiated contact with Sherrill and was rebuffed. That would provide the motive of revenge, for example, a prime example of the driving force behind many serial murderers.​

All that is necessary in Cox's case is to prove he had the opportunity to commit this crime. He certainly had the means (the martial arts skill) and I would argue the motive because this is what his life has been about; much as was Bundy's.

You keep comparing Cox and Bundy. Those two are not the same in motivation whatsover. Bundy was a sexual sadist who was aroused by the torture and suffering of his victims. He is a textbook serial killer. Cox does not display the same traits. This whole business of Cox and Bundy being in the same location is a lot to do with nothing. According to Cox he had one conversation with him. This would not change what motivated him to kill. If he killed at all. ​

 

[Hurricane]

I think you are comparing apples with elephants. PG is talking about the meaning of words. I think you are referring to profiling or perhaps phrenology where some believe a person's intelligence can be determined by feeling the bumps on a person's head.

Linguistics/semantics are recognized sciences and are certainly not "junk science."

"The study of the nature, structure, and variation of language, including phonetics, phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics, sociolinguistics, and pragmatics."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/linguistics#ixzz1BvPgUs00​

The person who claimed that Cox was "slow witted", etc., was certainly practicing "junk science." There was no scientific basis for making that statement. A person who was of a genius level of intelligence could write as a slow witted person deliberately. That does not make him or her slow witted.​

As to your broader question, I repeat what I have said many times. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That's not an original thought but it is sound thinking. UNLESS Cox can be definitively proven not to have had opportunity to carry out the crime he cannot be eliminated as a suspect. ​

There are three components of a crime; motive, opportunity and means.​

The three main reasons for murder are jealousy, revenge and profit. For all we know, and it is speculation, Cox may have initiated contact with Sherrill and was rebuffed. That would provide the motive of revenge, for example, a prime example of the driving force behind many serial murderers.​

All that is necessary in Cox's case is to prove he had the opportunity to commit this crime. He certainly had the means (the martial arts skill) and I would argue the motive because this is what his life has been about; much as was Bundy's.​

New circumstantial evidence on other suspects in this case is being uncovered every day, yet you want to keep going over the same old stuff on Cox. Until you put up some evidence other than arguments from ignorance I have no interest in him at all. I could make the claim that the devil took the women or space aliens took them and it would be no different from what you do.

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance[/url]

You claim Cox “certainly had the means (the martial arts skill)” yet you have no idea what vehicles he owned or might have been available for his use that night. Wouldn’t that go to his means to carry out such a crime? What if he only had a Schwinn? A VW beetle? Where did he normally sleep at night? At his girlfriend’s house? His parent’s house? Or did he have his own place? You have no idea because you haven’t put any work into it. You constantly claim that he had the motive for this crime such as he “may have initiated contact with Sherrill and was rebuffed” but in other posts you continue to state that you don’t have a motive for this crime. And as far as opportunity goes, I guess he had the same opportunity as 150,000+ other people did that night because he lived there.

Sheila Kurtz, MGA (Master of Graphology), president of GCG was hired by the N-L to do an analysis of the letters Cox had written. For you to compare what she does to phrenology is out of line and an attempt to belittle graphology and deceive others who will read this on your part. Kurtz has impressive Curriculum Vitae in her own right and has done case work for the FBI and other LE agencies; the Son of Sam case being one of them.

Concerning whether graphology and its usefulness is a junk science or not I would refer you to GCG’s statement in part (highlighting is mine):

“Handwriting analysis is the scientific method of interpreting the actual state of one's personality by examining his or her personal script. Each person's handwriting is as unique as a fingerprint. With the arrival of the computer age, handwriting analysis, one of the oldest psychological studies, has leapt into the 21st century.”

http://www.graphologyconsulting.com/main/home.cfm?Section=Main&Category=Science

And in Time Magazine:


"Handwriting analysis delves deeper into the things you cannot uncover in a live interview,"

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,950933,00.html#ixzz1ByAk9Jmh

Just because you want graphology to be junk science, Shelia Kurtz to be a dingbat and Robert Cox to be another Ted Bundy doesn’t make it so.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I would hope this thread not be derailed through unnecessary disputes over basic facts. I've asked but have not received an answer how it is that Cox is proven to be a stupid person. Thus far I haven't seen it. I've also asked how it can be proven that Cox did not have the opportunity to have committed the crime. And I haven't seen it thus far.

You would do me a huge favor if you could you address those two specific questions, and I thank you in advance. As to graphology:

Graphology is by definition a pseudo science. In common parlance it is pure junk science. That is an undisputed fact. Graphology is a second cousin to phrenology, also a junk science. Both "sciences" are well recognized for what they are in psychology 101 as any freshman in college would be aware.

How Graphology Fools People

Barry L. Beyerstein, Ph.D.

"To the casual observer, handwriting analysis enjoys greater plausibility than other occult or pseudoscientific ways of reading personality. Take astrology or palmistry, for instance. It is hard for a thinking person today to imagine how the stars or creases on the palm could affect human behavior. But it seems at least possible that, inasmuch as writing is a form of expressive behavior, it might reveal something about ourselves. After all, our mannerisms and choice of clothing, jewelry, and hair styles seem to do so -- at least to some degree. Moreover, because writing and personality are both controlled by the brain, the suggestion that they could be related doesn't seem inherently absurd. And since both personality and handwriting are undeniably idiosyncratic, many consider it reasonable that one might reflect the other. Nonetheless, despite their surface plausibility each of these arguments is seriously flawed.
Graphologists have largely convinced an uninformed public that their craft is a scientifically respectable way of assessing personality, aptitudes, and predilections. This is reinforced by the unfortunate fact that many large corporations do consult graphologists. Similarly, many people assume that graphology must be legitimate because it has occasionally been accepted in court. And many skeptics have accepted free offers to have their writing analyzed and found, to their surprise, that the portrayal seemed remarkably accurate.

This article deals with each of these areas. Following a brief historical introduction, I shall present the logical and scientific objections to graphology. I shall then attempt to explain why a practice that consistently fails scientific tests can seem so convincing to intelligent people who run across it in everyday settings"...

(Snip)

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/Tests/grapho.html

"Phrenology is the science which studies the relationships between a person's character and the morphology of the skull. It is a very ancient object of study. The first philosopher to locate mental faculties in the head was in fact Aristoteles.

Several typologies have been defined, linking physionomy with character. The study of the face, physiognomony, has been particularly studied by the 18th century Swiss author Lavater"...

(Snip)

http://www.phrenology.org/intro.html

To restate it is of little value to give credence to these non-scientific concepts that have been thoroughly debunked. So I would simply ask how Cox's IQ was determined and how his whereabouts were known than Sunday morning. Can you do that for me? Many thanks.

 

[Hurricane]

He is your suspect but you have nothing on him. "Cox did it; prove me wrong!"

 

[Trooogrit]

My point here is to give credibility to what has been done. One cannot deem statement analysis credible and handwriting analysis junk science if they are used together.

In a statement analysis, the investigator focuses on the words, lack of words used, body language and/or handwriting in the response from a witness or subject to to determine truthfulness instead of focusing on the facts that are stated. The key to using these techniques is often deviation from the norm or a deviation or switch from one type of descriptive communication to another. This type of investigative interviewing technique can be quite effect and is used and officially taught by top rated investigative organizations such as the Federal Bureau Of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.

One is part of the other at least to some degree.


We are going to be focusing on the following: PRONOUN ANALYSIS NOUN ANALYSIS
VERB ANALYSIS
EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION ANALYSIS
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSISB
ODY LANGUAGE DEVIATION
BODY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS
HANDWRITING ANALYSIS
OVERALL CONTENT ANALYSIS

So handwriting analysis is part of statement analysis. The lady deemed Cox

• “He’s slow-witted.”

• “He is inconsistent in thoughts and actions. Neither the writer nor anyone else can be sure what ideas or deeds will emerge next. The writer’s moods shift rapidly and without apparent reason.”

• “He is rebellious and defiant of authority figures.”

• “He is direct in expression, with good attention to details. Writer will ‘say it as [he thinks] it is’ with muddled thinking.”

• “He is ‘a loner’ (often self-absorbed) who dwells in the past.”

• “He thinks he senses (intuits) the true moods of other people, but who knows what he does with all the information he thinks he has?”

Some of this checks out.

 

[Indianagirl]

Would be interesting to know how many registered sex offenders were living in a 3 mile radius of delmar at the time. Wouldn't they be considered just as suspect as Cox?

ETA: Anyone know? Was that info ever published in the news?

 

[Missouri Mule]

He is your suspect but you have nothing on him. "Cox did it; prove me wrong!"

That's not the case at all. I'm trying to eliminate him. Can't do it based on what has been presented thus far. If he didn't do it, then who did?

I have no interest in tying this crime to an "innocent" or uninvolved person. Why would I? I'm just trying to seek out the truth as you are.

BTW, would you care to expand on the "blood is thicker than water" angle? I'm still not getting that part. You must have had a contact within the police department if that is a fact. Would I be wrong?

 

[Missouri Mule]

My point here is to give credibility to what has been done. One cannot deem statement analysis credible and handwriting analysis junk science if they are used together.

In a statement analysis, the investigator focuses on the words, lack of words used, body language and/or handwriting in the response from a witness or subject to to determine truthfulness instead of focusing on the facts that are stated. The key to using these techniques is often deviation from the norm or a deviation or switch from one type of descriptive communication to another. This type of investigative interviewing technique can be quite effect and is used and officially taught by top rated investigative organizations such as the Federal Bureau Of Investigation and the Central Intelligence Agency.

One is part of the other at least to some degree.


We are going to be focusing on the following: PRONOUN ANALYSIS NOUN ANALYSIS
VERB ANALYSIS
EXTRANEOUS INFORMATION ANALYSIS
ORGANIZATIONAL ANALYSISB
ODY LANGUAGE DEVIATION
BODY LANGUAGE ANALYSIS
HANDWRITING ANALYSIS
OVERALL CONTENT ANALYSIS

So handwriting analysis is part of statement analysis. The lady deemed Cox

• “He’s slow-witted.”

• “He is inconsistent in thoughts and actions. Neither the writer nor anyone else can be sure what ideas or deeds will emerge next. The writer’s moods shift rapidly and without apparent reason.”

• “He is rebellious and defiant of authority figures.”

• “He is direct in expression, with good attention to details. Writer will ‘say it as [he thinks] it is’ with muddled thinking.”

• “He is ‘a loner’ (often self-absorbed) who dwells in the past.”

• “He thinks he senses (intuits) the true moods of other people, but who knows what he does with all the information he thinks he has?”

Some of this checks out.

What exactly checks out? We could say this of ourselves at different times of our own lives. Bluntly stated, this woman is a crackpot.

This is much like the con artists like "psychic" John Edward who preys on people trying to contact the dead. The statements are too generalized to have any specific meaning. They could mean most anything.

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/john_edward_hustling_the_bereaved/

 

[Hurricane]

That's not the case at all. I'm trying to eliminate him. Can't do it based on what has been presented thus far. If he didn't do it, then who did?

I have no interest in tying this crime to an "innocent" or uninvolved person. Why would I? I'm just trying to seek out the truth as you are.

BTW, would you care to expand on the "blood is thicker than water" angle? I'm still not getting that part.

You must have had a contact within the police department if that is a fact. Would I be wrong?

Sorry, I'm through swimming in your fish tank. You'll have to do your own work.