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

[former central time]

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.

If the bodies have decomposed to bones, DNA can still be extracted, they’re doing that with ancient bodies today. They also did that with the Romanov family in Russia (murdered in 1918), testing remains with their distant British cousins. Here we have the advantage of living direct family members, and I bet their samples are on file. ID’ing should be a synch.

 

[Hurricane]

If the bodies have decomposed to bones, DNA can still be extracted, they’re doing that with ancient bodies today. They also did that with the Romanov family in Russia (murdered in 1918), testing remains with their distant British cousins. Here we have the advantage of living direct family members, and I bet their samples are on file. ID’ing should be a synch.

I know family DNA is on file and so their remains could be positively identified. But if their clothing has been reasonably preserved in the right conditions there could be hair or other DNA evidence from the perps, or possibly even fiber evidence. I know all the usual suspects have DNA on file except possibly the 3 grave robbers. The problem with fiber evidence then becomes finding & matching it to the source after all these years.

 

[former central time]

I know family DNA is on file and so their remains could be positively identified. But if their clothing has been reasonably preserved in the right conditions there could be hair or other DNA evidence from the perps, or possibly even fiber evidence. I know all the usual suspects have DNA on file except possibly the 3 grave robbers. The problem with fiber evidence then becomes finding & matching it to the source after all these years.

Ahhh...gotcha.

 

[Hurricane]

I have pondered on what forensic evidence LE might have from 1717 or might be recovered from the remains if they were found and what it might mean to the case, and specifically trace hair evidence since it is so easily shed. It all comes down to this: trace hair can be matched to an individual but not to the exclusion of all others like DNA can. In examining trace hair it is possible for a hair sample to have a medulla (inner core), a cortex (intermediate layer), and a cuticle (outer covering) that match more than one individual. And DNA from trace hair can not be generated unless the hair root or bulb is still attached. So a hair that has been clipped (as in a hair cut) or broken off can not produce a DNA sample. As the old saying goes, it has to be "pulled out by the root" to produce DNA.

If LE has trace hair evidence from 1717 it might point toward a suspect who had no reason to have ever been there, but that in and of itself is not enough forensic evidence to go to court on. Without the bulb to generate DNA it's not enough to identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others. If it is just a shed hair the argument could be made that the source is simply one of Sherrill's many clients and she brought it home on her clothing, and the source was not the suspect. Pubic hair gets a little harder to explain away, but again it does not identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others.

And if LE has DNA evidence regardless of the source their actions should tell us that either it is not from any of the usual suspects who have felony convictions and would have DNA on file; or it does match one of the usual suspects who could make a strong argument for having been to 1717 at some point (and which argument could be made by any of Suzie's friends, by the way); that in and of itself it is simply not enough evidence for a conviction (and there is no point in pushing the case into court on thin evidence if the suspect is already in prison for a very long time); or it is from a previously unknown individual such as a "mystery man".

 

[Missouri Mule]

As I understand the case, any DNA or other forensic evidence found at the scene, should it belong to any of the known people to have been in the house would not form any real evidence to bring them to trial should they be the perpetrators. However, for example, should any DNA evidence emerge from, for example, any of the GJ3 or Cox, that should, in my opinion, be ample evidence to bring any of those individuals to trial. They never had any reason to have been in the house.

Since it is probable that there is DNA evidence of people known to have been in the house, perhaps we should consider that one or more of them may have been involved.

Which begs the question; were they properly cleared; such as the grave robbers, for example, who were known (or had probable reason) to have been in the house.

Which takes me back to the original mystery; why did the chief of police personally intervene to clear those individuals to the dismay of the professional investigators, as told to me by a reporter who covered this investigation.

But assuming that the chief was correct and there was no connection, do we instead have an unknown (not discussed) "mystery man" involved? Some believe so.

If this case were to land in my lap the first thing I would want to do is to investigate the basis for eliminating the grave robbers; especially if there were any connections to any of the GJ3. I'm not understanding why that part of the investigation seemingly has been swept aside. There is no question but that there was motive there.

 

[bearx]

I keep thinking about this- the graves must be someone accessible if contents were possibly being looted- I'm not saying they are under the coffin (though that is a good theory, I forget the PP who brought it up) or even in, but all you have to do is dig & bury, really. The logistics could be a few different ways. It seems like there's a possibility that someone was digging into the cemetery, at any rate, but I don't know enough about this angle- were messed-up graves spotted? If so it'd be hard to keep things hidden, right?

 

[Missouri Mule]

I keep thinking about this- the graves must be someone accessible if contents were possibly being looted- I'm not saying they are under the coffin (though that is a good theory, I forget the PP who brought it up) or even in, but all you have to do is dig & bury, really. The logistics could be a few different ways. It seems like there's a possibility that someone was digging into the cemetery, at any rate, but I don't know enough about this angle- were messed-up graves spotted? If so it'd be hard to keep things hidden, right?

I had thought they were above ground crypts. I'm unaware they actually dug up any graves.

 

[former central time]

I have pondered on what forensic evidence LE might have from 1717 or might be recovered from the remains if they were found and what it might mean to the case, and specifically trace hair evidence since it is so easily shed. It all comes down to this: trace hair can be matched to an individual but not to the exclusion of all others like DNA can. In examining trace hair it is possible for a hair sample to have a medulla (inner core), a cortex (intermediate layer), and a cuticle (outer covering) that match more than one individual. And DNA from trace hair can not be generated unless the hair root or bulb is still attached. So a hair that has been clipped (as in a hair cut) or broken off can not produce a DNA sample. As the old saying goes, it has to be "pulled out by the root" to produce DNA.

If LE has trace hair evidence from 1717 it might point toward a suspect who had no reason to have ever been there, but that in and of itself is not enough forensic evidence to go to court on. Without the bulb to generate DNA it's not enough to identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others. If it is just a shed hair the argument could be made that the source is simply one of Sherrill's many clients and she brought it home on her clothing, and the source was not the suspect. Pubic hair gets a little harder to explain away, but again it does not identify a specific individual to the exclusion of all others.

And if LE has DNA evidence regardless of the source their actions should tell us that either it is not from any of the usual suspects who have felony convictions and would have DNA on file; or it does match one of the usual suspects who could make a strong argument for having been to 1717 at some point (and which argument could be made by any of Suzie's friends, by the way); that in and of itself it is simply not enough evidence for a conviction (and there is no point in pushing the case into court on thin evidence if the suspect is already in prison for a very long time); or it is from a previously unknown individual such as a "mystery man".

That’s pretty much my line of thinking as well. There may be a hair or other human evidence that gives a direct DNA connection and ID, but they don’t have a name/face with it. They don’t know if it is friend or foe. Was it one of the perps, or the many guests in the house that Sunday ? I suspect, to a lesser degree it may exist with any finger/foot prints (my guess is the perps wore gloves). And too, bodily fluids such as saliva contain DNA evidence. But, if this John Doe has never been convicted or his samples entered into the national databank, you have a mystery man ID. I don’t know if there are scans for possible ‘criminal relatives’ who might offer a trace to roots back in SW Missouri in 1992.

Having that kind of strong evidence is the heavy lifting though. Once a name/face is confirmed, the background story/circumstantial evidence can add context. I too have pondered what evidence from 1717 the State has sequestered and collected. And recently, what’s being ‘retested’ to the modern standards. Have all the known ‘guests’ that Sunday given DNA samples to authorities ?

 

[former central time]

--------------------snip---------------------------

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.

--------------------snip---------------------------

I’d like to backtrack into the 'grave robbers’ component of this and maybe for the benefit of some of the newer lurkers. I have not followed this part of the case as carefully, nor am I up on the roster of suspects (Cox and Garrison are the big ‘stars’ whose names come up a lot). But, what was the real motivation of these grave robbers at that time ? Was it monetary gain ? Seems pretty petty and cumbersome for that. Was it twisted perversion/Satanic ritual and whatever ? I can see that. It’s been mentioned before and I remember it when I lived there, the other rash of grave robbing which appeared focused on Jewish graves in 1996. Was this similar/similar players to the 1992 period ? I believe it’s been raised of some Arian fringe group connection as well, that the presumed anti-Semitic component to this. I think it’s been established Suzie had connections with some of these people, as she was to testify against one of the grave robbers, where does that put her, if we know. Did she share these views ? Let me say very clearly, if I were arguing this case either way, I would chalk it up to a ‘youthful indiscretion.’

More directly, as a casual observer to this case, outside of Suzie’s testimony to LE against the grave robbers, I don’t see these guys in the same league as the perps in 3MW. It appears to me that 3MW requires different skills, sophistication and tact to blunder detection more than robbing unguarded graves in a cemetery. If there’s an indirect connection, that gets more into conspiracy stuff with more mouths keeping shut. Again, I’m not saying this couldn’t happen, and you’ve certainly pointed out a direct motive. The connect still 'feels’ awkward.

 

[bearx]

I had thought they were above ground crypts. I'm unaware they actually dug up any graves.

Ok- so I misunderstood when I read "grave robbing" on here so much. Got it now!

 

[Missouri Mule]

--------------------snip---------------------------
More directly, as a casual observer to this case, outside of Suzie’s testimony to LE against the grave robbers, I don’t see these guys in the same league as the perps in 3MW. It appears to me that 3MW requires different skills, sophistication and tact to blunder detection more than robbing unguarded graves in a cemetery. If there’s an indirect connection, that gets more into conspiracy stuff with more mouths keeping shut. Again, I’m not saying this couldn’t happen, and you’ve certainly pointed out a direct motive. The connect still 'feels’ awkward.

There have been assertions by some that one of the GJ3 may have had some connection to the grave robbers. My personal opinion is that the grave robbers did not participate in the actual abductions but could, I would speculate, provide an entry into or at the home, possibly outside where the perp or perps were able to subdue the women. Perhaps even a phone call such as "I'm coming over to your house" would have been sufficient to get the door opened.

Of the four agencies who have looked at this case the consensus appeared to be one of "sexual assault." I do not know if there was actual evidence or just a preponderance of elimination of all the other motives that led them to this conclusion.

This is why I discussed the matter of the erased tape a few posts back. From what I have read there were some inconsistencies in the accounts of how and who erased the tapes and for what reasons. Personally, I find the accounts very troubling. I do not know what the police thought about that.

In a TV interview made a few years back, which is no longer available, Jannelle appeared to be quite irked at the police who kept coming back to ask her questions. As I recall she complained that the police evidently from her point of view didn't talk to one another as each one kept asking her the same questions that she had been asked before. I take away from that they also did not feel comfortable that everything was explained satisfactorily.

My personal opinion is that of the many people in the house that day that not all of them should be given a clean bill of health.

 

[Hurricane]

That’s pretty much my line of thinking as well. There may be a hair or other human evidence that gives a direct DNA connection and ID, but they don’t have a name/face with it. They don’t know if it is friend or foe. Was it one of the perps, or the many guests in the house that Sunday ? I suspect, to a lesser degree it may exist with any finger/foot prints (my guess is the perps wore gloves). And too, bodily fluids such as saliva contain DNA evidence. But, if this John Doe has never been convicted or his samples entered into the national databank, you have a mystery man ID. I don’t know if there are scans for possible ‘criminal relatives’ who might offer a trace to roots back in SW Missouri in 1992.

Having that kind of strong evidence is the heavy lifting though. Once a name/face is confirmed, the background story/circumstantial evidence can add context. I too have pondered what evidence from 1717 the State has sequestered and collected. And recently, what’s being ‘retested’ to the modern standards. Have all the known ‘guests’ that Sunday given DNA samples to authorities ?

If there was trace hair, fiber, or DNA evidence recovered, it in and of itself is simply not sufficient enough to make the case in a court of law. How can that be if it's DNA? It could be that it matches to a close friend of the girls who could make the argument that they had been in the house at sometime during the previous 2-1/2 months, and therefore induce reasonable doubt to a jury if that is the essence of the evidence in their case. If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement? If no further evidence is ever developed then some future PA may have to take a "Hail Mary" shot at it if the day ever comes where the perp is going to be released from prison. But not until then. And I think perhaps that is some of what has been recently explained to Janis McCall.

In the news videos of the day forensic investigators can be seen carrying out bagged evidence. I, too have wondered what that evidence is and what is likely to be retested. In videos LE can be seen finger printing some cabinet doors which are likely in either the kitchen or bathroom, and I believe some larger items were removed from the house to be tested later. But I believe most of the bagged evidence was removed from Suzie's bedroom, Sherrill's bedroom, and the bathroom. That may not be all inclusive but by narrowing down to the rooms where the forensic evidence most likely came from you can come up with your own short list of what that bagged evidence was most likely to be.

I have been told that except for Suzie's bedroom the rooms in the house had all been freshly painted. If he reads this perhaps Dale417 can verify that. And remember, one of Sherrill's activities that night that tends to get overlooked, was putting up a wall paper boarder in one of the rooms. From the pictures it appears Suzie's room had never been painted. Perhaps it had been wall papered before and recently stripped but the walls appear to be old unpainted dry wall from when it was a garage.. The previous resident told me she used the room as a family room during the warm months. So I'm not sure on that.

We know that LE recovered 64 individual finger prints (going on memory); not from 64 individuals. Since the house had been freshly painted that seems reasonable to me. We know that all of the prints were identified. There was a story of an unidentified partial palm print but I don't recall the source for that now. So I too believe that the perps wore gloves. If they had been working in some capacity as day laborers in the weeks leading up to the abductions, in the estate homes just to the west and working out of their van then it is entirely possible & probable that they had work gloves with them in the van. And remember that anyone on parole would be required to have a job as a condition to their parole, and their parole officer would know exactly where they worked.

I don't know if the friends who entered the house that Sunday were swabbed for DNA or not. If any were considered suspects I'm sure they were asked to be swabbed & polyed but whether they would consent or not I don't know.

 

[dale417]

Hurricane, I wish I could help you on the painting in the home. I lean toward it having been done but I cannot deny or confirm either way. I do recall Sherrill as being extremely clean in her housekeeping and always busy "sprucing" things up around her home (i.e.,as evident by the refinishing project). Sorry I can't help more with your question.

 

[Missouri Mule]

If there was trace hair, fiber, or DNA evidence recovered, it in and of itself is simply not sufficient enough to make the case in a court of law. How can that be if it's DNA? It could be that it matches to a close friend of the girls who could make the argument that they had been in the house at sometime during the previous 2-1/2 months, and therefore induce reasonable doubt to a jury if that is the essence of the evidence in their case. If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement? If no further evidence is ever developed then some future PA may have to take a "Hail Mary" shot at it if the day ever comes where the perp is going to be released from prison. But not until then. And I think perhaps that is some of what has been recently explained to Janis McCall.

In the news videos of the day forensic investigators can be seen carrying out bagged evidence. I, too have wondered what that evidence is and what is likely to be retested. In videos LE can be seen finger printing some cabinet doors which are likely in either the kitchen or bathroom, and I believe some larger items were removed from the house to be tested later. But I believe most of the bagged evidence was removed from Suzie's bedroom, Sherrill's bedroom, and the bathroom. That may not be all inclusive but by narrowing down to the rooms where the forensic evidence most likely came from you can come up with your own short list of what that bagged evidence was most likely to be.

I have been told that except for Suzie's bedroom the rooms in the house had all been freshly painted. If he reads this perhaps Dale417 can verify that. And remember, one of Sherrill's activities that night that tends to get overlooked, was putting up a wall paper boarder in one of the rooms. From the pictures it appears Suzie's room had never been painted. Perhaps it had been wall papered before and recently stripped but the walls appear to be old unpainted dry wall from when it was a garage.. The previous resident told me she used the room as a family room during the warm months. So I'm not sure on that.

We know that LE recovered 64 individual finger prints (going on memory); not from 64 individuals. Since the house had been freshly painted that seems reasonable to me. We know that all of the prints were identified. There was a story of an unidentified partial palm print but I don't recall the source for that now. So I too believe that the perps wore gloves. If they had been working in some capacity as day laborers in the weeks leading up to the abductions, in the estate homes just to the west and working out of their van then it is entirely possible & probable that they had work gloves with them in the van. And remember that anyone on parole would be required to have a job as a condition to their parole, and their parole officer would know exactly where they worked.

I don't know if the friends who entered the house that Sunday were swabbed for DNA or not. If any were considered suspects I'm sure they were asked to be swabbed & polyed but whether they would consent or not I don't know.

Hmmm. That's interesting. And I had been operating under the impression that the perp was not in prison although his accomplice or accomplices might be. Without naming names, we know who two of those individuals might be and where they are. If the one most prominently named, he is going to be in prison for a very long time. The other not quite so long. (not speaking of Cox)

I had heard about the probability that gloves were used and have even heard that a gun might have been used to gain the cooperation of the women.

 

[Hurricane]

Hmmm. That's interesting. And I had been operating under the impression that the perp was not in prison although his accomplice or accomplices might be. Without naming names, we know who two of those individuals might be and where they are. If the one most prominently named, he is going to be in prison for a very long time. The other not quite so long. (not speaking of Cox)

I had heard about the probability that gloves were used and have even heard that a gun might have been used to gain the cooperation of the women.

I am giving two examples as to why this case may not have gone to trial IF LE has DNA evidence and an otherwise weak case:

"If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement?"

No where did I say THE PERP was in prison.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I am giving two examples as to why this case may not have gone to trial IF LE has DNA evidence and an otherwise weak case:

"If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement?"

No where did I say THE PERP was in prison.

"where the perp is going to be released from prison."

You prefaced this with " If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction" That was the interpretation of what I understood you to say.

Of course it is possible that you meant that the perp might be caught in the future. I interpreted to mean in the present tense.

I take it then that you were talking in the theoretical sense. Stated differently, you expect the perpetrator will be at some point arrested and then put in prison as a possible situation in the future. At that point the person could be tried by some future prosecutor with the "hail Mary" prosecution.

I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth; just that it caught my eye and thought you meant this person was already in jail. I apologize if that was not your intention.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

I'd like to see someone try and ELIMINATE Steve Garrison completely as a suspect or having zero connection to the case. I'm hoping this isn't a "can't prove a negative" type of thing either. I believe there's substantial evidence on Garrison.

Can anyone?

 

[monkeymann]

I'd like to see someone try and ELIMINATE Steve Garrison completely as a suspect or having zero connection to the case. I'm hoping this isn't a "can't prove a negative" type of thing either. I believe there's substantial evidence on Garrison.

Can anyone?

I've always looked at the Steve Garrison issue like this.

Ask yourself this question: "Would police have conducted the large scale search (they brought in heavy equipment and sealed the search warrant and subsequant findings of the search) if they didn't feel that Steve Garrison was giving them information that was valid in some way."


Question #2) I'd like to know if someone will come clean about if the story is true regarding Steve Garrison and one or more of the Grave Robbers being seen together at an apartment, in which police had been there to talk to an occupant of the apartment about an unrelated matter, and seen Garrison & one or more of the Grave Robbers in the apartment.

It would certainly help answer the question HmmmWhoKnows is asking.

 

[former central time]

If there was trace hair, fiber, or DNA evidence recovered, it in and of itself is simply not sufficient enough to make the case in a court of law. How can that be if it's DNA? It could be that it matches to a close friend of the girls who could make the argument that they had been in the house at sometime during the previous 2-1/2 months, and therefore induce reasonable doubt to a jury if that is the essence of the evidence in their case. If it matches someone already in prison for a very long time on a felony conviction and that is the essence of the evidence in the case then why rush to judgement? If no further evidence is ever developed then some future PA may have to take a "Hail Mary" shot at it if the day ever comes where the perp is going to be released from prison. But not until then. And I think perhaps that is some of what has been recently explained to Janis McCall.

In the news videos of the day forensic investigators can be seen carrying out bagged evidence. I, too have wondered what that evidence is and what is likely to be retested. In videos LE can be seen finger printing some cabinet doors which are likely in either the kitchen or bathroom, and I believe some larger items were removed from the house to be tested later. But I believe most of the bagged evidence was removed from Suzie's bedroom, Sherrill's bedroom, and the bathroom. That may not be all inclusive but by narrowing down to the rooms where the forensic evidence most likely came from you can come up with your own short list of what that bagged evidence was most likely to be.

I have been told that except for Suzie's bedroom the rooms in the house had all been freshly painted. If he reads this perhaps Dale417 can verify that. And remember, one of Sherrill's activities that night that tends to get overlooked, was putting up a wall paper boarder in one of the rooms. From the pictures it appears Suzie's room had never been painted. Perhaps it had been wall papered before and recently stripped but the walls appear to be old unpainted dry wall from when it was a garage.. The previous resident told me she used the room as a family room during the warm months. So I'm not sure on that.

We know that LE recovered 64 individual finger prints (going on memory); not from 64 individuals. Since the house had been freshly painted that seems reasonable to me. We know that all of the prints were identified. There was a story of an unidentified partial palm print but I don't recall the source for that now. So I too believe that the perps wore gloves. If they had been working in some capacity as day laborers in the weeks leading up to the abductions, in the estate homes just to the west and working out of their van then it is entirely possible & probable that they had work gloves with them in the van. And remember that anyone on parole would be required to have a job as a condition to their parole, and their parole officer would know exactly where they worked.

I don't know if the friends who entered the house that Sunday were swabbed for DNA or not. If any were considered suspects I'm sure they were asked to be swabbed & polyed but whether they would consent or not I don't know.

I don’t necessarily disagree that’s what may be happening, but I don’t know if that’s the wisest move by the State. Time is not in their favor. All this circumstantial stuff and eyewitnesses fade with time. Witnesses move away, memories fade, people die all which can add more doubt to the recipe. DNA is a pretty good club to carry. A positive ID with a felon in prison somewhere else shouldn’t act as a barrier to be tried in SW Missouri. Although I wouldn’t say bureaucratic resistance and turf battles don’t happen. But, didn’t they drag Cox from a California prison to stand trial in Florida in the 80‘s ?

Apparently DNA is collected fairly regularly of convicted felons, but even in states where it’s mandatory, it isn’t total and enforcement lacks. The perp(s) may have slipped between the cracks in some facility. If they can’t match the samples to anyone in the national bank it may also mean the perp is dead. But, if they are sitting on a positive DNA match it goes to show you how weak their circumstantial/eyewitness case is.

 

[Thewop356]

I have not been reading this thread for very long, but I did skim over the last few months and noticed that not once (that I saw) was Larry Dwayne Hall's name mentioned. I am sure that he may have been mentioned in earlier threads, but I cannot ignore the fact that a witness came forward saying he saw a blonde girl driving an older Dodge Van later on Sunday. The witness also said that an unseen male voice told the blonde girl driving "not to do anything stupid". Larry Hall had a Dodge Van similar to what the witness described and he has been accused of abducting dozens of girls using said van. He has even been accused mutlipe times of abducting more than one girl at a time. The book written about Larry Dwayne Hall by Chris Martin even mentions that he is suspected in the Springfield Three abduction. I just thought I would bring this info back into the thread and please exuse me if I overlooked some evidence the was provided that may have cleared him as a suspect in this disappearance.