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

[Missouri Mule]

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

You can't respond to whether you have a police contact????

That's a simple yes or no answer. I didn't ask you if you had through independent investigation had determined reliable information led to a definite "blood relationship" connection.

If you have a police contact, I suppose you might be wanting to protect your source. If so, I congratulate you for you have, in that event, broken through the blue code of silence. Good for you.

I hope I'm wrong because if what is being discussed over at Air Alex is that indictments are in the offing. There may be something to this based on recent contacts with people close to the investigation. Perhaps Cox is uninvolved. Then you'll be right and I'll be wrong. The important thing is to bring this case to an end and find out what happened. I'm not so proud that I can't bring myself to say I was wrong. I just have to go on where the facts lead me.

 

[Indianagirl]

Please....let's not all go to the verifying and/or providing sources battle. Let's just stick to the rules. If you can't provide a source, don't mention it. I really want us all to get along this time and try to help in any way we can. This post is directed to everyone!

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Hi, everyone. Sorry I didn't respond in a more timely way. It was very cold yesterday and my main computer is in my basement office. And there was the little matter of the AFC conference title game yesterday, a national holiday in my home town. I can't copy and paste from the iPad so I decided to wait until today until I came into the "office" office.

Statement analysis is not junk science; it is used by the FBI and many other LE agencies. I know a number of people who have been trained to use it, most often in response to live interviews. It is really based in large part on linguistics (which I teach), focusing on word meanings and choices, sentence structure and other aspects of speech and writing that may be largely unconscious to the person doing the speaking or writing.

For example, a kid breaks a lamp while horsing around indoors. The mother sees it and asks what happened. The kid responds in the passive voice: "The lamp was broken." The kid doesn't say, "HMMM, use passive voice to avoid responsibility." It's just how people unconsciously phrase such a statement when they don't want to say who did it. It is used more consciously by PR people who construct "apologies" or "explanations" for bad behavior that actually say the person wasn't responsible for anything, e.g., "I am sorry if people were offended," which shifts focus to the reaction, not the initiating action.

Anyway. Here is a link to Mark McClish's site, which is great and full of information. The analysis I did on Cox is in the Cox thread. McClish looked at the information and said I was on the right track. Written language is less spontaneous than speech, but while people can try to revise and craft and sculpt to control their meanings, syntax particularly is mostly unconscious, in particular the relationship between syntax and thought. Even people who try to control what they write give away much more than they think, which is why getting a letter from a suitor often ended in a break-up for me. I can see too much.

This stuff is not admissible in court, any more than body language analysis or a veteran detective's gut instinct is admissible. But it is a powerful investigative tool, suggesting points for interviewers and detectives to follow up on. If what we want to know is where Cox is lying, hiding information, being deceptive, or trying to manipulate, this is a tool we can use.

http://www.statementanalysis.com/

The majority of the Statement Analysis techniques are based on word definitions. Every word has a meaning. When you combine this with the fact that people mean exactly what they are saying, it then becomes possible to determine what a person is telling you and if the person is being truthful. Look at the following statement which was given during a job interview. Is this person being truthful or deceptive?

"You know, I am trying to be as honest as possible."

In this one sentence, there are three things which tell us what this person is saying.

The subject starts off saying "you know." The subject expects us to take for granted that he is being honest. The problem is he has not told us he is being honest. He did not state "I am being honest." He states "you know" but we do not know. We cannot believe he is being honest unless he tells us he is honest.

The subject goes on to say, "I am trying to be as honest as possible." The word "trying" means attempted, failed, didn't do it. The subject is clearly telling us he is not being honest. He is only attempting to be honest.

He ends his statement by saying "I am trying to be as honest as possible." The words "as possible" mean the subject has a limitation to his honesty. He can be honest up to a certain point. Apparently at this point in the interview he reached his limitation.

When you first glance at this statement, it appears the subject is sincere and being forthright. However, upon close examination of the words he uses we see that he is being deceptive and that he is not very good at it. Even though he wants us to believe he is being truthful, his language clearly tells us he is not being honest.

McClish has worked as a federal agent in the Secret Service and as a US Marshall. He's not a "psychic" or medium or some other paranormal investigator. He doesn't get into handwriting analysis, but that, too, has a long provenance in investigative circle. Anyway, what I think is on the Cox thread, from work I did on his letters in 2009. I am not a professional at statement analysis, but I have a Ph.D. in English and teach linguistics, not a certificate from the psychic hotline.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I posted this on the Cox thread, 5.28.2009.

Let me say something else, from the point of view of a writing teacher and a person who has studied linguistics. Cox may well have labored long and hard on these letters. He may have drafted and copied and recopied. Whatever. The sort of things that statement analysis looks at are often unconscious things: shifts in verb tense, passive vs. active voice, word choice (abduction vs. disappearance.) Even very good writers often don't notice these things they do and what they show. I have no doubt that Cox loves baiting people when he is interviewed or writes to them, but he can't help but give away more than he wants to, because so much of language use is unconscious. That is, someone knows what they want to say but given enough opportunity they will reveal more than they think they are revealing. I do think the VERBAL language is more indicative, however, and harder to control, which is why I am looking forward to seeing the KY3 tape.

And even if it means that it takes Kathee longer to upload this video, the longer the video itself, the better. More opportunities to see what Cox is lying about. 'Cause you know he's lying.

 

[Hurricane]

I posted this on the Cox thread, 5.28.2009.

Did you ever get to see the KY-3 interview tape? If not, then everything you have determined about Cox lying came from 2 letters that you examined? (Were there more than 2 letters made available?) What was it in those letters that led you to the conclusion that he was lying other than his choosing to use the word “disappearance” rather than “abduction”? That is the only specific example that I see you have given in your 2009 post while looking forward to viewing the KY-3 interview. I would agree with you that he loves attention and wants to bait people; I believe he wanted to bait them into thinking that he knew something about this crime. He wanted the attention. When the attention he created for himself became overbearing he clammed up and will no longer grant interviews without stipulations attached. I don't know that I agree with your comment that you know he's lying. I don't know that he is lying.

If handwriting analysis has a long provenance in investigative work as you say, then is it considered “junk science”? Isn’t handwriting analysis to some degree a part of statement analysis, and vice versa? Wouldn’t a graphologist who has worked on cases for the FBI and other LE agencies be able to come to their own opinion as to whether Cox was lying for example, or as to how intelligent he might be, just as you have? We have been told by Missouri Mule since the day you stopped posting on this case that graphology is akin to phrenology and is junk science and that graphologist Shelia Kurtz is nothing but a crackpot, all because he disagrees with her professional opinion of Cox. He wants to make Cox into another Ted Bundy; he calls Bundy “the master”.

MM has also stated that you have studied my writings and said that I have a 3rd rate intellect. If you said that without communicating with me I am greatly disappointed. Makes me think that I should return the scholarship money which paid for my expenses 3 of the 4 years of my undergraduate studies. And that I was only occupying a chair as I pursued a Master’s degree, dropping out 6 hrs + 1 thesis paper short of completion when my first daughter was born, never to return (wasn’t looking forward to the thesis anyway). I didn’t go the psychic hotline certificate route or the matchbook university route either. And the internet online universities had not yet been created.

 

[Missouri Mule]

To be perfectly clear I've never said that handwriting analysis in and of itself is junk science. That is to say that words DO have meanings and those meanings do provide insights into a person's veracity. That is where linguistics and semantics come into relevance.

On the other hand, if someone deliberately writes with misspellings, improper grammar, and says things in such a way that might lead a gullible person to believe they are stupid or poorly educated that only proves they are using another tool to cover their intentions or involvement. We've had one such alleged account of a prisoner named "Hoss" who claimed to have been in a cell with someone in Texas who claimed to have heard a confession to these murders. Not for a second do I believe that "Hoss" was some ignorant street person who just happened onto this (?) and other sites. I have no idea who this person is but he isn't who he claimed to be.

I've said or implied that to extrapolate from handwriting itself such unfounded ideas that someone is "slow witted" is nutty. It is not unreasonable to believe that a person could write something that would deliberately convey that they are dim witted. That doesn't make it so. Analyzing handwriting to determine subtle nuances and meanings is perfectly legitimate. And I did post references to why graphology and phrenology are indeed junk science. Surely no one can defend either concept.

In order to determine Cox's intellect we would need to see his military personnel files and his school records; some of which might indicate his actual IQ level. But we don't have that. And furthermore because he doesn't use the most perfect of techniques to commit his crimes does not indicate that in other instances he isn't in complete control of his mental faculties. Indeed, he must have something on the ball to have been awarded "Soldier of the Year" while in the Army Rangers. A stupid person does not rise to that level being dull witted.

I saw and listened to a 35 minute video recording of Ted Bundy the night before he was executed and he hemmed and hawed but never would provide a true insight into the truly evil acts he committed. Indeed, he told James Dobson (the interviewer) that he had been raised in a nice "Christian" family. The probability that he acted on much baser instincts to satisfy his sick cravings overcame his higher reasoning abilities. It is not unreasonable to believe that Cox behaved in the similar manner. In the 3MW case, if he was involved, he may have exercised both his higher reasoning abilities and his baser instincts and through the unwitting contamination of the crime scene managed to pull off the "perfect crime." The crime for which he is in prison today may be when he slipped into his bad habits where he didn't cover his tracks very well having been so successful in the past so he got sloppy. Ultimately criminals usually do. That's why they are caught.

It has always been my belief this thread is about solving or shedding light on the facts of the case and drawing logical inferences based on known facts. My only interest is in seeing this case to a successful conclusion.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Did you ever get to see the KY-3 interview tape? If not, then everything you have determined about Cox lying came from 2 letters that you examined? (Were there more than 2 letters made available?) What was it in those letters that led you to the conclusion that he was lying other than his choosing to use the word “disappearance” rather than “abduction”? That is the only specific example that I see you have given in your 2009 post while looking forward to viewing the KY-3 interview. I would agree with you that he loves attention and wants to bait people; I believe he wanted to bait them into thinking that he knew something about this crime. He wanted the attention. When the attention he created for himself became overbearing he clammed up and will no longer grant interviews without stipulations attached. I don't know that I agree with your comment that you know he's lying. I don't know that he is lying.

If handwriting analysis has a long provenance in investigative work as you say, then is it considered “junk science”? Isn’t handwriting analysis to some degree a part of statement analysis, and vice versa? Wouldn’t a graphologist who has worked on cases for the FBI and other LE agencies be able to come to their own opinion as to whether Cox was lying for example, or as to how intelligent he might be, just as you have? We have been told by Missouri Mule since the day you stopped posting on this case that graphology is akin to phrenology and is junk science and that graphologist Shelia Kurtz is nothing but a crackpot, all because he disagrees with her professional opinion of Cox. He wants to make Cox into another Ted Bundy; he calls Bundy “the master”.

MM has also stated that you have studied my writings and said that I have a 3rd rate intellect. If you said that without communicating with me I am greatly disappointed. Makes me think that I should return the scholarship money which paid for my expenses 3 of the 4 years of my undergraduate studies. And that I was only occupying a chair as I pursued a Master’s degree, dropping out 6 hrs + 1 thesis paper short of completion when my first daughter was born, never to return (wasn’t looking forward to the thesis anyway). I didn’t go the psychic hotline certificate route or the matchbook university route either. And the internet online universities had not yet been created.

I have no idea what you are talking about; I have not commented on your intellect, but the comment you attribute to MM is actually, I think, a comment that a handwriting expert made about Cox. I'd go back and re-read that. There is no reason I would do a statement analysis on another poster. I think that would violate both TOS and civility. So I am puzzled. I am sorry that you had any reason to think I would behave that way. I am sure it is a misunderstanding, but I will need to go back and reread to see what went awry.

I did an analysis of the written letters from Cox to a reporter that are among the links we have used for years on this case. There are interviews but I didn't see them; shortly after I did the work on Cox's letter, I took a little WS sabbatical after my mother's death. So I am just picking things up again now.

I did three or four long posts, quoting Cox and then, as best as I can, being an amateur, took a shot at analyzing Cox's letters. I didn't leave anything out or cherry-pick passages. I didn't get much response at the time. The work is all there on the short Cox thread for anyone to see. I believe that he is lying about a number of things and covering up a number of things, based on what I read. I am again interested in the tapes, if Kathee ever got them posted.

Statement analysis is based on linguistics; see the link for the McClish website. It is not the same as handwriting analysis, etc.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I think there is room for all sorts of ideas about this case. I have changed my mind dozens of times about motive, venue, and suspect. I still have issues about the purses and the anonymous phone calls, which might be coincidental red herrings. It will be more useful and more fun if we can respect our differences and not try to score points off each other or take shots at people. This is my favorite case to work on because the people who post here are all smart, and hopefully willing to listen to other perspectives. I think we all want it to stay that way. And I do hope that Bartt comes back to read and post again, as I am most interested in anything he wants to talk about. If we behave well, he might come to see that we care very much about his family and this case. Just a thought.

 

[Missouri Mule]

A couple of observations and then I won't pursue the subject further regarding handwriting analysis. As is well known, people afflicted with ALS, cerebral palsy and MS would have difficulty writing clearly. Obviously that would tell us nothing about a person's intellect. More commonly many people have a condition known as essential tremor which tends to run in families. It is difficult to write clearly and may appear to reflect on a person's nervousness or otherwise give an erroneous view of the person.

I was out walking and thinking about this case and thinking about Cox's letters and where he referred to "Steve." As I have stated I have believed but cannot prove that he was referring to Steve Garrison, the convicted rapist in a Missouri prison. He is, I believe, the person who claimed to know where the remains were deposited but could never, or on the advice of his counsel, couldn't or wouldn't produce the goods. He like Cox remains mum in their prison cells to the present day.

But as I thought about this, perhaps, just perhaps, Cox was really referring to Steve Zellers, the brother of Sharon Zellers, the girl that Cox was convicted of murdering and throwing into a sewer nearby a motel where he or she was staying (can't recall precisely). Zellers was written up in a news article that I viewed last night as having a very strong motive to want to bring Cox to some kind of justice since it was taken away with the conviction being overturned in Florida. Zellers and/or his family contacted the SPD shortly after the abductions.

I was thinking about this because Cox undoubtedly knew how the Zellers felt about him. It is not totally out of the question that he actually was referring to Steve Zellers when he made reference to "Steve" in his letter. Although it would have made no sense to connect Steve Zellers to the missing women case it would be a somewhat clever way to muddy the waters on the part of Cox by being vague. Why didn't he make it perfectly clear by saying "Steve Garrison" or "Steve Zellers?" Perhaps it was deliberate. If so, it is further evidence that Cox was always thinking of how he could go right to the edge but never give up anything that would move him closer to indictment. Virtually every word in his letters, as per my recollection, was written to convey what he wanted convey and no more.

http://books.google.com/books?id=9v...=steve zellers florida sharon zellers&f=false

Just my idle speculation. Anyone can comment.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Found this from 2009 on Websleuths. It almost certainly confirms that Cox was referring to Garrison and not Zellers. That was something I wanted to nail down. Doesn't prove anything but at the minimum it establishes that Cox was aware of Garrison and his potential involvement. See what you think.

"Cox, like Garrison, believes police lost the chance to answer that question a long time ago.

Garrison is serving 40 years in prison for raping, sodomizing and terrorizing a female Springfield college student in the summer of 1993.

After tracking him and several associates almost exclusively for more than a year, police have since backed off Garrison. But not all the way off. They last approached him last summer. Six months ago, investigators looked to Colorado for information on Garrison, who is in a Missouri prison.

"They've never let up on me," Garrison says."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ERswxBkqOgAJ:www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D59845%26highlight%3Dcheevers%26page%3D33+%22steven+eugene+garrison%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

From Cox's 1997 PDF letter which I quote:

"I would have to agree with Steve's comment that the investigators blew their opportunity to solve this case a long time ago." in referring to "Steve."

Sounds the same to me. Cox may have read it in the newspaper accounts but it is almost identical. However, we do not know what their relationship, if any, actually was. Minimally, he knew about Garrison.

 

[Trooogrit]

Found this from 2009 on Websleuths. It almost certainly confirms that Cox was referring to Garrison and not Zellers. That was something I wanted to nail down. Doesn't prove anything but at the minimum it establishes that Cox was aware of Garrison and his potential involvement. See what you think.

"Cox, like Garrison, believes police lost the chance to answer that question a long time ago.

Garrison is serving 40 years in prison for raping, sodomizing and terrorizing a female Springfield college student in the summer of 1993.

After tracking him and several associates almost exclusively for more than a year, police have since backed off Garrison. But not all the way off. They last approached him last summer. Six months ago, investigators looked to Colorado for information on Garrison, who is in a Missouri prison.

"They've never let up on me," Garrison says."

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:ERswxBkqOgAJ:www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php%3Ft%3D59845%26highlight%3Dcheevers%26page%3D33+%22steven+eugene+garrison%22&cd=6&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a

From Cox's 1997 PDF letter which I quote:

"I would have to agree with Steve's comment that the investigators blew their opportunity to solve this case a long time ago." in referring to "Steve."

Sounds the same to me. Cox may have read it in the newspaper accounts but it is almost identical. However, we do not know what their relationship, if any, actually was. Minimally, he knew about Garrison.

They did a write up about them both in the same article during the 5 year anneversary. A large article where they talk about both of them. It would make sense that Cox read that article. I am not sure about the date of the mailing, but if it is after June 7, that would lead me to conclude that he got that information from the article. He was aware of Garrison when he was questioned by the police in 96 also. Garrison was in the paper considerably in 95 during his rape trial. I just think Cox kept up with current events in Springfield, he may have even had those newspapers mailed to him. This gave him more information to continue playing his game.

 

[Missouri Mule]

They did a write up about them both in the same article during the 5 year anniversary. A large article where they talk about both of them. It would make sense that Cox read that article. I am not sure about the date of the mailing, but if it is after June 7, that would lead me to conclude that he got that information from the article. He was aware of Garrison when he was questioned by the police in 96 also. Garrison was in the paper considerably in 95 during his rape trial. I just think Cox kept up with current events in Springfield, he may have even had those newspapers mailed to him. This gave him more information to continue playing his game.

I concur. I wanted to ensure that the same "Steve" (Steve Garrison) was the one who Cox referenced. Whether they had a working relationship or even knew one another is not known (at least to me).

Having said that, it appears in reading elsewhere that Garrison had connections to the Rogersville area where it is believed the women were taken. The fact that the police made (I believe) three visits to see Cox indicates they regarded him as a strong suspect. This is suggestive that they placed him at or near the top of the suspect pile.

Earlier I neglected to make mention of one other aspect of this case which is interesting in my opinion. It seems that both Cox and Garrison both believed that time was wasted or improperly used in the early going which could have solved this case. Their exact meaning is unclear.

What is perhaps also interesting with regard to their opinions is what was said by one of the people close to the grave robbers certain words to the effect that (paraphrasing going on memory) that if the cops didn't get cracking early on "someone is going to get killed." (I don't have that quote source at hand.) Why this individual said that I don't know. As I recall this individual remained close to the perimeter of the crime scene for an extended period of time. It also suggests that perhaps the case was not handled properly or timely, which according to former police detectives had certain deficiencies as follows:

"Former Police Chief Terry Knowles micromanaged the case and questioned possible suspects himself. Information obtained was not properly shared among the investigators, Webb says.

"The whole case was so unusual in the way it was conducted," he said. "It became a very politically charged environment, and people started taking sides. [It] was not only an emotional ride for the family but [also] for the investigators. It was also a career-ender for some of the officers, and I was one."

"I didn't quit or get fired, [but] I ended up getting reassigned because of disagreements over the way the case was going."

Webb is not the only person connected to the case who has spoken about problems in the investigation. In 2002, George Larbey, former president of the Springfield Police Officers Association, told the Springfield News-Leader

"If your highest command tells you how it's going to be, simply put, that's how it's going to be," Larbey said. "Detectives felt powerless. ... The newer guys wouldn't have any idea what was going on, that this wasn't normally the way we did business."...

(Snip)

http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/10/sleuth-wont-give-up-on-mom-teens-missing-for-17-years/

 

[Trooogrit]

Well the handling of this investigation has been discussed many times. Let me ask this simple question. Was this the largest investigation in the city of Springfield history? Was this the largest amount of police officers to focus in one project (crime). Had any of these officers been a part of something like this before? The only one that comes to mind would be the chief himself because he came from the FBI. There is an article where the officer talks about a full court press, a team effort on a crime. Everyone has a part to play. In normal routine investigations this is left to the 2 or 3 detectives involved. They can make their own decisions, use there training as they normally would. However, when you have a larger effort you have to have decision making that is clear and concise. I can tell you from a business perspective that when I have a routine job for my crew, they are left to do it, decision making is something I want them to do, it helps me know that they get it. However, when the job becomes larger, more complex and speed is profit, I make the decisions, I set the gameplan, and I ORCHESTRATE it. This is something that your best foreman may not be able to do, to have several things going at the same time all pointed toward the same end result. Now, I am not bullheaded about suggestions, but in the end I decide how it goes. Otherwise confusion and indecision take over. Now what I do is not anything like running a major investigation, but I do believe that is the thinking the police chief had. I find much of the complaining about how the investigation was run to be sour grapes, and people being reassigned because they disagreed was the right decision, because it would cause upheaval and dissension is like cancer to the process. The chief made the decision and did it the way he thought would be best. Whether it could have been done differently I am sure there could have been things done differently. Would it have made any difference? I doubt it. Hindsight is 20/20. I have said this before, if this crime had been solved in a timely fashion then it would have gone down as the greatest effort the police force ever put out, or at least they would be talking that way. Unfortunately, it was a nobel effort, but the result is not what was intended.

 

[Hurricane]

I have no idea what you are talking about; I have not commented on your intellect, but the comment you attribute to MM is actually, I think, a comment that a handwriting expert made about Cox. I'd go back and re-read that. There is no reason I would do a statement analysis on another poster. I think that would violate both TOS and civility. So I am puzzled. I am sorry that you had any reason to think I would behave that way.

I am sure it is a misunderstanding, but I will need to go back and reread to see what went awry.

I did an analysis of the written letters from Cox to a reporter that are among the links we have used for years on this case. There are interviews but I didn't see them; shortly after I did the work on Cox's letter, I took a little WS sabbatical after my mother's death. So I am just picking things up again now.

I did three or four long posts, quoting Cox and then, as best as I can, being an amateur, took a shot at analyzing Cox's letters. I didn't leave anything out or cherry-pick passages. I didn't get much response at the time. The work is all there on the short Cox thread for anyone to see. I believe that he is lying about a number of things and covering up a number of things, based on what I read. I am again interested in the tapes, if Kathee ever got them posted.

Statement analysis is based on linguistics; see the link for the McClish website. It is not the same as handwriting analysis, etc.

I’m sorry to hear about your mother’s death, Pittsburghgirl.

As I said, he has posted that you made such a comment about me. Referring to you as an expert he has also posted that you didn’t have a very high opinion of my abilities (research, I guess). I will take that now as just another one of his lies.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Well the handling of this investigation has been discussed many times. Let me ask this simple question. Was this the largest investigation in the city of Springfield history? Was this the largest amount of police officers to focus in one project (crime). Had any of these officers been a part of something like this before? The only one that comes to mind would be the chief himself because he came from the FBI. There is an article where the officer talks about a full court press, a team effort on a crime. Everyone has a part to play. In normal routine investigations this is left to the 2 or 3 detectives involved. They can make their own decisions, use there training as they normally would. However, when you have a larger effort you have to have decision making that is clear and concise. I can tell you from a business perspective that when I have a routine job for my crew, they are left to do it, decision making is something I want them to do, it helps me know that they get it. However, when the job becomes larger, more complex and speed is profit, I make the decisions, I set the game plan, and I ORCHESTRATE it. This is something that your best foreman may not be able to do, to have several things going at the same time all pointed toward the same end result. Now, I am not bullheaded about suggestions, but in the end I decide how it goes. Otherwise confusion and indecision take over. Now what I do is not anything like running a major investigation, but I do believe that is the thinking the police chief had. I find much of the complaining about how the investigation was run to be sour grapes, and people being reassigned because they disagreed was the right decision, because it would cause upheaval and dissension is like cancer to the process. The chief made the decision and did it the way he thought would be best. Whether it could have been done differently I am sure there could have been things done differently. Would it have made any difference? I doubt it. Hindsight is 20/20. I have said this before, if this crime had been solved in a timely fashion then it would have gone down as the greatest effort the police force ever put out, or at least they would be talking that way. Unfortunately, it was a nobel effort, but the result is not what was intended.

There is no question that this was the biggest investigation in Springfield history and the most expensive. That is undisputed. What is disputed is that the leadership seemingly stepped in to unwittingly torpedo the investigation and the experienced detectives from doing their job. It could have been hubris and a seeking of personal aggrandizement on the part of top management but how on earth does anyone explain how top management took it upon itself to clear certain high profile viable suspects? That is been well documented.

Bottom line: I'll take the word of good and widely respected officers any day over the over sized egos and supposed experience of top managers who stepped in personally to direct the investigation. We only have to look at the results. The department failed. That is undisputed. They can run but they can't hide. As I have said before, authority can be delegated but responsibility cannot.

We also have the personal observations of the prosecutors who watched this unfold on television. They were horrified at what they saw. Normal police protocol went by the boards and if the evidence was there to bring indictments it was perhaps fatally flawed, maybe forever.

We'll just have to agree to disagree and let it go at that. I will respect your position and I hope you respect my position.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Hi, Hurricane, Thanks for the kind words. I am sorry that two good posters on this thread are not on collegial terms. It may well be that way back I said something that was misinterpreted, in innocence, or that, like a game of telephone, has had its intent altered as it moved from poster to poster. I for one find it much easier to move through life without taking things personally. As a teacher, I would go mad if I reacted emotionally to every insult, intended or otherwise (especially the references to the 1960s as the decade of the Civil War and the question "Did I miss anything?" after a student misses a three-hour class.) Let's hit the reset button and move forward, with a focus on the case rather than this old business.

MM and Trooogrit, RE: the statement that LE blew their opportunity--it is possible Cox knows, because he was involved, that LE had an opportunity to solve the case and missed it. Either they missed some clue, they were on the right track but never arrested anyone or he was just tweaking the noses of LE because they haven't solved it. My take is the former scenario, that he knows what they missed or saw them come close to solving it at some point and then give up. I surely could be wrong, though

 

[Bartt Streeter]

Does anyone Know of a link to Steve Garrisons Picture?
Thanks Bartt

 

[Indianagirl]

Does anyone Know of a link to Steve Garrisons Picture?
Thanks Bartt

Here you go. https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/d...00&agency=900&id=00517231&searchType=offender Just click on show photo. I believe this is the most recent photo of him available.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

Should we have a suspect thread on Garrison, for a place to keep links and such and for a general overview?

 

[Missouri Mule]

Regarding Garrison, I would suggest checking post #12 and post #20 in the first thread of this case and tying the latter to Garrison. I am reasonably certain the person posting was speaking from direct knowledge and the information was valid based on the rather exact wording of the post. He surely was speaking of Garrison. He posts again in post #59 regarding possible burial sites. Seems confident of the facts as he knows them.

Post #81 is helpful as is post #83, 87 & #89.

On a side note, I have puzzled over post #12 for a long time and it still puzzles me. Post #71 also interests me.

Link to this thread can be found at the bottom of this page.