The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #5

[Kathee]

I have interviewed them and I am not the only one to do so. As I said you might have to give up some of your strongly held beliefs and convictions in this case.

I have also interviewed JB and several classmates and people close to classmates.

 

[Missouri Mule]

It is a strange phrase for Janelle to say. But how do we know there was never any editing done to the interview Janelle said this in? Taken out of context, it could be very misleading.

I'll be perfectly honest with you about this phrase. Personally, I never attached any importance to it when it first came up several years ago. Since that time about six people have mentioned it and some have even gone to far as to show real bitterness that it was so easily glossed over.

When I saw the "Disappeared" program I did learn something that shocked me and put it into much better focus. Janelle plainly said she had never been to Suzie's home in the two months prior to their going missing. Certainly one could see how this would fit with the "other girl" statement as indicating their relationship was not nearly as close as it was with Stacy.

Although it is a long shot, I could see a case to be made that when Stacy picked up and went with Suzie to the Levitt home that Janelle might have took it personally. Now we have a bunch of probable drunken kids around and she might have remarked to them that she was really P.O.'d about this and said something she later regretted. Or maybe she was perfectly fine with it. We simply don't know. What we do know is that she went to the home, obviously concerned and went on to say she "called and called and called." Then she said this: "HOPING IT WAS SOMEONE GIVING INFORMATION OF SUZIE AND STACY BEING LOCATED."

What gave her to believe they were in need of being located? Why did she later find herself in the back seat of Mike's car crying?

These are questions that need to be raised and answered. I just don't believe these responses are logical or stand up to reasonable scrutiny. But perhaps there are explanations of what she really meant. And if an investigation has meaning, they have to be cleared away.

And I want to make one final point. Everything that came after she walked into that home compromised the investigation. Everything is hearsay or second hand information. Nothing was originally discovered by the police. I believe firmly had she and Mike gotten back into their car and driven away and left the crime scene as it was at that time, this crime would have been solved 19 years ago.

 

[Trooogrit]

I'll be perfectly honest with you about this phrase. Personally, I never attached any importance to it when it first came up several years ago. Since that time about six people have mentioned it and some have even gone to far as to show real bitterness that it was so easily glossed over.

When I saw the "Disappeared" program I did learn something that shocked me and put it into much better focus. Janelle plainly said she had never been to Suzie's home in the two months prior to their going missing. Certainly one could see how this would fit with the "other girl" statement as indicating their relationship was not nearly as close as it was with Stacy.

Although it is a long shot, I could see a case to be made that when Stacy picked up and went with Suzie to the Levitt home that Janelle might have took it personally. Now we have a bunch of probable drunken kids around and she might have remarked to them that she was really P.O.'d about this and said something she later regretted. Or maybe she was perfectly fine with it. We simply don't know. What we do know is that she went to the home, obviously concerned and went on to say she "called and called and called." Then she said this: "HOPING IT WAS SOMEONE GIVING INFORMATION OF SUZIE AND STACY BEING LOCATED."

I think the word located has given cause for paranoia, and considering the loose relationship of walking into someones house, maybe she thought the phone call could shed light on what was going on for that day, her sisters knew she was going to Suzie's to figure out what was going on.
What gave her to believe they were in need of being located? Why did she later find herself in the back seat of Mike's car crying?

Well they did not know where they were in relationship to the plans for the day? They needed to be located at Suzie's, or another friends so they could go to Branson, again word twisting here. We cam debate what she meant all day long, without getting to the source all you can do is put this in a list of questions you would like to ask if you talked to her.
These are questions that need to be raised and answered. I just don't believe these responses are logical or stand up to reasonable scrutiny. But perhaps there are explanations of what she really meant. And if an investigation has meaning, they have to be cleared away.

Well we are not privy to those case files so it somewhat left with this questions, Do you think these questions were covered by the police. I do. This is the Untied States, inocent until proven guilty, and even if you say stupid things and are inocent, you still are inocent.

And I want to make one final point. Everything that came after she walked into that home compromised the investigation. Everything is hearsay or second hand information. Nothing was originally discovered by the police. I believe firmly had she and Mike gotten back into their car and driven away and left the crime scene as it was at that time, this crime would have been solved 19 years ago.

Maybe so, I believe that was chance occurrence. I do not see a motive in those kids at all, too many people would have pointed something like that out. If it were those kids it would have been solved early on. That is why I scratched this line of thinking long ago.

 

[Jaya]

Maybe so, I believe that was chance occurrence. I do not see a motive in those kids at all, too many people would have pointed something like that out. If it were those kids it would have been solved early on. That is why I scratched this line of thinking long ago.

I don't think that anyone is accusing Mike or Janelle of having anything to do with the disappearances. But, as has been said time and again, the best place to start in actually getting somewhere with this is going to be to figure out exactly what took place the night before and that morning. If there is any dishonestly in how those final hours are being portrayed (which there is considerable suspicion that some detail somewhere has been left out because there are too many things that don't quite fall into place), it could be important. Will it solve anything concretely? Most likely not. But it could better help to understand the girl's mindset when they arrived at Delmar and what the night might have looked like from there.

Going back to the word "located," Janelle has said that given the cars there, the purses there, and the door unlocked, she thought they had gone for a walk. Who would be calling the house with information about that? This was before the time of cell phones (at least for the masses, they were available but most people who had them were businessmen as they were very expensive and not very functional). Whatever synonym you might want to substitute for "located," the point is that it doesn't quite line up to say (these aren't exact quotes, obviously) "I didn't think anything was wrong" and then say "I answered the phone in a house that I had never been in before because I hoped it was someone telling me what had happened." Again, not suspecting her of anything criminal, just pointing out that her recollection of not thinking that anything was wrong at that point seems to be either purposefully or accidentally misleading at present time.

One last thought on your point about this word choice being harped on... I know people in the law enforcement realm. Anytime someone is going to be interviewed for a piece that will be televised, the detective's "script" if you will is carefully constructed, practiced, and analyzed for any misunderstanding or statement/phrase that could be misinterpreted. This is true for silly little local news soundbites, how much more diligent would they be for statements that would air nationally? My point is that if the word "located" was used, the word "located" was not only appropriate but consciously chosen.

 

[Trooogrit]

I don't think that anyone is accusing Mike or Janelle of having anything to do with the disappearances. But, as has been said time and again, the best place to start in actually getting somewhere with this is going to be to figure out exactly what took place the night before and that morning. If there is any dishonestly in how those final hours are being portrayed (which there is considerable suspicion that some detail somewhere has been left out because there are too many things that don't quite fall into place), it could be important. Will it solve anything concretely? Most likely not. But it could better help to understand the girl's mindset when they arrived at Delmar and what the night might have looked like from there.

Going back to the word "located," Janelle has said that given the cars there, the purses there, and the door unlocked, she thought they had gone for a walk. Who would be calling the house with information about that? This was before the time of cell phones (at least for the masses, they were available but most people who had them were businessmen as they were very expensive and not very functional). Whatever synonym you might want to substitute for "located," the point is that it doesn't quite line up to say (these aren't exact quotes, obviously) "I didn't think anything was wrong" and then say "I answered the phone in a house that I had never been in before because I hoped it was someone telling me what had happened." Again, not suspecting her of anything criminal, just pointing out that her recollection of not thinking that anything was wrong at that point seems to be either purposefully or accidentally misleading at present time.

One last thought on your point about this word choice being harped on... I know people in the law enforcement realm. Anytime someone is going to be interviewed for a piece that will be televised, the detective's "script" if you will is carefully constructed, practiced, and analyzed for any misunderstanding or statement/phrase that could be misinterpreted. This is true for silly little local news soundbites, how much more diligent would they be for statements that would air nationally? My point is that if the word "located" was used, the word "located" was not only appropriate but consciously chosen.

Yea we all know people in LE and one of the classmates is in LE and is a friend of mine. He does not believe that this is an issue. One thing you will find out is everytime something like this is scrutinized, I am gonna harp about it. Having an opinion is fine, but if there is a counterpoint I am gonna make it. Obviously if your friends told you all these LE secrets then the actual police in Springfield picked up on this too. So I guess we will wait and see if anything comes of it.

 

[Jaya]

Obviously if your friends told you all these LE secrets then the actual police in Springfield picked up on this too.

No need for sarcasm... I never said anyone ever told me "all these secrets." I was simply saying that the word choice was intentional. An assertion that people have blown that word out of proportion and used that word choice to cause "paranoia" implies that you don't think the selection of that word was as big of a deal as people are making it. I am saying that if a word with a different connotation would have been more accurate, it would have been chosen so as NOT to contradict the last person to see the girls alive.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Trooogrit: When you quote items I find myself getting confused. The post by Jaya was attributed to me. I suggest that if a portion of something is going to be debated that the remainder be deleted and the rest left in the "quote" brackets. It leads to a clearer understanding, at least for me.

I would like to address one thing you have said and I will merely put it into quotation marks.

"Well we are not privy to those case files so it somewhat left with this questions, Do you think these questions were covered by the police. I do. This is the Untied States, inocent until proven guilty, and even if you say stupid things and are inocent, you still are inocent"

I would say that this is not a trial proceeding with the rules of evidence and all of that. What we are (or should be) seeking is the truth. The search for the truth must of necessity cause discomfort to those who are being questioned especially when they are nervous and looking at a police officer who may or may not be particularly friendly or confidence inspiring. So to argue that people are innocent until proven guilty is certainly true within the court room, it is not a "right" to be conferred on the person being questioned. The officer can, in fact, lie to the person being questioned if necessary, a technique upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, the person being questioned can refuse to respond, lie (not applicable to FBI questioning), or seek legal counsel before answering any question posed to him or her.

The officers who participated in this investigation SHOULD have reconciled all possible conflicting statements to get at the truth. If there remained any inconsistencies, then the investigation was not complete or incompetently done. We, the public, are not privy to the raw investigation files so we cannot know. Yet, we the public, have every right to expect that law enforcement officials exercise due diligence and every tool at their disposal to get at the truth. When they and the prosecution get at the facts, and only then, should the case proceed to trial if there was deemed to be a crime committed.

This is not a matter of a person being "innocent" or otherwise. It is a matter of seeking out the truth. This was not the trial. It was the investigation and we simply don't know NOR should we assume the police did a proper investigation. If we do that then we no longer have control over the institution (the police force) which are here to "serve and protect" US; not themselves. They are paid public servants; not our masters.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

I would say that this is not a trial proceeding with the rules of evidence and all of that. What we are (or should be) seeking is the truth. The search for the truth must of necessity cause discomfort to those who are being questioned especially when they are nervous and looking at a police officer who may or may not be particularly friendly or confidence inspiring. So to argue that people are innocent until proven guilty is certainly true within the court room, it is not a "right" to be conferred on the person being questioned. The officer can, in fact, lie to the person being questioned if necessary, a technique upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, the person being questioned can refuse to respond, lie (not applicable to FBI questioning), or seek legal counsel before answering any question posed to him or her.

The officers who participated in this investigation SHOULD have reconciled all possible conflicting statements to get at the truth. If there remained any inconsistencies, then the investigation was not complete or incompetently done. We, the public, are not privy to the raw investigation files so we cannot know. Yet, we the public, have every right to expect that law enforcement officials exercise due diligence and every tool at their disposal to get at the truth. When they and the prosecution get at the facts, and only then, should the case proceed to trial if there was deemed to be a crime committed.

This is not a matter of a person being "innocent" or otherwise. It is a matter of seeking out the truth. This was not the trial. It was the investigation and we simply don't know NOR should we assume the police did a proper investigation. If we do that then we no longer have control over the institution (the police force) which are here to "serve and protect" US; not themselves. They are paid public servants; not our masters.

It looks as if people are very much exercising this right because as far as I can tell anyone that "knows" anything for sure never comments here. I'm sure 19 yrs of having to explain over and over gets very old and I really can't blame them. It looks like she answers to the LE and that is all and if she is guilty until proven innocent here I would do the same. I do understand you wanting to know the truth, I'm pretty sure anyone that goes on this list wants the same, but making the people that might know something feel like criminals for 19 yrs really does not seem like the way to go. I think I would have built up a pretty thick skin after a while. This method to me just seems like it makes more and more victims.

 

[Trooogrit]

Trooogrit: When you quote items I find myself getting confused. The post by Jaya was attributed to me. I suggest that if a portion of something is going to be debated that the remainder be deleted and the rest left in the "quote" brackets. It leads to a clearer understanding, at least for me.

I would like to address one thing you have said and I will merely put it into quotation marks.

"Well we are not privy to those case files so it somewhat left with this questions, Do you think these questions were covered by the police. I do. This is the Untied States, inocent until proven guilty, and even if you say stupid things and are inocent, you still are inocent"

I would say that this is not a trial proceeding with the rules of evidence and all of that. What we are (or should be) seeking is the truth. The search for the truth must of necessity cause discomfort to those who are being questioned especially when they are nervous and looking at a police officer who may or may not be particularly friendly or confidence inspiring. So to argue that people are innocent until proven guilty is certainly true within the court room, it is not a "right" to be conferred on the person being questioned. The officer can, in fact, lie to the person being questioned if necessary, a technique upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court. At the same time, the person being questioned can refuse to respond, lie (not applicable to FBI questioning), or seek legal counsel before answering any question posed to him or her.

The officers who participated in this investigation SHOULD have reconciled all possible conflicting statements to get at the truth. If there remained any inconsistencies, then the investigation was not complete or incompetently done. We, the public, are not privy to the raw investigation files so we cannot know. Yet, we the public, have every right to expect that law enforcement officials exercise due diligence and every tool at their disposal to get at the truth. When they and the prosecution get at the facts, and only then, should the case proceed to trial if there was deemed to be a crime committed.

This is not a matter of a person being "innocent" or otherwise. It is a matter of seeking out the truth. This was not the trial. It was the investigation and we simply don't know NOR should we assume the police did a proper investigation. If we do that then we no longer have control over the institution (the police force) which are here to "serve and protect" US; not themselves. They are paid public servants; not our masters.

Let me address this as I see it. I have worked on this for over 4 years. I understand how this works on the boards. I have also been able to communicate with people close to this case, I seek truth and I also believe that many of things that are posted in theory on the boards are in error. We only have a part of the facts. We need to be careful what we say in regard the people involved in this. For example, there is a theory that you may be part of this based on your actions?? Now in my opinion, I have never bought into that and really I feel no need to look at that, nor insinuate or accuse you of being part of this crime. The logic behind it is sound based on what the textbooks read, but I have to make up my mind on it and I say it is not worth pursuing, because it is not something I believe to be true. My whole point is this, you know firsthand how uncomfortable it is to have this sort of thing insinuated, so we should be careful how we speak about people and pursue our answers. We are not LE we are people with what I consider an interest and a hobby. We are not here to necessitate discomfort. We are here to acquire factual knowledge of this case and base our opinions on that.

One other thing I must point out, sometimes people will confide in others. If you are lucky enough to be one of those you can get some answers you seek. Generally, this is done in confidence and you are told to keep it quiet. This creates somewhat of a problem because you can feel strongly one direction based upon knowledge obtained, but not be able to validate your information because you have acquired trust and cannot break the confidentiality of the informer. So you are left to see error and strong opinion in the wrong direction and not be able to correct it.

 

[Missouri Mule]

It looks as if people are very much exercising this right because as far as I can tell anyone that "knows" anything for sure never comments here. I'm sure 19 yrs of having to explain over and over gets very old and I really can't blame them. It looks like she answers to the LE and that is all and if she is guilty until proven innocent here I would do the same. I do understand you wanting to know the truth, I'm pretty sure anyone that goes on this list wants the same, but making the people that might know something feel like criminals for 19 yrs really does not seem like the way to go. I think I would have built up a pretty thick skin after a while. This method to me just seems like it makes more and more victims.

What you say is true but I would refer to another famous case: the Jon Benet Ramsey murder. Personally I believed that the Ramseys were the culprits until I saw a program the other day and listened to a previous interview that Patsy Ramsey gave that convinced me she was being entirely forthcoming. It was done in the interrogation room and she was angry beyond words. That was convincing and then I learn of a suicide of someone remotely connected to the house who could have, it turns out, have gotten into the basement through a window just as was first suggested.

My point is that although it was incredibly stressful on the Ramseys and to this day many will believe them guilty, I did a 180 when I heard her in that interrogation room and then the unexplained suicide.

This is what is sometimes necessary to get at the truth. It is unfortunate that it comes to this but when the cops are being lied to constantly it is altogether too easy to believe everyone is lying. In this case, I think the priorities got mixed up and the "go easy" method was first employed as part of the police sympathy. That seems to me to have backfired. But that is just my opinion.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Let me address this as I see it. I have worked on this for over 4 years. I understand how this works on the boards. I have also been able to communicate with people close to this case, I seek truth and I also believe that many of things that are posted in theory on the boards are in error. We only have a part of the facts. We need to be careful what we say in regard the people involved in this. For example, there is a theory that you may be part of this based on your actions?? Now in my opinion, I have never bought into that and really I feel no need to look at that, nor insinuate or accuse you of being part of this crime. The logic behind it is sound based on what the textbooks read, but I have to make up my mind on it and I say not worth pursuing, because it is not something I believe to be true. My whole point is this, you know firsthand how uncomfortable it is to have this sort of thing insinuated, so we should be careful how we speak about people and pursue our answers. We are not LE we are people with what I consider an interest and a hobby. We are not here to necessitate discomfort. We are here to acquire factual knowledge of this case and base our opinions on that.

One other thing I must point out, sometimes people will confide in others. If you are lucky enough to be one of those you can get some answers you seek. Generally, this is done in confidence and you are told to keep it quiet. This creates somewhat of a problem becasue you can feel strongly one direction based upon knowledge obtained, but not be able to validate your information because you have acquired trust and cannot break the confidentiality of the informer. So you are left to see error and strong opinion in the wrong direction and not be able to correct it.

Actually, I'm not at all upset that some might believe I was involved. I'm merely annoyed at having to endure it because it is so silly. I would have been tickled pink if at the time the police were actively investigating this case that I had been dragged into an interrogation room. Since I had nothing to hide and an ironclad alibi; not that I needed one, I would have been able to have taken the measure of the officers involved. In point of fact, I offered the police department my services for free to have worked this case. I would have worked it 24 hours a day until I knew the case backwards and forwards. I would have paid them to have worked the case. I will always believe that I could have solved the case had I seen what was in the police files. Call that hubris, but that is my sincere belief.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

What you say is true but I would refer to another famous case: the Jon Benet Ramsey murder. Personally I believed that the Ramseys were the culprits until I saw a program the other day and listened to a previous interview that Patsy Ramsey gave that convinced me she was being entirely forthcoming. It was done in the interrogation room and she was angry beyond words. That was convincing and then I learn of a suicide of someone remotely connected to the house who could have, it turns out, have gotten into the basement through a window just as was first suggested.

My point is that although it was incredibly stressful on the Ramseys and to this day many will believe them guilty, I did a 180 when I heard her in that interrogation room and then the unexplained suicide.

This is what is sometimes necessary to get at the truth. It is unfortunate that it comes to this but when the cops are being lied to constantly it is altogether too easy to believe everyone is lying. In this case, I think the priorities got mixed up and the "go easy" method was first employed as part of the police sympathy. That seems to me to have backfired. But that is just my opinion.

See that is the thing, what you saw was in the interrogation room. I really doubt she would ever go on any of these boards where people are accusing her constantly. That was my point, she talked to the police and that is all. Anywhere else she would not only be a victim in the fact she lost her daughter, but would feel to be something far worse on any of the boards. I just don't see this method working. I'm glad she cleared herself in some peoples minds, but that was done by the police questioning.

 

[Missouri Mule]

See that is the thing, what you saw was in the interrogation room. I really doubt she would ever go on any of these boards where people are accusing her constantly. That was my point, she talked to the police and that is all. Anywhere else she would not only be a victim in the fact she lost her daughter, but would feel to be something far worse on any of the boards. I just don't see this method working. I'm glad she cleared herself in some peoples minds, but that was done by the police questioning.

We are talking about the Ramsey case, are we not. (Patsy Ramsey has subsequently passed away.)

In that case it was handled wrong from the git-go. When the police were called, the Ramseys were told to look around the house and it was when that was done that Mr. Ramsey found the body of his daughter. This is just plain nuts to put it bluntly. At that point they didn't know she was dead but when he went into the basement the crime scene was unnecessarily compromised. Plus, it put the spotlight on Mr. Ramsey because it was inferred he knew where his daughter's body was. The whole case has been a disaster from the very beginning.

As to this case, there are many inconsistencies that should be cleared up that have been published. Let me give a recent example.

On February 19, 2011 the K.C. Star published the following: (Janelle)

"I did stuff with Suzie, I did stuff with Stacy and we did things together," Janelle says NOW. "It was the very first time the two had done something together, without me or other without other friends."

We never heard this some 19 years ago. So now we learn for the very first time that never before had Stacy and Suzie had ever done something together. I find that "interesting."

 

[Kathee]

What happened to Jaya's post about living in Springfield and the only establishment's open late at night on the North side were George's; Steak N Shake and another?

I didn't live here then....can you tell us more about the town then? Where do you live now?

 

[Resident]

I think I can speak to this somewhat as I have lived here all my life. There was very little in Springfield open 24 hours in 1992. (There isn't that much now) I worked at a restaurant around this time and did a few overnight shifts, getting off at 3 or 4 in the morning, and driving home no one was out, anywhere, a 20 minute commute in rush hour to get to work took 5 minutes to get home all the way across town. Even now, when I go to work at 6:30 it takes 5 minutes to get across town, that is part of what would have made this so easy for someone to do. Early Sunday morning no one is out, they could have left the house on Delmar early Sunday morning and gotten out of town in any direction without having to deal with traffic, being seen etc.

 

[Jaya]

Kathee-

I posted that over on another site. But, yes, I lived in Springfield from the mid-80s until 3 years ago (it will be 3 years next month). I still live in Missouri and still return to Springfield several times a year because I have family and friends there. In the early 1990's, the only 24 hour eating establishments on the north Side of town were Waffle House, George's, and Steak and Shake.

 

[Kathee]

Thanks, Jaya! Although I visited here a lot back then I was always back at my folks house before it got that late.

 

[twidger]

there were also a few truckstops open 24 hours..one being located on glenstone and division...another on kearney (i think it was the last american diner) also, 7 gables..located on w. chestnut..past west bypass.

 

[Jaya]

You're right, Twidger.. I hadn't thought of the ones that were in truckstops, I was just thinking of actual restaurants. But those 3 definitely were there up north and open all night.

 

[Luzer]

There was a Shoney's on Glenstone just north of Chestnut that was open for the bar business. I don't think it closed till the late 1990s. Also, there was the Denny's at Glenstone and I44. At Glenstone and St. Louis, the Best Western had a diner that my bar crowd went to in the 80s. I know it is long gone now, but I am not sure when it closed. Also, just north of Kearney on Glenstone was a Pancake House and I think it stayed open for the bar crowd.