Good program, nice overview, a survey of the case. With 40 or so minutes of content time (not to mention introduction stuff and closing), hard to cover all the aspects of this. Producers had to make choices, what to bring up, what to omit.
A friend of mine from work recorded this and made a DVD for me (taking out commercials). He nor his wife ever lived in Springfield and knew nothing of the case. But, they found it interesting, although complicated. A couple of points, which struck me.
- They said Sherrill and Suzie moved into the Delmar house in February. It was my understanding they moved there in April, not that it matters.
- Janelle said it was the girls who were to call HER the next morning. After a big night, why was she calling THEM at 8 AM the next morning ? Never clear, and still not, as to what the specific plans were that day.
- The program didn't explore the, what I'd call, 'circus' atmosphere of the house that Sunday, a score or so visitors that day, the hours that passed, and delayed response to call law enforcement. And, I'm still not clear as to the style of parenting Sherrill exercised. On one hand I hear 'strict,' but Suzie shows up with an announced friend to sleep over at 3 AM ? Yes, they both reached their majority at this time, could do anything an adult does legally except buy alcohol (and cigarettes ?), but, that was Sherrill's roof. I was 19 when I graduated h/s and if I showed up at 3 AM with friend for an unannounced sleep over my parents would come down on me like a cloud. Maybe that's what Suzie faced that night, none of us where there or will ever know.
- The program didn't detail the time line, but rather dealt with approximations. As some of the earlier posters have said, this could have been an early morning, post dawn event, rather than late the previous night. I find it plausible. They did mention 'porch lady,' but I was disappointed they didn't probe for more details. It's been 18 years, is she still alive ? Did they try to contact her ? Did they know more about her ? What about her other neighbors ? Some of the earlier investigators were skeptical about the account, why ?
- As others have said, no mention about other digs or anything about where the woman COULD have been taken. The August '93 dig I was particularly interested in, as I believe the account was, to the effect, '...didn't find the 3MW...but items of interest.'
About Cox (the hospital) did they not give approval to this years ago ? I don't find it odd for them to agree to it at all, just shows their public relations office is on the ball. I'm surprised they didn't offer to pay for it (coring).
Lastly, I know many are glad this story is getting national attention. I've often been puzzled as to why this never 'took off' as a national story. Personally (although I'm bias because I lived there), I find it a very interesting and odd story, worthy of the coverage the later JonBenet Ramsey got. Sure, he was a rich guy, ransom note, small town/big crime, but our story is really fascinating in its own right. Part of the disparity could be explained as these events were in two different worlds. June 1992, the national attention was on race relations/police brutality in the wake of the Rodney King beating/acquittal of officers, the ongoing recession and a presidential election stirring great interest. The world by 1997; the economic boom had taken off, Congress had already changed hands, these kinds of stories attracted interest. A few years later, I remember one news director saying 'we're in an era of stories on two headed cows.' Then...came 9/11. The advantage of a frenzy of national coverage is the pull of journalists probing into every detail, looking for ideas being glossed over or missed, and of course, making a name for themselves. The disadvantage is also the attraction of cranks, with worthless tips which distract from the investigation.