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

[Trooogrit]

I think that everyone has a point of view about Cox. My contention would be that the cost, time and manpower devoted to Cox by the SPD had to be substantial. I doubt they would have expended it without good reason. And it is well to realize that they were apprised of him in 1992 shortly after the abductions.

What I don't understand is why Moore went to the GJ on such flimsy evidence that no bill of indictment was handed down on "Moe", "Larry" and Curly." The only thing that I am aware of them is that "Moe" (AKA Steve) was well publicized. "Larry" and "Curly" only knew him from the Kansas penal system. And after checking out their activities in Springfield at the Greene County database I could find absolutely nothing to tie them to Springfield beyond what might have only been a casual relationship with "Moe" who now rots in prison. I had no interest in checking further in their family tree to see who they might have been related to. Obviously, judging from their backgrounds we are unlikely to find pillars of society related to them.

I would love for anyone to answer one question for me. What was the reason that all four agencies who looked at this case came up with the consensus that this was a crime of sexual assault. By any measure, such an assault if it were actually the case fits Cox to a "T." Am I wrong? And lest there be no doubt, Cox had no alibi; furthermore, to my knowledge, he refused to take a polygraph if there is any validity to them whatever. It wouldn't prove guilt but it might help to exonerate him by cooperating. And why has he self-segregated himself at Lovelady? Rotting away in an un air conditioned Texas maximum facility can't be a walk in the park when he could probably get a cushy cell in Missouri closer to his hometown and family if any survive. He could get this if he would give up the location of the remains. And if he is playing games why has he cut off further communication to those with an interest in the case? For that matter he could even "confess" to the crime to get out of Texas back into Missouri. It wouldn't bring, by itself, a conviction.

Well this crime doesnt really fit Cox to a T at all. There are 3 crimes you can look at that cox committed to distinguish this. His first crime may have been a sexual assault, and when enraged he killed his victim suffering a nearly severed tongue in the process. THAT in itself suggest he was in a delusional state of mind believing that she wanted what he was trying to do. Having his tongue in her mouth suggests this. That type of rape is most common and usually nonviolent. However I believe he killed the woman in a rage. The other thing that is very telling is that the 2 women he abducted in California were able to persuade him to change the plan. Basically talked him out of it. This does not fit the MO of a sexual sadist like Bundy. I believe that these crimes give some insight. It definately makes me question what he really is? A killer I believe so, but what makes him fit this crime? He is not well organized in these crimes, not in complete control. Cox has always been a mystery so it makes no sense to tag him as the number one suspect. Only a couple of the police believed he was to have this dubious ranking. One FBI agent said.......... he was slow witted? so basically kinda stupid, probably why he was infantry in the army. Is it possible he did this? YES it is, but I wont waste any time on a wannabe like Cox until something really tangible comes out to make me look at him, like a vehicle, an associate who knew him personally, or his parents RECANT his alibi, it seems impossible to find someone that actually has some factual information about this idiot, other than he knew Bundy and was an army ranger. woop de frickin do

Now Steve, Moe and Curly were investigated at least equally as deep. Garrison is a rapist falling in the category of Anger-retaliatory rapist

Anger-retaliatory rapist: He feels animosity towards women and wants to punish and degrade them. Often he is a substance abuser. He is impulsive and has an explosive temper. He looks for an opportunity to commit the rape rather than for a specific victim.

This definition fits the crime he was convicted of, but he may be just as much a story teller as Cox is.

The other 2 have no history in this area, and I wont spend too much time on them, but they could fall under the category of Opportunistic rapist.

These are the type to be burglarizing a house or committing a robbery when a female walks in on them. Their intent is not to hurt the female. They are surprised by the encounter but, rather than quickly leave, they decide to take advantage of the situation and rape her. They usually aren't violent but can be, as they are unpredictable and act on impulse.

Now all of these suspects were free for a period of time after the abduction. IF sexual assault was the motive there is likely another crime that was committed by the perps.

 

[Hurricane]

Well this crime doesnt really fit Cox to a T at all. There are 3 crimes you can look at that cox committed to distinguish this. His first crime may have been a sexual assault, and when enraged he killed his victim suffering a nearly severed tongue in the process. THAT in itself suggest he was in a delusional state of mind believing that she wanted what he was trying to do. Having his tongue in her mouth suggests this. That type of rape is most common and usually nonviolent. However I believe he killed the woman in a rage. The other thing that is very telling is that the 2 women he abducted in California were able to persuade him to change the plan. Basically talked him out of it. This does not fit the MO of a sexual sadist like Bundy. I believe that these crimes give some insight. It definately makes me question what he really is? A killer I believe so, but what makes him fit this crime? He is not well organized in these crimes, not in complete control. Cox has always been a mystery so it makes no sense to tag him as the number one suspect. Only a couple of the police believed he was to have this dubious ranking. One FBI agent said.......... he was slow witted? so basically kinda stupid, probably why he was infantry in the army. Is it possible he did this? YES it is, but I wont waste any time on a wannabe like Cox until something really tangible comes out to make me look at him, like a vehicle, an associate who knew him personally, or his parents RECANT his alibi, it seems impossible to find someone that actually has some factual information about this idiot, other than he knew Bundy and was an army ranger. woop de frickin do

Now Steve, Moe and Curly were investigated at least equally as deep. Garrison is a rapist falling in the category of Anger-retaliatory rapist

Anger-retaliatory rapist: He feels animosity towards women and wants to punish and degrade them. Often he is a substance abuser. He is impulsive and has an explosive temper. He looks for an opportunity to commit the rape rather than for a specific victim.

This definition fits the crime he was convicted of, but he may be just as much a story teller as Cox is.

The other 2 have no history in this area, and I wont spend too much time on them, but they could fall under the category of Opportunistic rapist.

These are the type to be burglarizing a house or committing a robbery when a female walks in on them. Their intent is not to hurt the female. They are surprised by the encounter but, rather than quickly leave, they decide to take advantage of the situation and rape her. They usually aren't violent but can be, as they are unpredictable and act on impulse.

Now all of these suspects were free for a period of time after the abduction. IF sexual assault was the motive there is likely another crime that was committed by the perps.

This Cox angle just keeps going around and around in a circle without any new circumstantial evidence ever being added. We have been thru all of this before, always reach the same conclusions and that will never change unless and until someone finds evidence. If he were your suspect I would think that you would work towards that goal.

 

[Missouri Mule]

You're right. There's a good probability that if Cox confessed and gave up the location of the bodies, he would be offered a deal (which could include a prison with air conditioning and being closer to family). My guess as to why he hasn't done so is because he doesn't know the location of the bodies. I guess it can also be said that he still thinks there is a chance he will one day get out of jail. I forget when he will be eligible for parole, anyone know?

I believe it is 2028. That would put him well into his 60's.

Just as an aside, I was watching a L&O SVU episode tonight where the main detective voluntarily put himself into the "hole" (solitary) to see what it would do to a man's mind. It is my understanding that Cox doesn't want to leave solitary on his own volition. I've also talked to a former SPD police officer and the consensus appears to be that it will drive a person nuts in short order.

I seriously doubt that Texas is likely to release him. He is serving a life sentence and they merely have to decline to release him. With his background and knowing how Texas throws the book at criminals I doubt he will see outside the prison walls in his lifetime. He is widely suspected in other murders per my understanding. As I believe was previously pointed out, he had in his possession a "kill kit" consisting of duct tape and other "tools of the trade" necessary to carry out abductions at the time he was arrested. It is unlikely the Texas parole board is going to look past this incriminating evidence of his future intentions. But evidently he clings to the slim hope that he will one day be freed from prison.

 

[MHamby]

I was always under the impression that he will not implicate himself in this kidnapping/rape/murder because of what occurred in Florida. On death row one day, and then free the next. Makes me think that he has the mindset that this will happen in this case as well.

Whether or not it will, and whether or not he committed the crimes regarding the 3MW, if he continues to hold onto the possibility of being released, I don't see him giving any specific evidence that would incriminate himself. Assuming he did it of course.

If he isn't the criminal in this case, then he is just looking for 'something to do' or to keep his name out there or... a number of other things that I'm sure is abnormal.

What I really want to know is if he has been clinically diagnosed with any disorders. One of the big signs of a Psychopath is manipulation. I could see a psychopath alluding to 'all these things that I know' but refusing to go any further. In that case, I would strongly look at him regarding these crimes.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I was always under the impression that he will not implicate himself in this kidnapping/rape/murder because of what occurred in Florida. On death row one day, and then free the next. Makes me think that he has the mindset that this will happen in this case as well.

Whether or not it will, and whether or not he committed the crimes regarding the 3MW, if he continues to hold onto the possibility of being released, I don't see him giving any specific evidence that would incriminate himself. Assuming he did it of course.

If he isn't the criminal in this case, then he is just looking for 'something to do' or to keep his name out there or... a number of other things that I'm sure is abnormal.

What I really want to know is if he has been clinically diagnosed with any disorders. One of the big signs of a Psychopath is manipulation. I could see a psychopath alluding to 'all these things that I know' but refusing to go any further. In that case, I would strongly look at him regarding these crimes.

I would think you will find that all psychopaths are by nature manipulators. You wouldn't know this but I have seen the analysis of his writings by an expert on deciphering these things and it was his view that everything that Cox put into those letters and what he has had to say were carefully calculated only to say what he intended to say just short of confessing.

What I find inexplicable is how anyone could voluntarily consign themselves to "the hole" in prison. That makes absolutely no sense to me.

What is true is that even if he were to freely admit that he killed the women it is not enough to convict him. It would not be sufficient in and of itself to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he actually committed the crime. He would have to show something that only the police have knowedge of. And this is what makes the consensus so puzzling to me. How is it that they are so certain this was a sexual assault case absent blood or semen DNA? If he were to confess to the crimes and state that he would only give up the bodies upon return to Missouri he could always fuzz up the facts like "Moe" did when he claimed to know where the bodies were secreted. The mere fact of getting out of the Texas hellhole where he is holed up and back in Missouri would be worth the while of his jerking the police around. I can't imagine that the Texas authorities would raise too much of a fuss if they could get rid of him for a few months or even years. He could always be returned to Texas if he produced nothing. And he could always claim he learned of their remains through other means and had nothing direct to do with the crimes. Short of something that links him directly to the crime does not produce a conviction. Seems he has a lot of running room that he is not utilizing. He could also get a life sentence as part of a plea deal if only he would come clean. Otherwise he will rot in Texas which makes no sense to me. And if he had nothing to do with the crimes why doesn't he simply deny it and ask to be released into the general population? I'm not getting that part. The only possible reason I can come up with is if he is part of the Aryan Brotherhood sworn to secrecy and he fears he would be offed should he be released into the general population. Otherwise he should be able to hold his own among the regular inmates with his Army Ranger training.

 

[monkeymann]

I think you're overrating any abilities he might have aquired through his "Army Ranger" training. I doubt he came out of ranger school a finely honed killing machine. A lot of people go through ranger school. Officers are notorious for going through ranger school just so they can wear the ranger tab and so it looks good in their personnel file when it comes time for promotion. Now if this guy had gone through special forces school I would feel differently. But I knew several guys when I was in the army what had the ranger tab and most of them weren't anything special. They had just gone through the school....which is only like 10 weeks long.
Now the Aryan Brotherhood notion sounds more feasible. Weren't the "Robbs" into the aryan white power/kkk thing? The Robb's were the one's who's farm was searched by authoritys looking for evidence in the 3MW case, a few years ago. It was on the border of Missouri and Arkansas If I recall correctly....wonder if their is a connection there? I still think this crime was one that was committed or planned by someone who knew the mother at the very least. I know we've discussed this before, but weren 't there rumers regarding money that it was thought that Sherrill kept in the house? And don't I recall correctly there being something about her closet having the appearance that It had been riffled through? Help me out here...I don't want to have to go through the old posts to clarify this info If I don't have to!!

 

[monkeymann]

Also...Didn't authorities find part of an old van buried on the Robb farm? I seem to recall there being a picture floating around of it....if I recall it was an old green van...or what appeared to be part of it. I don't recall what conclusions the authorties came to after the investigation/dig at the Robb farm?

 

[Missouri Mule]

Also...Didn't authorities find part of an old van buried on the Robb farm? I seem to recall there being a picture floating around of it....if I recall it was an old green van...or what appeared to be part of it. I don't recall what conclusions the authorties came to after the investigation/dig at the Robb farm?

My recollection is that there have actually been six people who have been murdered and disposed of there at one time or another. I wouldn't put anything past any of them.

Getting back to Cox, I've given my reasons why I believe he should top the list of suspects and why he could have done the crime. Unless I am mistaken, he is in fact at the top of the list of suspects as stated by the news articles. But all this aside, we have the information that some four agencies who have looked at the case decided, evidently sometime ago, that sexual assault was the motive. There has to be some reason to believe that. And they have 12 suspects; all the same individuals although not in the same order of probability. There must be something driving this belief. But we don't know what it is. As I understand it, this consensus was reached in 1995, some two years or so prior to the SPD sending down two senior officers to interview Cox and evidently believing he held the key to solving the crime.

We have the unanswered question of why he remains voluntarily in "the hole" unless he fears for his life. If what I have heard of the Aryan Brotherhood is correct, one could conceive that they have put out a contract on his life just to ensure that he shut up about the crime fearing his running his mouth as he has done indicates he would be he weak link in the veil of secrecy if one exists. That is the only reasonable explanation I can think why he would voluntarily stay in solitary and not released into the general population.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aryan_Brotherhood

"According to the FBI, although the gang makes up less than 1% of the prison population, it is responsible for up to 18% of murders in the federal prison system...

"The Aryan Brotherhood is believed to have been formed by a group of bikers in 1964 at San Quentin State Prison,[4]"

 

[Trooogrit]

Also...Didn't authorities find part of an old van buried on the Robb farm? I seem to recall there being a picture floating around of it....if I recall it was an old green van...or what appeared to be part of it. I don't recall what conclusions the authorties came to after the investigation/dig at the Robb farm?

No that was not the Robb Farm in Casseville. THe Robb farm was a different dig. Cassville didnt yield anything more than the other digs, but they did find part of a green vehicle in the damn. THey believed it was a solid lead, but there is little information out there about the tip or the owner of the farm.

 

[monkeymann]

I was just re-reading the letter Cox wrote in 2002. In it he make a statement about an interview that "Dennis Graves" did. He goes on to say that if you watch that interview you'll have Cox's theory of what happened that night. Anyone remember that. And if so, who is Dennis Graves, and what "Theory" is Cox talking about?

 

[Missouri Mule]

I was just re-reading the letter Cox wrote in 2002. In it he make a statement about an interview that "Dennis Graves" did. He goes on to say that if you watch that interview you'll have Cox's theory of what happened that night. Anyone remember that. And if so, who is Dennis Graves, and what "Theory" is Cox talking about?

Graves was a long time television reporter for KY3. As I recall he may have retired from there a number of years ago. He frequently did these kinds of reports. Offhand I don't know that I ever saw it having left the area in 2001. If it were prior to 2001 I don't recall having seen it. For some reason, the prosecutor wanted that tape and I believe filed some kind of court action to subpoena it. One could extrapolate from that action that it had some kind of evidentiary value. Otherwise, merely having the blitherings of a "idiot" would hardly be worth the effort. It is entirely possible that the prosecutor intended to use this in a grand jury action to bring him to justice in Missouri. Had they got him into the grand jury much more leeway would have been allowed to get him to open up as he wouldn't be under the protection of his defense attorney except as an observer (if I understand the procedure) as in an actual court trial. One must assume that beneath these smoke and mirrors was the belief that Cox held the key to unlocking this case or an attempt to get the tape would not have ensued. Unless of course it was all a political show which is altogether possible.

Well, I stand corrected. This is the story.

"In 1996, KY3 News investigative reporter Dennis Graves traveled to a Texas prison to interview Robert Craig Cox. Cox, once convicted of murdering a woman in Florida, had been in Springfield at the time of the disappearances and had been questioned by police. Cox claims he was home alone in bed that night.

Graves extensively interviewed Cox, hoping for a clue. Cox eventually shared his theory on the case.

I know that they are dead. I'll say that. And I know that," said Cox.

Graves replied, "That's not a theory." Cox responded, "I just know that they are dead. That's not my theory. I just know that. There's no doubt about that."


Graves' interview was subpoenaed by authorities and presented before a grand jury called on the case in 1996. That grand jury never handed up any charges."...

(Snip)

http://www.ky3.com/home/related/7876067.html

 

[monkeymann]

"In 1996, KY3 News investigative reporter Dennis Graves traveled to a Texas prison to interview Robert Craig Cox. Cox, once convicted of murdering a woman in Florida, had been in Springfield at the time of the disappearances and had been questioned by police. Cox claims he was home alone in bed that night.

Graves extensively interviewed Cox, hoping for a clue. Cox eventually shared his theory on the case.

I know that they are dead. I'll say that. And I know that," said Cox.

Graves replied, "That's not a theory." Cox responded, "I just know that they are dead. That's not my theory. I just know that. There's no doubt about that."

Wow...Thanks for finding that!
So what does this tell us? Is he mearly speculating? Is he speaking from 1st hand knowledge?

 

[Trooogrit]

Wow...Thanks for finding that!
So what does this tell us? Is he mearly speculating? Is he speaking from 1st hand knowledge?

Thats exactly the reaction he wants you to have.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Wow...Thanks for finding that!
So what does this tell us? Is he mearly speculating? Is he speaking from 1st hand knowledge?

No way to know. This is why I think it would have been good to get Cox before the grand jury to provide actual testimony and respond to direct questions. He couldn't refuse to answer under the grand jury rules. A good prosecutor should be able to cut through the bulloney and find out if he is blowing smoke or actually knows something.

Who must testify before a grand jury?

• A prosecutor can obtain a subpoena to compel anyone to testify before a grand jury, without showing probable cause and, in most jurisdictions, without even showing that the person subpoenaed is likely to have relevant information. In the federal system the prosecutor is not required to demonstrate any relevance. The person subpoenaed to testify then is compelled to answer questions unless he or she can claim a specific privilege, such as the marital privilege, lawyer/client privilege, or the privilege against self-incrimination."...

If the grand jury refuses to return an indictment, can the prosecutor come back and try again, or is that barred by double jeopardy?

• Double jeopardy does not apply to the grand jury. In practice, however, it is uncommon for a prosecutor, having failed once, to try again without good reason. The Department of Justice requires the prosecutor to obtain permission of the Assistant Attorney General for the Criminal Division to present the case again.

http://www.abanet.org/media/faqjury.html

At the very least this would be a good way to include or exclude him from the list of viable suspects. I don't think this is exactly rocket science to use a cliche.

"Mr. Cox, you say that you know the women are deceased by your own statements on camera. How do you know that?" And then wait for him to explain. If he hems and haws or claims the 5th, then consider indicting him anyway. (The indictment could always be dismissed and a new indictment as the evidence is better established) I'd drag his sorry carcass into court and put him through purgatory on the witness stand. At the very least there would be a chance to see him in person under real duress. If some of the highest officers in the land have been subjected to this treatment why is Cox given a pass? Either he puts up or he shuts up. And I'd sure like to know why he self segregates himself into "the hole" in Texas. There has to be a reason.

So far as I know he was never dragged into a grand jury proceeding. If that understanding is incorrect, I stand to be correct.

 

[Hurricane]

This case is not a federal case and therefore Federal Grand Jury rules do not apply.

1)Investigating criminal activity
At the federal level, grand juries can, and do, investigate criminal activity, especially organized crime. They do not, however, initiate their own investigations. Perhaps because federal criminal law tends to be very complicated, federal grand juries are simply the instrument federal prosecutors use to conduct their own investigations of possible crimes

State investigating grand juries can be divided into three categories. In some states, including Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and North Carolina, grand juries are limited to investigating criminal activity that is brought to their attention by a prosecutor or by a court. Grand juries in other states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, can investigate any activity that appears to violate the criminal law of their state as long as the activity in question occurs within their venue, which is usually the county in which the grand jury sits. The third category is composed of state grand juries that investigate certain kinds of criminal activity, which often involves drug crimes or organized crime. These grand juries, which are known as "special grand juries," "statewide grand juries," "state grand juries" or "multicounty grand juries," usually sit in addition to the more conventional grand juries that are usually convened in these states.
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/funcsgj.htm

The accused is not questioned before the Grand Jury in the state of Missouri; cannot call witnesses in his behalf; and has no legal right to be present.
This from the Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer website:

A second way to bring charges in the circuit court is through the grand jury. The grand jury is called to serve by the presiding circuit judge, typically at the request of the prosecuting attorney. The grand jury consists of 12 citizens selected by the court from a randomly chosen master jury list.

Once the grand jury is sworn in, they meet in secret and the prosecutor presents evidence to them in the cases he wants them to consider. There is no judge present. The accused has no right to attend, no right to question the evidence, or put on his side of the case. There is no record made in most cases. The prosecutor leaves the room while the jurors decide which “indictments” they will issue. Nine jurors must agree. The result is almost always whatever the prosecutor wants.

The fairness of this process is dependent on the judgment and integrity of the prosecutor. Most of the time the grand jury gives the prosecutor what he wants. If he has a reluctant witness, he just brings in a police officer to repeat what the victim told him. Hearsay is common in front of the grand jury.

Not only can a prosecutor get an indictment in a case that would never survive a preliminary hearing, he can easily avoid an indictment in a high-profile case by presenting his case in a way that insures that the grand jury will not indict. It’s great political cover because the grand jury gets the blame but is bound by secrecy rules that prevent anyone from knowing what really happened. The familiar criticism that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” is only a mild exaggeration.

http://blog.jeffcitylaw.com/?p=656

 

[Missouri Mule]

This case is not a federal case and therefore Federal Grand Jury rules do not apply.

1)Investigating criminal activity
At the federal level, grand juries can, and do, investigate criminal activity, especially organized crime. They do not, however, initiate their own investigations. Perhaps because federal criminal law tends to be very complicated, federal grand juries are simply the instrument federal prosecutors use to conduct their own investigations of possible crimes

State investigating grand juries can be divided into three categories. In some states, including Arizona, Florida, Louisiana, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana, and North Carolina, grand juries are limited to investigating criminal activity that is brought to their attention by a prosecutor or by a court. Grand juries in other states, including Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, California, Idaho, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Nebraska, Nevada, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia and West Virginia, can investigate any activity that appears to violate the criminal law of their state as long as the activity in question occurs within their venue, which is usually the county in which the grand jury sits. The third category is composed of state grand juries that investigate certain kinds of criminal activity, which often involves drug crimes or organized crime. These grand juries, which are known as "special grand juries," "statewide grand juries," "state grand juries" or "multicounty grand juries," usually sit in addition to the more conventional grand juries that are usually convened in these states.
http://campus.udayton.edu/~grandjur/stategj/funcsgj.htm

The accused is not questioned before the Grand Jury in the state of Missouri; cannot call witnesses in his behalf; and has no legal right to be present.
This from the Missouri Criminal Defense Lawyer website:

A second way to bring charges in the circuit court is through the grand jury. The grand jury is called to serve by the presiding circuit judge, typically at the request of the prosecuting attorney. The grand jury consists of 12 citizens selected by the court from a randomly chosen master jury list.

Once the grand jury is sworn in, they meet in secret and the prosecutor presents evidence to them in the cases he wants them to consider. There is no judge present. The accused has no right to attend, no right to question the evidence, or put on his side of the case. There is no record made in most cases. The prosecutor leaves the room while the jurors decide which “indictments” they will issue. Nine jurors must agree. The result is almost always whatever the prosecutor wants.

The fairness of this process is dependent on the judgment and integrity of the prosecutor. Most of the time the grand jury gives the prosecutor what he wants. If he has a reluctant witness, he just brings in a police officer to repeat what the victim told him. Hearsay is common in front of the grand jury.

Not only can a prosecutor get an indictment in a case that would never survive a preliminary hearing, he can easily avoid an indictment in a high-profile case by presenting his case in a way that insures that the grand jury will not indict. It’s great political cover because the grand jury gets the blame but is bound by secrecy rules that prevent anyone from knowing what really happened. The familiar criticism that a prosecutor could persuade a grand jury to “indict a ham sandwich” is only a mild exaggeration.

http://blog.jeffcitylaw.com/?p=656

I was aware this would more likely than not be a county grand jury but is there any reason the county prosecutor could NOT inquire of the accused? The fact that an indictment is as easy as "indicting a ham sandwich" certainly applies. Are you saying that the prosecutor may NOT inquire of the accused? I'm not clear on that at all. If that is the case then a major tool of the prosecutor is taken out of his hands in that the accused merely needs to be silent and everything is up to the prosecutor to pull together without benefit of giving the third degree to the defendant. Help me with this.

This part is not in question:

"cannot call witnesses in his behalf; and has no legal right to be present."

Is the prosecutor prohibited from questioning the accused? I can't imagine why his hands would be tied in this fashion. That obviates one of the many advantages of having the grand jury. In essense the prosecutor merely goes before the grand jury and asks for an indictment and the grand jurors would merely be rubber stamp functionaries. If that is the only real purpose of a state grand jury in Missouri, then the law needs to be changed so the prosecutor can go after the accused tooth and toenail. This Cox is playing everyone for a fool and getting by with it, apparently. No wonder he has clammed up.

Please clear up one other thing for me.

1) The grave robbing matter was a county grand jury if my memory serves me correctly.

2) But wasn't the 1994 grand jury a federal grand jury involving "Moe", "Larry" and "Curly?" If that was a federal grand jury, there must have been a reason for this; perhaps because of the FBI involvement and the kidnapping laws. How has that actually changed? Wouldn't the same principle still apply? Everyone knows the women just didn't up and disappear of their own volition.

 

[Hurricane]

There is no proof that can be made of kidnapping or any other federal crime committed in the 3MW case. Therefore the two GJ’s in which witnesses were called and evidence of facts was presented in this case were both GJ’s impaneled under the District Court of the State of Missouri. No federal GJ’s have received any testimony concerning this case.


No Federal or State GJ is conducted in the same manner as a trial. There is no judge, no defendant or defense attorney ever present, and no spectators. GJ’s are pretty much conducted in secrecy. The suspect (he is not even the accused or a defendant at this point) cannot be called or questioned as a witness, and cannot be present. Witnesses, including LE and family members of both the victim(s) and the suspect can be called by the District Attorney. I am not sure and can be wrong on this point, but the witnesses called in front of the GJ are not compelled to testify. They can take the 5th if their testimony would tend to incriminate them in a crime. The DA would then have to rely on the testimony of LE as to what that particular witness told them.


Evidence concerning the possible involvement of Robert Cox in the 3MW case was presented in the second of the two GJ’s in this case. We know that his parents and his girlfriend were called as witnesses. It is entirely possible that others such as his brother, ex-wife, employer, etc were called if they had information concerning his activities and whereabouts during that time and the DA wished to present their testimony. Most of what would come out in testimony would be already known by LE from their investigation. In any case there was not enough there to convince either Moore or the jury to get the indictment. Had Moore been completely convinced of Cox’s guilt, and that he could have gotten a conviction at trial, then Moore could have structured his presentation before the GJ in such a way that he would have gotten a true bill leading to an indictment. The same can be said about the GJ3. Obviously the evidence was not there to make Moore comfortable in thinking that he would get a conviction at trial. Otherwise he would have gotten the indictment.

Correction: The Aug. 1994 GJ that received testimony on the suspects commonly referred to as the GJ3 was a Federal Grand Jury. I previously stated that it was not.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Evidently I was misinformed. It was my impression that the grave robbing matter was handled by a county grand jury and the 1994 grand jury was at the federal level. I have mentioned this several times and to my knowledge this was never corrected. In any event, it appears that according to your understanding Cox can not be compelled to testify which would explain in part why he has clammed up and won't speak further about it. Thanks for clearing up the matter.

I am intrigued that no inference that kidnapping did not occur. I thought that was self-evident. What standard of proof does the FBI have to have before they become directly involved? Do you know offhand? Is it necessary to actually receive a ransom demand before it becomes an official case?

Let me ask you a question. Do you have any knowledge of whether the Ayran Brotherhood was in any way involved? I have the distinct impression that I was once apprised by a local LE officer that if there were involvment that information would never be forthcoming. The local biker gang was evidently ruled out by a statement of Lt. Tony Glenn early on but as I understand it the Aryan Brotherhood and biker gangs are often intertwined. Thoughts?

One final question. Do you have any thoughts why Cox self-segregates to solitary? I'm not getting the rationale behind that short of a belief on his part that he would be at threat of death should he be released into the general population. That suggests the possibility that the Aryan Brotherhood may be involved and they may also be among the 12 agreed upon suspects. Of course I am just speculating at this point.

 

[Hurricane]

Evidently I was misinformed.

It was my impression that the grave robbing matter was handled by a county grand jury and the 1994 grand jury was at the federal level.

I have mentioned this several times and to my knowledge this was never corrected. In any event, it appears that according to your understanding Cox can not be compelled to testify which would explain in part why he has clammed up and won't speak further about it. Thanks for clearing up the matter.

I am intrigued that no inference that kidnapping did not occur. I thought that was self-evident. What standard of proof does the FBI have to have before they become directly involved? Do you know offhand? Is it necessary to actually receive a ransom demand before it becomes an official case?

Let me ask you a question. Do you have any knowledge of whether the Ayran Brotherhood was in any way involved? I have the distinct impression that I was once apprised by a local LE officer that if there were involvment that information would never be forthcoming. The local biker gang was evidently ruled out by a statement of Lt. Tony Glenn early on but as I understand it the Aryan Brotherhood and biker gangs are often intertwined. Thoughts?

One final question. Do you have any thoughts why Cox self-segregates to solitary? I'm not getting the rationale behind that short of a belief on his part that he would be at threat of death should he be released into the general population. That suggests the possibility that the Aryan Brotherhood may be involved and they may also be among the 12 agreed upon suspects. Of course I am just speculating at this point.

You are correct in the Aug. 1994 GJ being a Federal GJ and I have corrected my earlier post. However there was no need for the eveidence concerning the grave robbers to be presented to a GJ. Each was bound over for trial after a preliminary hearing.

 

[monkeymann]

When and How did the "Aryan Brotherhood" become suspects? I've never heard this angle.