wfgodot
Former Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2009
- Messages
- 30,166
- Reaction score
- 790
Me too.I am interested in the idea that Sherrill might have been abducted before the girls got home.
Me too.I am interested in the idea that Sherrill might have been abducted before the girls got home.
It is just a possibility. There is no evidence I know of that says all three had to be taken at the same time. It is conceivable that Suzie checked her mother's bedroom and seeing she was not home might have assumed the returning perp(s) were bringing her back home and opened the door.I am interested in the idea that Sherrill might have been abducted before the girls got home.
It is just a possibility. There is no evidence I know of that says all three had to be taken at the same time. It is conceivable that Suzie checked her mother's bedroom and seeing she was not home might have assumed the returning perp(s) were bringing her back home and opened the door.
All we know for a certainty is that Sherrill's last known contact was approximately 11:15 PM and that the girls arrived at approximately 2:50 AM. She could have been taken anytime during that three hour period and the perp(s) returned to "clean" up the crime scene and found the girls home so they were taken then. If the case is ever solved and the story told we will finally learn what took place.
Mule...thanks for sharing ! While this may not be the scenario, this is very much out of the box thinking. I personally think it has a LOT of merit. The general presumption has been, and Ive read very little deviate from it, was they were all taken at the same time.
Back to your earlier post. My favorite points are: 2, 6, 9 and 10. Also, I echo your point about careful arrest and prosecution. In 1969, DA Jim Garrison was absolutely convinced Clay Shaw was guilty of conspiracy in the murder of President Kennedy. Jury was unconvinced, Mr. Shaw walked. You get one bite at the apple...make it a good one.
Mule...on the cases the State lost, you referred to in your other post, are those the school teacher acquittals in the mid 90's ?
I appreciate the kind comments but in truth I have had a long interest in this case. Over a period of time the essential facts seem more evident and there has been much written about this case. I've also had some help along the way. But I would leave you with this thought. None of us laymen really know how the investigation is progressing or at all. We are just out of the loop.
What I do know is that from what I have seen has led me to advise everyone to let the professionals (the police) handle this case. Stated differently I am not looking to discover new suspects. If the police cannot solve this case with what they have it may never be solved. And I can state with certainty they have vast quantities of information at their disposal. I believe it is accurate to state that there are some 24 or more boxes of material at the SPD and every tip, rumor, etc., has been tagged and run to ground. It is not enough to know who committed the crime but how to convict them.
There is nothing we can do but to express our personal beliefs. I do believe what I posted but I can't guarantee you that what I said is provable fact.
Forgive me for not remembering but the alleged sighting at "George's" you are referring to, is that the restaurant the women were known to frequent where the waitress said she saw them but nobody else remembered seeing them on that busy night? Is that the name of the restaurant, Georges, or is this about something else? Can't remember.
Mule, you know I have always wanted the George's sighting to be true--probably because I am still hung up on how the killer picked these women (or one of them at least) to target.
It is still possible that one or more of the women knew their abductor(s), or that the girls were followed home, or that Sherrill was the target from the start, or that one of the girls had been an object of someone's fixation.
I just got done reading a lot about an old set of PA murders by a dirtbag named Edward Surratt. Among other horrible things he did was break into occupied homes, kill the male with a shotgun blast, and abduct the women. His female victims ranged from 16 (a girl abducted from a car, whose companion was shot) to mid-60s. He had victims out of PA who might even have been older. He told an investigator in Florida that it was all about sex. Some of the women have never been found. There were a number of these kinds of killings/abductions in a few months' time. He killed and raped and beat other people, some single males, as well. Now, this crime was far to subtle for Surratt, who actually dragged one victim out of the house barefoot, where she left both footprints and drag marks with her feet. He had been seen peeking in windows and eventually left a vehicle registered to him near a crime scene. But there was no connection between him and these people other than they lived in places where he was looking for victims.
So it may be that there is little or no connection between these women and whoever took them from their families. And without a Surratt-like pattern of similar crimes, it would be hard to pin it on someone who picked that house more or less randomly.
I am just musing here.
After much reading, I had not seen it mentioned so I figured I'd bring it up.
Sherrill was a hair dresser at a salon where she had 250 clients. It's possible that she was talking a lot about the graduation of her daughter as this would have been an exciting time for her. It's also possible that she may have been discussing the plans, the after parties, and the plans of her daughter to go to Branson.
Someone may have overheard this and determined that she would have been home alone and an easy target for robbery or something more nefarious. I think the 2 teenagers may have walked in on a crime in progress.
Were the salon's patrons predominantly women? It's possible a husband/son/brother of a patron, waiting for their wife/mother/sister, overheard them talking about plans and made plans of his own.
Was her clientele vetted?
Stacy's mother didn't have the phone number to the new house. Whoever called on Sunday morning with sexual overtones did. Was someone watching the house?
Were all the neighbors questioned?
Whoa! Good catch. That never occurred to me. I feel like it is the accumulation of many small things, rather than a sledgehammer breakthrough, that will make this case. However, so many small things are frustrating. Did Sherril ever jot down her home #on her business cards for special customers? Growing up, my hair lady had given my mom her home number besides her salon number because she was afraid the salon manager wasn't giving her all of her messages. This was before cell/car/mobile phones were in use. Many hairdressers leave stacks of cards around town and at bridal fairs, fashion shows, etc....was she ever between salons and maybe used her home answering machine to book appointments?
Another thought: For Springfield in the early 90's, Dillard's or Famous-Barr would have been the last word in prom fashion, besides any individual bridal shops. Stacy modeled wedding dresses...could Sherril have had her card on file with any of these shops for formal hairstyles? (along with any seamstresses, makeup artists, etc.) Then a salesperson could pass along Sherrils name as a recommend stylist to customers. Maybe even a salesperson who knew Sherril personally and just gave out her home number because she couldn't remember what salon she was working during that time?
Bartt, keep your head up, man. So many people still think about your family and you do their memory proud.
It’s my understanding that the crank/obscene calls were unrelated to the case or incidental. As to getting the number, that wasn’t hard. Let’s walk back through this.
First, I don’t know if Sherill kept her old number when she moved. In that era, you could do that with certain companies and/or if your move was a short distance.
Second, if it was a brand new number, circa April ‘92, did she have her number unlisted AND unpublished ? For a small charge you can request that and I’ve done it all my adult life which was during this era too. Also, you could block caller ID, which will still broadcast unpublished/unlisted numbers if you don’t. Barring that, a simple 4-1-1 or the 555-1212 routine will give you a number and address.
Third, presuming all of the second point, your number gets out through ordinary business and living. For example, Sherill had to give the department store her number for the waterbed, and credit people got it, I’m sure the delivery guys had it (and visited the home itself), the school had it for Suzie (this is before Columbine), and the hairshop. I don’t think Sherill shared it with her clients, far different world then to stylists doing that with their cells today. Working around the margins a little, it wouldn’t be tough to get the number if you wanted it.
I don’t know what the crank/obscene calls were from/about. Whether it was random, creeps stumbled across a number where only women answered. Or Sherill or Suzie called someone, wrong number, and creeps got it on the caller ID. But I haven’t heard it as contrived.