The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #6

[Hurricane]

And who are the friends you are talking to regarding your investigation? Oh. Yeah. You can't share that with the board. Sorry. I just don't go for that. You like to complain about people not putting forth facts, Hurricane, but when YOU say you have facts and "correct" people, you won't share those facts with the board.




Did Janelle or LE tell you that, Hurricane? I don't think for a minute that Janelle was asked to keep details of the phone call incident, the porch light globe incident, or anything else she had to say, quiet. For that to be the case, LE would have had to ask everyone involved to "keep quiet." LE might keep something from the public to confirm or substantiate a suspect, but I doubt LE would ask a lot of people involved in such a case to keep quiet on some details, particularly on a cold case after 20 years.





"Correction to facts and statements made," is what Hurricane does. Easy to say you have the facts, then "correct" people who bring forth thoughts and possibilities and statements.





The standard response she could have made and LE would have advised her to make is, "I've been advised by LE not to speak to the press regarding this case because it would compromise the investigation." End of story. Instead, she talks to the media and gives accounts that don't seem realistic. Not saying she is involved in any way.

Fullmoon, good luck with your thoughts, doubts and possibilities in solving this case thru your investigation. Even though you feel I have not contributed a thing, feel free to use any facts and details that I have contributed since you claim to have read thru these threads. I'll look forward to watching your investigation advance this difficult case.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

My advice to everyone: Investigate the GJ3 and find out who was close to Sherrill and Suzie the months prior to the abduction. Find vehicles in these people's names. See if any were capable of transporting 3 bodies. In their names, in their parents', family, friends', etc.

My advice also is to try and look more closely at the sexual assault angle. It will eliminate a lot of people and give you less headaches. I'm 95% certain it was a sex crime gone askew.

 

[monkeymann]

I think you're confusing the "Disappeared" show with the "Vanished" trailer - an incomplete documentary on the case.

Vanished- A Documentary Film on Vimeo

Mrs. McCall says those words, verbatim, from 35 seconds into the trailer to about 1:08.

I have to appologize to you!!! I was confusing the Disappeared video with this one. I had not heard Ms. McCall say that before.

Thank you for setting me straight on this point, as well as for sharing the Video!!

 

[Auramyst]

.

To this specific post. This is just an observation, one of the things which struck me about this case was the relatively lack of adult supervision through the night. I graduated h/s close to this era, 1985, the only party I went to that contained alcohol was the one at my house with family and friends. None of my parties lasted until 2 AM. My parents knew all the outside parties I was at, who I was with, where and when I was expected home. Yes, in the ‘pre-cell phone era’ Everybody was different then as now, sure. But, I’m confident any jury collected might have a few with a little grain of thought of such and personally note such contrast with their own lives as well, which can never be hammered out by any judge/prosecution.

Not to go too off topic, but I graduated in 1983. My graduation night was full of parties with no adult supervision. And, after many changes of plans, I ended up at home only because the last party we were at was busted by the police (otherwise we would have all crashed there for the night).

So, yes, I'm in complete agreement that a potential juror would inject their own personal spin on graduation night festivities. One juror might wonder about the lack of adult supervision, while another would wonder why anyone would be around adults on graduation night.

Oh, and I believe it was brought up by someone in an ealier post about cops busting the grad party and then letting the teens leave 'while under the infuence'. Yep, that happened all the time where I grew up (in the Midwest). This was before the crackdown in DUIs. In fact, I was with a friend in 1992 when she got pulled over. She was drinking, driving, and told 'to go right home'. It doesn't happen now, but it happened a lot back then.

(I was really stupid when I was younger I don't drink and drive now nor do I condone it)

 

[fullmoon]

I have to appologize to you!!! I was confusing the Disappeared video with this one. I had not heard Ms. McCall say that before.

No problem Monkeymann! I'm still reading as much as I can on this case, and when I saw the link on this board to the "Vanished" trailer, I was struck by what Mrs. McCall had to say about Suzie wanting someone to go home with her. I had not read that anywhere. I was hoping to hear from others if they had heard of this before. I am wondering if Mrs. McCall is starting to release a little more info on the case, considering it has grown so cold over the years.

 

[Hurricane]

i have to appologize to you!!! I was confusing the disappeared video with this one.

i had not heard ms. Mccall say that before.

thank you for setting me straight on this point, as well as for sharing the video!!

BINGO! That's because it's all new. She has never expressed those concerns before publicly, and that is the only way we would know if she had them in 1992 or not.

 

[daisy7]

Peeps - please get back on topic and discuss the case, not posters! :tyou:

 

[monkeymann]

I agree that too much emphasis is being placed here. Mrs. McCall only said that after 20 yrs of reflection. She didn't have those concerns at the time. She obviously knows facts and details told to her thru the years by LE that she didn't know on June 7th - 8th. It would be easy to reflect on those facts and details and make other observations appear to fit now. If these were major concerns of hers they should have come to the forefront in 1992.

Suzie was sick and almost stayed home that night. That is one of the reasons why she was late leaving home. I have no doubt that as the night progressed she just wanted it to be over and to just go home. If we are to believe Appleby's statements then Suzie and he spent most of the evening reminiscing about their school years together. I think it is fair to say that Suzie was not the life of the parties that night but I have found no one who says that she was scared about something. Nor have I found anyone who says that Suzie was asking for someone, anyone to go home with her.

I find the wording of your statement very interesting. "If we are to believe Appleby's statements".

You have always been very direct in your statements when it comes to people you feel had nothing to do with the 3MW crime. If I've figured anything out about you, it is that you say what you mean, and you seem to mean what you say. You have never been one to miss-speak when it comes to the verbiage that you use. And I've always respected that about you. At least we've never had to question the meaning of most of the things that you've posted in the past.

So with that said, based on the way you worded the statement above, this very clearly implies to me that you, and or, others, may believe there were some veracity issues with Mr. Appleby and statements that he made regarding the events of that night.

And, considering that the last three people to see Susie & Stacy alive that night were Janelle Kirby, Mike Henson and Shane Appleby, all of which were at Janelle's house when Susie and Stacy left to go to Susies house.

Everyone knows about Janelles story in which she agrees to meet them the next day, and then goes into her house to go to bed.

But no one seems to want to talk about, or include the fact that Mike and Shane were there too. I've posed this issue several different times, but no one, including some of the key people who have been involved in their own investigations of the 3MW crime (And I'm not talking about LE), will respond to this issue.

I'll also add, Janelle and Mike, per their own statements, went to Susies house around 12-12:30pm that Sunday. After they left there, they went to Shanes house to see if Susie & Stacy were over there. But when they got there, according to their statements, Shane was still in bed asleep.

Even though it was after 1pm when they arrived at Shanes house, he was still in bed asleep. Presumably he went to bed around the same time that Janelle and Mike did....right. He hadn't been drinking heavily the night before, at least one would think this, based on the fact that he had been the one who had been driving everyone around to the parties they attended that night.....right. People have historically stated, once again, that these were just the actions of an 18yr old.....sleeping in. May be they are.

Again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out some observations.

 

[fullmoon]

BINGO! That's because it's all new. She has never expressed those concerns before publicly, and that is the only way we would know if she had them in 1992 or not.

Hurricane, you like to say that LE may have asked some people not to talk about the case over the years. Just because Mrs. McCall has not mentioned this before doesn't mean she didn't have that information in 1992. After 20 years of this case going cold, she may be revealing more of what she knows to the public. I would totally understand that.

 

[Hurricane]

I find the wording of your statement very interesting. "If we are to believe Appleby's statements".

You have always been very direct in your statements when it comes to people you feel had nothing to do with the 3MW crime. If I've figured anything out about you, it is that you say what you mean, and you seem to mean what you say. You have never been one to miss-speak when it comes to the verbiage that you use. And I've always respected that about you. At least we've never had to question the meaning of most of the things that you've posted in the past.

So with that said, based on the way you worded the statement above, this very clearly implies to me that you, and or, others, may believe there were some veracity issues with Mr. Appleby and statements that he made regarding the events of that night.

And, considering that the last three people to see Susie & Stacy alive that night were Janelle Kirby, Mike Henson and Shane Appleby, all of which were at Janelle's house when Susie and Stacy left to go to Susies house.

Everyone knows about Janelles story in which she agrees to meet them the next day, and then goes into her house to go to bed.

But no one seems to want to talk about, or include the fact that Mike and Shane were there too. I've posed this issue several different times, but no one, including some of the key people who have been involved in their own investigations of the 3MW crime (And I'm not talking about LE), will respond to this issue.

I'll also add, Janelle and Mike, per their own statements, went to Susies house around 12-12:30pm that Sunday. After they left there, they went to Shanes house to see if Susie & Stacy were over there. But when they got there, according to their statements, Shane was still in bed asleep.

Even though it was after 1pm when they arrived at Shanes house, he was still in bed asleep. Presumably he went to bed around the same time that Janelle and Mike did....right. He hadn't been drinking heavily the night before, at least one would think this, based on the fact that he had been the one who had been driving everyone around to the parties they attended that night.....right. People have historically stated, once again, that these were just the actions of an 18yr old.....sleeping in. May be they are.

Again, I'm not accusing anyone of anything, just pointing out some observations.

Monkeymann, sorry if I gave the wrong impression. I did not intend to imply that I had doubts about Appleby's statement concerning his time spent with Suzie at the parties. Other attendees confirm that he and Suzie spent most of their time together talking, with others frequently being in and out indicating the subjects of conversation were not of a serious nature or anything that turned dark. And I don't find the fact that he was still in bed asleep at 1:00 pm the next day after a night of partying unusual at all. I'm sure Hensen would have been at his home in bed too, if Janelle hadn't woke him up. I don't know if you went to college and lived in dorm housing but at 18, 19, 20 yrs old that is quite common for males; not so much for females. If he had been involved or had first hand information concerning the abduction of the 3MW I would think his behavior would be quite the opposite and that he would have been suffering from insomnia. And I would agree with you that at least up until the Joy party broke up he probably had not been drinking heavily.

 

[Missouri Mule]

There are two things that we DO know. (Based on published accounts)

1) Jannelle began her telephone calls checking on the girls very early in the morning when in fact, it was only 35 miles to Branson. Why the rush? Even if we believe that girls don't sleep late in the morning as do boys of that age, why was she calling so early? Her actions later that day when she was crying in the BACK seat of Michael's car seem odd to me. What is that all about? Why didn't they drive to the McCall's home immediately? It wasn't that far. That's what I would have done if I were in their shoes. If my wife tells me she is going to be home by such and such a time and is not, I start calling her and anyone else who might know. And if I can't get anyone on the phone, I start driving. I don't "assume" anything. Never have.

While it is true that cell phones were not widely used at that time there were virtually land lines to all homes in the Springfield area and the roads were clear and lightly driven in the early morning. Apparently in spite of all the hand wringing and seat back crying, no one had the presence of mind to get to the bottom of this mystery. Stated differently, I don't think these explanations make a lick of sense.

2) This has always puzzled me and I have never seen a good explanation. Going on memory here, I believe that Mrs. McCall phoned the Kirby home at 10:30 AM asking to speak to Stacy. She was told by Jannelle's sister that Stacy wasn't there whereupon Mrs. McCall essentially said in so many words that she was being lied to. In any event why didn't she and Mr. McCall drive to the Levitt home if she was unable to reach Stacy and get to the bottom of this immediately? Mr. McCall is on record as stating that Stacy has permission to go to the Kirby residence but NOT to the Levitt home. What was that all about? Yet, even though Mrs. McCall evidently did not believe or want to believe that Stacy had disobeyed her she and her family went to the lake to watch miniature boat races as a "pleasant day in the sun."

To my way of thinking, none of this makes any real sense and then we have the rather mysterious erasing of the phone call messages and it is not clear to me who did the erasing.

I don't know about the rest of you but the last thing I would doing would be to have a "pleasant day in the sun" when I didn't have a clue where my daughter was, ESPECIALLY since she didn't have permission to go the the Levitt home. And as for as Jannelle she must have gotten over her crying spell as she spent time at the local Hydro-slide and she too didn't have a clue at that time that her very best friends were unaccounted for. Again is this reasonable conduct given the information published?

There WAS a reason why those messages were erased and I am not persuaded that the alleged reasons are benign. Stated differently and more succinctly, I believe those erased phone calls would have established a rather clear timeline. Certainly more than any alleged obscene phone calls is what actually took place during the hours of approximately 2:50 AM and 7 AM the next morning. Even more so it is probable the timeline could be further confined to about 3:15 AM (when the girls were ready for bed) and 6 AM when it is provable that any activity would have been seen by passers-by in that neighborhood after that time. So we really have about a 2 hour and 45 minute period of probable time that SOMETHING took place in or about that home. That erased tape was critical in my view.

Now if my memory is faulty here in any substantive way, please feel free to correct me. This was what I understand went down that morning.

 

[daisy7]

Peeps - please get back on topic and discuss the case, not posters! :tyou:

Apparently, not everyone read my warning, so let me say it more clearly and loudly:

discuss the case, NOT posters

This is the last warning before TOs will be handed out.

 

[monkeymann]

Apparently, not everyone read my warning, so let me say it more clearly and loudly:

discuss the case, NOT posters

This is the last warning before TOs will be handed out.

Please explain to everyone then, how we are suppose to discuss the case, when you won't allow us to discuss or debate inconsistancies, or, questionable things people have posted about the case, without including the person who posted the information in the conversation, or allowing us to debate things someone has posted, with that person?

Nothing we were discussing was getting out of control or vulgar, nor would it have.

 

[Salem]

Please explain to everyone then, how we are suppose to discuss the case, when you won't allow us to discuss or debate inconsistancies, or, questionable things people have posted about the case, without including the person who posted the information in the conversation, or allowing us to debate things someone has posted, with that person?

Nothing we were discussing was getting out of control or vulgar, nor would it have.

Hi monkeyman,

First, whenever you have a question about moderation or case discussion, please send a pm to the mod. You may send the pm to any mod of your choice, we are all here to help and will be happy to answer any questions. Posting such questions in the thread just disrupts discussion and takes the thread off topic.

Discussing the case means just that - discussing the information gleaned from MSM, LE and case players. It does not mean questioning or attacking other posters. This case was getting seriously off topic by some back and forth bickering. EVERY poster is entitled to their opinion. When a poster wants to try to change an opinion, the proper way to do that is through factual postings backed up with links. Not by accusing or calling into question the poster's comments. A good rule of thumb, when arguing a position on a case, is to look at the message. If the word "you" is being used, the post is likely going to be read as confrontational and aggressive. It is better to say something like: "This article shows that the girls were......" and add the link rather that "you always say such and such."

Whenever there is bickering or attacking, the mods ask that you please alert the post and MOVE PAST IT. Do not respond. By responding, you subject yourself to any consequences for further derailing the thread.

Hope this helps and if you have any further questions, please PM a mod and they will give you a hand.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[bearx]

This case has fascinated me for a long time and I've spent the last 3 weeks or so reading the info on this site about it. I have a question that I haven't seen discussed (though I haven't seen 100% of threads and I think at least one was pulled?).

There is some connection to a grave robbing scheme, right? What are the chances the bodies are re-buried in a looted grave?

Again if this was discussed I missed it but it's one thing that stuck out at me and I wonder, that's all.

 

[Missouri Mule]

This case has fascinated me for a long time and I've spent the last 3 weeks or so reading the info on this site about it. I have a question that I haven't seen discussed (though I haven't seen 100% of threads and I think at least one was pulled?).

There is some connection to a grave robbing scheme, right? What are the chances the bodies are re-buried in a looted grave?

Again if this was discussed I missed it but it's one thing that stuck out at me and I wonder, that's all.

That is a theory I used to entertain myself. It would be the perfect way to dispose of a body. Just go to a newly buried grave, dig it up and deposit the body or bodies on top of the coffin and recover it in the night. Being a newly covered grave, it wouldn't necessarily or likely be noticed.

Having said that, I don't know if this was ever actually investigated. The latest theories I have heard is that the bodies were simply dumped deep in the Ozarks. Unfortunately, it is so dense with vegetation that they have to pump sunlight into the woods. By this time at best there may be only a few bones that haven't been scavenged by wild animals.

What needs to happen is for someone to come forth with information and can take the authorities to where the bodies were deposited. For this information I would first look to the GJ3. One of the best known is in prison and not talking. Another is, I believe, also in prison in another state and the third's location is not currently known. (by me) But they were investigated by a federal grand jury in 1994 and no indictments were forthcoming. That is also when Cox's name first appeared to any degree and his alibi collapsed. He remains in prison in Lovelady, Texas on a life sentence and is theoretically eligible for parole in 2025. He has largely clammed up now as well.

It is not known if there is any connection to the grave robbing business. The then chief of police ruled them out early in the investigation to the consternation of veteran police detectives for reasons known only to him. I believe it is correct to say that at least one, perhaps two, officers who were assigned this case wanted to look in that direction but were discouraged from doing so. One of these officers has spoken to his frustration regarding this.

Have been told that the "dig" in Cassville was the one most considered to have real merit. There were items that were found but as I understand it, the items recovered were sealed by court order. I believe that had something to do with a deathbed confession of sorts. We don't know the full story (or anything revealing) of what came from that endeavor.

It's a very strange case and the last I heard the police are not willing to hold a wide ranging press conference and address some of the obvious questions that have surfaced over the years. As i understand it they have some 23-24 boxes of carefully documented files on this case. But at this point seems to be largely dormant.

 

[Hurricane]

This case has fascinated me for a long time and I've spent the last 3 weeks or so reading the info on this site about it. I have a question that I haven't seen discussed (though I haven't seen 100% of threads and I think at least one was pulled?).

There is some connection to a grave robbing scheme, right? What are the chances the bodies are re-buried in a looted grave?

Again if this was discussed I missed it but it's one thing that stuck out at me and I wonder, that's all.

This has come up before. I called a burial vault company and they gave me the dimensions that I asked for. I still have this info in a file but this is what I recall by memory: It turns out the only way this would even be possible is that the hole would have had to be dug deeper by as much as 3 ft (even deeper for 3 bodies) and the bodies buried before the concrete vault was put in place. For safety reasons among others the concrete burial vault is set in place within hours of the hole being dug. There physically is not enough clearance inside the vault for 3 bodies with the casket in place (literally just inches) and there is not room for the bodies to be buried on top of the vault with only 24 to 26 inches of dirt on top of the vault lid. And Missouri has had a state law requiring the use of burial vaults since the late 1940's.

The idea of the bodies now being inside the mausoleum that was vandalized has been thrown out there in the rumor mill as well. The mausoleum was vandalized for a second time a few years later and the contents were returned, and the stain glass window used to gain entry was covered with sheet metal. So the contents of the mausoleum are known and the 3MW are not there either.

 

[Hurricane]

If the remains were to be found today in a safe, dark, dry place such as a cave or dry sink hole I have been told the clothing could still be reasonably in tact and could possibly provide dna and fiber evidence. If the remains have been out in the open or in a damp cave or sink hole, other than the obvious evidence such as possibly how they died, their evidentary value diminishes.

 

[bearx]

Interesting, thanks for the info. This theory has always just struck me once the allusion to a grave robbing scheme came up. It's like two birds with one stone for those involved. I didn't know Missouri required vaults for burials.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I grew up next to a cemetary and I and my friends used to play there once in a while. The graves were usually dug 24 hours in advance. I used to think what a "perfect crime" it would be to dig the hole further down to deposit a body before the grave was filled. Nobody would ever find the body. I wonder how many times that has happened? If I had thought of that as a kid, I'm sure an adult with murder on their mind must have thought of that, too..

Wouldn't that be great, MM? Has anyone invited any of the detectives in this case to the board to answer questions we might have that they could answer? I know it's an active investigation, so they couldn't answer everything. But they could at least help us clarify some of the rumor from fact.

I can state, with personal knowledge, that these discussion sites have been monitored (at least from time to time) by some LE personnel. (not necessarily the SPD) I have no direct knowledge if any have ever been asked to participate. I suppose the working procedures are such that anything shared with the public would jeopardize the case and its prosecution. I would doubt they would come onto a board to discuss the case unless cleared by the highest authorities. I would guess they would not simply because they don't want any knowledge or hints to be leaked to the perpetrators.

Having said that, in view of the fact the case is now unsolved two whole decades later, I don't really see why such a tight lid is being kept on the case unless indictments are in the offing. That I doubt, but perhaps the police are gun shy having been reamed out by a former prosecutor, now judge, and the last prosecutor who were so concerned by what was shown on the "48 Hours" program.

But in thinking about the grave business, one would have to think that the women were not abducted merely to kill them for no reason. That is the part I don't get, and is, I believe, why so many theories; and many nonsense rumors, are spread about this case. I don't know much more about this case than when I first became interested in it. I do, however, believe Hurricane probably has a pretty good idea of what happened as he has put a lot of personal time in looking into the case. Perhaps he could speak to the reticence of the police department's silence.