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

[irisheyesofblue]

As for the graverobbers, imagine being 19 and being chased and screamed at that you are a murderer everywhere you went when you did not have anything to do with it. I would of been terrified. They ran to where one of their parents lived, I think I would of too. Actually, the one that gave the most evidence against them for the graverobbing was not Suzie, it was one of them. If you notice only two ever are mentioned with questioning on this, ever think why. Two fled only one was brought back.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Plus you have one of the Genius's making a statement, "I hope those *****es are dead"

The disagreement with the officer would be interesting to hear, sounds as though he was pushed to anger somehow. If not you are correct a very stupid statement.

Regardless this was a stupid statement, but you also have to remember he was 19, being questioned for something he did not do and going through hell. The officer was being horrible and you were mad. I think I'd say something stupid too plus the way I look at it at that age (have a 19 yr old now) unjust things get to them more and are more likely to react.

 

[Trooogrit]

Regardless this was a stupid statement, but you also have to remember he was 19, being questioned for something he did not do and going through hell. The officer was being horrible and you were mad. I think I'd say something stupid too plus the way I look at it at that age (have a 19 yr old now) unjust things get to them more and are more likely to react.

Finally someone else thinking like a 19 year old. lol Logic does not apply, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the person.

 

[bystander77]

When I first started digging into the story., I thought the grave robbers were a lock. While still suspects, IMHO, they fall to the middle/bottom of my list. The reason for this, is that they pled guilty and received only probation. Surely, they had a lawyer or public defender, and it was one of their first brushes with the law.... with that being said, they should've known they'd be looking at a slap on the wrist for a really despicable act. I'm gonna keep panning for gold in the older threads!

 

[irisheyesofblue]

All three grave robbers passed lie detector test and had alibis. The alibis were a lot more iron clad than the police say.

 

[Hurricane]

When I first started digging into the story., I thought the grave robbers were a lock. While still suspects, IMHO, they fall to the middle/bottom of my list. The reason for this, is that they pled guilty and received only probation. Surely, they had a lawyer or public defender, and it was one of their first brushes with the law.... with that being said, they should've known they'd be looking at a slap on the wrist for a really despicable act.

I'm gonna keep panning for gold in the older threads!

Bystander, I commend you for taking the time to read the threads and learning the facts of the case first. Unfortunately, thread #3 was locked down and lost forever. Know the facts of the case first.

 

[Hurricane]

Bystander, I have many of the same questions, as well.

Some of the statements in the media I take with a grain of salt because they are coming through a third party.

But I do not get why two kids a day out of high school would let themselves into someone else's house, for any reason. And especiallyif the relationship was not super close. And answering the phone? Moving things around? Unheard of. We've been over this ground and people disagreed with me before. It's also worth noting that LE has never indicated they were looking at Janelle and her boyfriend. But I've never been comfortable with the girls needing to leave Janelle's house, with the clean-up of the broken globe, with Janelle and Mike going in, moving thngs, answering the phone, and then just going ahead to the water park. What was the hurry? Why not call the McCalls and then start looking around and making calls toother people? The cars were in the driveway--where could they have gone? Did they leave a note for Suzie and Stacy? My guess is that there is something about that whole situation that we don't know.

I’m not sure what you mean by third party unless you are referring to the AP, but I would venture to say that almost all of the information reported in the NL came from the daily, then weekly press conferences that SPD held that summer and into the early fall. I don’t recall exactly when those press conferences were discontinued but it was not until the leads and tips of the investigation went cold and there was nothing new to report. Were their errors made in reporting? Sure there were. But the idea that has been implied before that there were NL reporters doing their own investigations or that other newspapers throughout the state did a better job reporting than the NL did is baloney in my opinion. Even the 2002 ten year review of the case was a recap of previous published articles from the NL put together by a reporter who had not covered the case previously. The only print or TV reporter from that era that I know of who put any time into their own investigation was Dennis Graves.

I'm not taking exception with what you have said so much as I am stating my opinion on the reporting of this case.

 

[Trooogrit]

All three grave robbers passed lie detector test and had alibis. The alibis were a lot more iron clad than the police say.

Can you expand on that? you are from the area in the know? It would help to clear up the misconceptions that have plagued this case from the outiside looking in.

 

[pittsburghgirl]

I’m not sure what you mean by third party unless you are referring to the AP, but I would venture to say that almost all of the information reported in the NL came from the daily, then weekly press conferences that SPD held that summer and into the early fall. I don’t recall exactly when those press conferences were discontinued but it was not until the leads and tips of the investigation went cold and there was nothing new to report. Were their errors made in reporting? Sure there were. But the idea that has been implied before that there were NL reporters doing their own investigations or that other newspapers throughout the state did a better job reporting than the NL did is baloney in my opinion. Even the 2002 ten year review of the case was a recap of previous published articles from the NL put together by a reporter who had not covered the case previously. The only print or TV reporter from that era that I know of who put any time into their own investigation was Dennis Graves.

I'm not taking exception with what you have said so much as I am stating my opinion on the reporting of this case.

I am saying that any statement made to any member of the media is being filtered through a third party. Even the best of reporters can make mistakes, can misquote, or can just miss what the person was trying to get across. Perhaps more germane to the points under discussion, regarding Janelle, she was very young when the abductions occurred and she found herself being interviewed by LE and the media. The poster to whom I was responding questioned Janelle's wording; my point was just that we don't have all of what Janelle said (because reporters and video editors choose quotations and clips) and we don't, in the case of print stories, have tone of voice, body language, etc. That's the nature of media. I would argue in any situation that in interpreting media stories, it's important to bear in mind that someone else has "packaged" what you are reading or seeing. That's not necessarily nefarious or even problematic. But when we read passages that hit us wrong, it might not be the fault of the person being quoted. The "media" as a term comes from medium, meaning that which comes between two entities. Hence, a third party. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on the reporting in this case. And reporters only know as much as LE will give, anyway.

In regard to the girls choosing to go to Suzie's, if either of them had been drinking, sleeping on the floor would be preferable to driving. And if I had been a parent in that house, I would not have been comfortable with the girls going home at that hour, especially in separate cars. So much can happened to young women driving alone in the middle of the night. As my friend the police officer says, "Nothing good happens after midnight." But hindsight, of course, is 20/20.

 

[Luzer]

After reading a ton into this thread and being drawn into it more and more, I have a few questions I was hoping someone might know the answer to.

Does anyone know what ever became of the vehicle stolen from the neighbor of Stacy McCall, a classmate of hers as well? I have seen various snips of it and the police mentioned it was stolen, I believe, the night of the disappearance. I wonder about the possibility that it WAS used or damaged/contaminated in some way and was tied to the case... Does anyone know anything about the classmate who owned this car?

Has everyone seen this story? I just found it for the first time myself.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2gHUqa7aZnE

The way Janelle Kirby speaks to the reporter and the camera, to me, is very troubling. Referring to Suzie as "the other girl" is way off target. I believe in my research, I had read Kirby quoted as saying they were all friends at some times and then at others, that Suzie wasn't much of a friend. She would certainly be a person who could gain access to the home at delmar, after the girls were ready for bed. In fact, she is possibly one of the least harmless to the Stacy and Suzie after the party. She could've easily gained entry by saying something was forgotten at her home, or by saying that she changed her mind and was going to spend the night at the Levitt Home. The turn of events that had the girls leave the Kirby home and go to Sherill's also is a bit odd. They didn't realize there wasn't enough space? There's ALWAYS enough space for friends. I wonder if they even arrived at the Kirby home. It's regrettable that LE didn't offer immunity for underage drinking to all the kids at the graduation party the girls can last, in my mind, be credibly seen at.


So many things in this case are based directly off of statements she has made to LE. Where they were going, what they were doing, everything about the Levitt house. She's highly inconsistent by my opinion.
I really think she knows a lot more than she has shared. Perhaps she's not guilty of anything and is a victim in some way too.

Sorry if I'm soaking up too much space in this thread... it really pulls me in... I'll back off for awhile... lastly, anyone know where tangledweb went? It seems he/she is inactive... too bad.

In the Disappeared episode, they mention that the stolen vehicle was found to be stolen from an area close to Stacey's home, not Suzie's. It was found later and no ties could be made to the three women. This was covered in part 2 of Disappeared.

As for the interview where Janelle is speaking and says "the other girl" there could have been quite a bit of editing from the entire interview. It still does not explain away the reason Janelle said "the other girl". I found the statement that she did things with Stacey and then other things with Suzie might be a big hint. It struck me as if Janelle and Stacey did nice girl things together, then Janelle and Suzie might drink, do drugs or hang out in places Stacey would never go to.

As far as Janelle never going into Suzie's new home, Suzie and Sherrill had only lived there a few months. With Janelle being out in Battlefield and Suzie being on the east side of town, I can see Janelle might not have been close to Suzie's new home to visit. But there you go too, why would Janelle not want to see a friend's new digs? Plus, if Janelle had never been there, how did she know the address?

 

[monkeymann]

Finally someone else thinking like a 19 year old. lol Logic does not apply, you have to put yourself in the shoes of the person.

You could also apply the same logic to a 19yr old mindset that makes a rash decision to commit murder, out of fear of going to prison.....Right

 

[monkeymann]

All three grave robbers passed lie detector test and had alibis. The alibis were a lot more iron clad than the police say.

I thought one of their "Alibis" was that one was passed out in his car.......Not sure how "Iron Clad" that is?

And Polygraphs are not fool proof by any means......and.......The police are definatly well known to "Say" that you've passed the Polygraph and that you're "Not" considered a suspect.......When you really "Failed" the Polygraph....and "Are" still considered a suspect! Thats one of the oldest police tricks in the book.

 

[monkeymann]

When I first started digging into the story., I thought the grave robbers were a lock. While still suspects, IMHO, they fall to the middle/bottom of my list. The reason for this, is that they pled guilty and received only probation. Surely, they had a lawyer or public defender, and it was one of their first brushes with the law.... with that being said, they should've known they'd be looking at a slap on the wrist for a really despicable act. I'm gonna keep panning for gold in the older threads!

They were charged with Felony's. I don't think they were thinking they were going to be "Slapped on the wrist". They were probably freaking out thinking they were going to prison. Remember that 19yr old mindset you guys were talking about......19yr olds charged with felony's would be freaking out....especially if the pawn shop had contacted the police, and turned the evidence (gold teeth) over to them. Add that to Suzie Streeters statement to police implicating them in the graverobbing crime.......and they were caught dead to rights. I don't think it would have been too far fetched to think that they were freaking out thinking they were going to prison. I mean, the teeth alone wouldn't really have been enough to convict them, because they couldn't really prove where they got them from without the addition of Suzie Streeters statement implicating them.

 

[Trooogrit]

They were charged with Felony's. I don't think they were thinking they were going to be "Slapped on the wrist". They were probably freaking out thinking they were going to prison. Remember that 19yr old mindset you guys were talking about......19yr olds charged with felony's would be freaking out....especially if the pawn shop had contacted the police, and turned the evidence (gold teeth) over to them. Add that to Suzie Streeters statement to police implicating them in the graverobbing crime.......and they were caught dead to rights. I don't think it would have been too far fetched to think that they were freaking out thinking they were going to prison. I mean, the teeth alone wouldn't really have been enough to convict them, because they couldn't really prove where they got them from without the addition of Suzie Streeters statement implicating them.[/quote]

I would look through the dockets on the case, there was more to the case than her testimony. Yes she made a statement. If they wanted to eliminate her they needed to do it before she talked to the police. This is the part that makes this the weakest motive if you are freaking out trying to avoid prison. Killing someone who already gave a statement is perhaps the most glaring thing a person could do, if they intended to get away with it. Obviously, she didnt testify and they were still convicted. They did not help there cause.

 

[monkeymann]

They were charged with Felony's. I don't think they were thinking they were going to be "Slapped on the wrist". They were probably freaking out thinking they were going to prison. Remember that 19yr old mindset you guys were talking about......19yr olds charged with felony's would be freaking out....especially if the pawn shop had contacted the police, and turned the evidence (gold teeth) over to them. Add that to Suzie Streeters statement to police implicating them in the graverobbing crime.......and they were caught dead to rights. I don't think it would have been too far fetched to think that they were freaking out thinking they were going to prison. I mean, the teeth alone wouldn't really have been enough to convict them, because they couldn't really prove where they got them from without the addition of Suzie Streeters statement implicating them.[/quote]

I would look through the dockets on the case, there was more to the case than her testimony. Yes she made a statement. If they wanted to eliminate her they needed to do it before she talked to the police. This is the part that makes this the weakest motive if you are freaking out trying to avoid prison. Killing someone who already gave a statement is perhaps the most glaring thing a person could do, if they intended to get away with it. Obviously, she didnt testify and they were still convicted. They did not help there cause.

But like it was said earlier.....Thinking with a 19yr old mind, they might have thought that the statement wouldn't hold up, or be valid, if the "Witness" disappeared. May be they thought that Suzie had to testify against them "Physically" in court. Also, that's not to say that all three of them had to be involved in the disappearance. It could have just been one of them. We've all said here before that it was probably someone with either a good ruse, or someone they trusted that got into the house that night.
And its a heck of a lot easier for "One" person to keep a secret than three.

I'm not saying that this is the exact scenario by any means....and obviously it could be completely off base. However, based on the "Coincidental Timing" of their Disappearance as it relates to the "Coincidental Timing" of the Graverobbers Incident, as well as some of the actions of the players involved in the Graverobbers Incident immediately following the women disappearing it Really Really Really make a person wonder.

All "Passed Lie Detector Tests", and "Clearing of Suspicion by Police" aside....It sends up a hell of a lot of Red Flags!

 

[monkeymann]

Here are some excerts from the grave robbers trial. This mainly highlights the sentences they received. They ended up with a little more than a little "Slap" on the wrist.

12-3-93 P OF G ON 10-1-93 TO INSTITUTIONAL VANDALISM. DEFT SENT TO DOC FOR 5YRS. DEFT PLACED IN MINERAL AREA TREATMEN T CENTER UNDER SEC 559.115. P.D. LIEN OF $150.00 & $46.00 C VF ASSESSED. /HR (4) 3-28-94 DEFT RELEASED UNDER 120-DAY PROB FOR 5YRS EFFECTIVE 4-7-94. /HR 11-18-94 PROB REVOKED & SENT OF 12-3-94 ORDERED EXECUTED. /HR (4)

Also: He apparently violated his probation and it was revolked.

State by APA Barber. Deft with APD Lada. Deftr admits viola tions in par 3 b & c of State's Motion. Probation revoked. Sentence of 12/3/93 ordered executed. Deft advised of right to proceed under Rule 24.035. TKM/ms

 

[Trooogrit]

I just think of all the guys looked at in this case the guys that those guys were scrutinized closer than the rest, they were younger than the rest. They would have cracked, would have bragged, would have continued down a life of crime. None of that happened. I also do not think they would have had motive, opportunity was poor, considering one of them worked with Suzie and could have done anything at any given time from february to June. He did not even harass her and he saw her at work all the time. Yes they were 19 and stupid, but killers I do not see it.

 

[former central time]

Boy, lots of traffic on this tread this week.

I have long been a critic of the First Responders, in terms of what was reported to have been done and reactions were so foreign to what I would have done.

Like many, I saw the 'Disappeared' program as well, focusing on the first twenty minutes, as that's the part I saw some half a dozen times. The program didn't really capture the circus atmosphere of the house, in fact, I don't know how clear it would have been to the viewer how other friends were camped out there for hours. It just mentions 'family and friends,' with a focus just on Janelle and Mrs. McCall. With all of this, I lean on the side where these three girls were not as close as I first thought. We know high school kids call friends anyone they hang out with for more than ten minutes. So, we're really talking about three acquaintances.

Accepting that, it is odd to me she would even go to the house, although it was her boyfriend Mike who drove. Did he know them ? If we accept they were just casual acquaintances, calling all morning and not hearing from them would be enough to conclude, 'Oh well, guess they went to Branson,' and that would be the end of it. Instead, she goes over, sees three cars, goes inside, I guess sees the three purses, answers two creepy calls and later concludes, 'Oh well, guess they went to Branson.' In the program she mentions, 'We didn't have cell phones in those days to get ahold of people.' I graduated h/s seven years before this, I remember teen life without cell phones. The current adult population isn't that deep yet, that cannot recall life before cell phones.

In my observation, this crew is far more casual, laid back, carefree and spontaneous than I ever was, not a bad thing in and of itself. But, if this was just 'casual friends' even by the standards of h/s, why go over there ? If this was something of a deeper friendship than that, why leave ? You can't ride both those horses. Two quick asides on this area. One, all the booze being served that night, probably wasn't that much compared to adult parties, but where were the adults in all of this, at the various homes ? This is in the land of Civil Law, although I suspect the statue of limitations has been reached. Two, in a recent piece of video on KOLR-10's webcite, had to do with an interview with one of (I'm guessing) current investigators. He brought up the delay to law enforcement reporting the girls missing, and went on with the contaminated crime scene. In every account I have read about this case, that point was in ALL of them, generally not making much more of it than that. But, it was there. Why bring it up again ? I don't know if this is code with, 'we don't have much folks, cuz we were out of the loop during the critical hours, don't expect much.'

 

[belimom]

former central time, excellent post. I did not see the show - is there a link online? I think I will try to watch it.

I agree with a lot of what you say and am about the same age as you, but - I do remember being at HS parties with a LOT of booze. Tons. Grain alcohol, too. I don't know if this is important or not, but I just wanted to comment...

Again, excellent post... :seeya:

 

[Hurricane]

Boy, lots of traffic on this tread this week.

I have long been a critic of the First Responders, in terms of what was reported to have been done and reactions were so foreign to what I would have done.

Like many, I saw the 'Disappeared' program as well, focusing on the first twenty minutes, as that's the part I saw some half a dozen times. The program didn't really capture the circus atmosphere of the house, in fact, I don't know how clear it would have been to the viewer how other friends were camped out there for hours. It just mentions 'family and friends,' with a focus just on Janelle and Mrs. McCall. With all of this, I lean on the side where these three girls were not as close as I first thought. We know high school kids call friends anyone they hang out with for more than ten minutes. So, we're really talking about three acquaintances.

Accepting that, it is odd to me she would even go to the house, although it was her boyfriend Mike who drove. Did he know them ? If we accept they were just casual acquaintances, calling all morning and not hearing from them would be enough to conclude, 'Oh well, guess they went to Branson,' and that would be the end of it. Instead, she goes over, sees three cars, goes inside, I guess sees the three purses, answers two creepy calls and later concludes, 'Oh well, guess they went to Branson.' In the program she mentions, 'We didn't have cell phones in those days to get ahold of people.' I graduated h/s seven years before this, I remember teen life without cell phones. The current adult population isn't that deep yet, that cannot recall life before cell phones.

In my observation, this crew is far more casual, laid back, carefree and spontaneous than I ever was, not a bad thing in and of itself. But, if this was just 'casual friends' even by the standards of h/s, why go over there ? If this was something of a deeper friendship than that, why leave ? You can't ride both those horses. Two quick asides on this area. One, all the booze being served that night, probably wasn't that much compared to adult parties, but where were the adults in all of this, at the various homes ? This is in the land of Civil Law, although I suspect the statue of limitations has been reached. Two, in a recent piece of video on KOLR-10's webcite, had to do with an interview with one of (I'm guessing) current investigators. He brought up the delay to law enforcement reporting the girls missing, and went on with the contaminated crime scene. In every account I have read about this case, that point was in ALL of them, generally not making much more of it than that. But, it was there. Why bring it up again ? I don't know if this is code with, 'we don't have much folks, cuz we were out of the loop during the critical hours, don't expect much.'

I disagree about your casual friendship angle. Facts show that Suzie & Stacy had originally been friends since grade school while both families were living in Battlefield before Sherrill’s divorce. Then the McCall family moved out of state for several years. During that time, from the middle of their grade school years to junior year in high school Suzie and Janelle became good friends. By the time the McCall family had moved back to Battlefield in the middle of their junior year Sherrill had divorced and she and Suzie had moved to the apartment complex. Not being old enough to drive Suzie probably only saw Stacy and Janelle at school whereas Stacy and Janelle could also spend time together in the neighborhood. As the senior year progressed Suzie and Stacy became closer again as the reminisced about their lives since and friendship since grade school. Of course they were growing up; two were going to be college roommates and the third was going to cosmetology school. That could have put a wedge in the three-way friendship to a degree. But to know what the three-way relationship was like you need to talk with their friends who worked with them and went to school with them. There is a commonality to what they all say about the three. One of their close friends posted here for a very short time until all the baloney chased them away. So I don’t accept that they were just casual friends.

Plans were to go to Whitewater at Branson the next day. We don’t know exactly what time; who was to drive; etc but I don’t find 8:00 am or so to be out of the ordinary scheme of things. When Janelle and her boyfriend drove to 1717 and found no one there but the three cars I think it is reasonable that Janelle assumed that Suzie and Stacy went to Branson without them (Janelle & Mike). And Janelle wasn’t concerned about Sherrill; with her car being there Sherrill could have been in the neighborhood somewhere. And I think it would be reasonable for Janelle to believe she had been left behind. After all Janelle and Mike were the only ones who were a couple. She could easily believe that Suzie and Stacy rode with other kids thinking that Janelle and Mike would show up later. In my mind that also could explain why Janelle was crying at some point; the fact that her friends left her behind. Once she had accepted what she thought to be as fact; that her friends had left her; she and Mike went to the local water park or pool instead of driving to Branson. I just don’t find all that much appearing suspicious in her actions.

If you really want to know what these three girls were like at that time talk to their friends.