Missouri - The Springfield Three - missing since 7 June 1992 - #16

[Catmommy]

Based on what can be considered common behavior of known killers, who, in the women's circles, left town immediately afterwards. Is there one who never came back? That may be a viable path to follow up on.

 

[snooptroop88]

Couple of notes as I'm doing more research, got hold of more CS photos than I've been able to get in the past.

There's talk of Suzie going out back through the slider to smoke. If they found cigarettes on the Coke can inside, I don't think she needed to go outside. And there's talk of how some guy brought Cinnamon back to the house that night around the critical time in the course of that evening's events. I don't think this is necessarily the case that the guy brought Cinnamon back to the house, Based on what I saw, the guy didn't even know this was Sherrill's dog, he more removed the dog from his own yard rather than actually placing the dog in Sherrill's yard. There are a lot of conflicting reports when it comes to Cinnamon that night, from what I can see.

The broken globe. Have a good image now so I can picture exactly where it is. Is it this one here on the wall? Or is the one on the pole? I'm just going to assume the wall for now, but a lot of this discussion-- it won't matter all that much which one it was. Assumng for now the one on the wall.

Hinge on the storm door is such that this door's going to swing towards the living room, door itself didn't break the globe on a swing. Light's to the side, not overhead. I think that broken globe actually does mean something have been back and forth with it, some people wondering if it's a red herring, Don't think so because the positioning of it makes it so it wouldn't be all that easy to break it. But don't think breaking glass to get in the front door was the ruse. Suppose he's flattened himself against the wall by globe/mailbox waiting for the door to open... firstly, it may not open, the actual bulb's not broken, and Sherrill may just turn the light on, take a good look out there, maybe start looking out other windows, he's in full view if he's on that porch in the light. She might spot him, immediately call the police. But say he knows the window is open in Sherrill's room-- or some room-- and it's only going to be a matter of removing the screen. Removal of a screen is potentially going to be pretty quick and easy if he's famliar with the process and if it leaves marks, it's going to be very difficult later to ascertain whether that screen was "tampered with" or not. Depending on the screen, they pop right off in seconds. People often need to pop them off, intruders aren't usually the ones who have a desire to pop them, so how's anyone going to know he did that if he replaces it?

LE had that screen off Sherrill's window only, why? Dusting for prints, good, but why just that one screen? If they don't think anyone came in through the window, why have this one screen specifically off dusting for prints? Did they remove all the other screens in the house to dust for prints? Are they checking it to see if someone popped it off and/or left prints? Because if he did pop a screen off, 100% believe he replaced it before he left. Some sources saying AC was left on in the house when people started showing up,, front door was left unlocked, porch light left on.. Front door is the door jmo he wouldn't have wanted to enter through jmo and I don't think it was originally open. AC won't give enough ventilation after varnishing, I am really wondering if that window was open (this becomes incredibly scary if that window I see in the carport's open, looking at the maps and such, is this window into Suzie's room?), and he drew Sherrill to the living room door with the breaking of glass. By doing so, he would be able to 1) see how light a sleeper she was, and then he could 2) potentially move to the open window, pop the screen, and walk right in there. I don't see how they'd ever know that screen was "tampered with" if he replaced it.

"Staging."

 

[TheCars1986]

I've seen the number of people who were either at or inside the house on the 7th numbered at 18. We know for a fact who ten of these people are because they are listed on Officer Bookout's report: Janis and Stu McCall, Stacy's two sisters, Janelle, Janelle's parents, Mike, a friend named Adina and her mother. We also know that at one of their trips to the house, Nigel was there with Janelle and Mike. Who were the remaining 7?

The first attached article was wrtitten one week after the disappearances. The police are quotes as saying they are looking at "four to five people very closely", and Mike Kovacs and Bartt Streeter are named, as well as "Suzie has had problems with some of her past boyfriends, not just one". IMO, that is a reference to Dustin Recla. So the initial "suspects" were Kovacs, Bartt, and the grave robbers. IMO, none of them had anything to do with it. The second attached article has a quote about a "young male friend of the girls has given various accounts of the events he recalls between 8 a.m. and 9 p.m. on June 7th." He was one of the 18 who went to the house looking for them on the 7th. Who is this and why did the police seemingly no treat these inconsistencies seriously?

 

[snooptroop88]

Articles @TheCars1986 are appreciated, and there are a lot of things in here I hadn't seen before. The empty picture frame. Never saw that anywhere except on these threads and this article. AND confirmation Stacy's yellow shirt gone. This alarms me because I've seen a few UID cases where there's a yellow shirt, I always note them thinking of Stacy.

The cops said there was no sign of forced entry, and Officer Bookout said that when he first arrived the smell of varnish was strong throughout the house. IMO, that means Sherrill varnished inside the house, or brought the armoire back inside to a room with the door shut (then when the people were in and out of the house on the 7th the door was opened, thus making the whole house smell like varnish). Some creep watching Sherrill from outside would have had to have gotten her to open the door. If the motive was a sexual assault as the police seem to believe, why wasn't this done when the person gained entry into the house? And if he had a site already in mind to take someone to, why didn't he take Sherrill when she was home alone?

Everything seems to have happened after the girls left Branson. In 2012 on the 20th anniversary, the police released this statement: https://www.springfieldmo.gov/ArchiveCenter/ViewFile/Item/2003

"Around the time of the crime, the suspect may have spent a considerable amount of time in, or may otherwise have been familiar with, the area of the crime, and he may have frequently been out and about at odd hours. The suspect also may have developed an interest in the victims. People who know the suspect may not believe that he is capable of committing this type ofcrime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence."

The bolded, IMO, would rule out the lone predator like Carnahan, Cox, and a career criminal like Garrison.

Emphasis on this point from post: If the motive was a sexual assault as the police seem to believe, why wasn't this done when the person gained entry into the house?

How could we be sure it wasn't done, though? If the perp got Sherrill before Suzie & Stacy came home, I can well picture it having happened before they returned. And unfortunately, by him attacking in such a manner, this would also make such horrors more possible when Suzie & Stacy finally did arrive, as he now has two targets, not three, to deal with. With a gun, he can possibly ensure silence and bindings. But would more picture him waiting for them to fall asleep and committing murders then, and possibly other horrors.

The inventory of clothing in that home-- it's extensive. Really extensive, this stands to reason, Sherrill's in a fashion-related industry. There seemed to be some disarray in Sherrill's room in terms of clothing and such on the floor/in the closet. This is disputed, but I'm wondering if it's the case. So following this hypothetical on the potential for SAs, what if the evidence (or the bulk of it, obvious evidence), were removed? Like sheet sets, or maybe piles of miscellaneous clothing. What if some perp just bundled up everything that had any obvious signs and took it with him? In this hypothetical, the perp's loading bodies into a vehicle. He's also coming in through a window, and replacing the screen at departure. So now, if there's a heap of clothing somewhere indicating SA, even sheets laid out somewhere for whatever reason, why wouldn't he take them? He's going to be disposing of three bodies later so nobody finds them for decades. In that context, don't think it's at all beyond the realm of possibility that he'd take anything indicative of SA. With so, so much clothing in the house, who would know anything specifically is missing?

There's a certain Doe (Falls County TX) that got me thinking along these lines with this case. There were a lot, lot of clothing items found with this Doe. Blouses, yellow shirt/tee shirts, two scarves, jewelry that seems it's of completely different tastes,
and-- sheet sets, florals. Falls County Jane Doe has possibly been unsolved just as long (maybe longer) as this one has based on PMI.

The National Missing and Unidentified Persons System (NamUs)

By bringing people, information, forensic science and technology together, NamUs helps resolve cases.

www.namus.gov

Have no idea what happened in Springfield Three, and find the case chilling. Am keeping an open mind for sure (arguably too open in terms of speculation, and I acknowledge that), but tt's a VERY long time now for three women to be missing without a trace. So there's something not just exponentially horrible here, but something that goes beyond the pale in terms of viciously destructive cunning. No murderer gets this "lucky," it's not luck, but alll jmo.

 

[snooptroop88]

Also, just wondering, am seeing this image popping up on numerous past threads showing images of what was supposedly in the house. Does anyone know what this is?

Some kind of bag? It looks like there's a small strap on it. Is it like a gift bag?

 

[TheCars1986]

How could we be sure it wasn't done, though? If the perp got Sherrill before Suzie & Stacy came home, I can well picture it having happened before they returned. And unfortunately, by him attacking in such a manner, this would also make such horrors more possible when Suzie & Stacy finally did arrive, as he now has two targets, not three, to deal with. With a gun, he can possibly ensure silence and bindings. But would more picture him waiting for them to fall asleep and committing murders then, and possibly other horrors.

Because if he's there to do harm to Sherrill, where is the evidence of that anywhere in the house? And if his intent was to remove Sherrill to a different location, why did he either not do this until the girls came home, or returned back to the house after already removing Sherrill? Sherrill being the main target has never made sense to me.

 

[Catmommy]

Because if he's there to do harm to Sherrill, where is the evidence of that anywhere in the house? And if his intent was to remove Sherrill to a different location, why did he either not do this until the girls came home, or returned back to the house after already removing Sherrill? Sherrill being the main target has never made sense to me.

Because possibly, just possibly, the assault on Sherrill had just begun when the girls showed up unexpectedly. No time to complete his intentions but something had to be done about the potential witnesses who were now part of the equation and had to be dealt with. By taking command of the situation, he was able to remove all three from the house, using a weapon and coercion in my guesstimate, transfer them to a more secure location and do what he did on his own timeline. No assault of anyone was committed at the house thus no evidence of such. I don't think any of the women lived very long after they were removed. Bad guy now had three victims instead of the one he was after. Why would anyone follow two girls home and come in after them without knowing who else was in the house and whether or not they were armed?

 

[snooptroop88]

Because possibly, just possibly, the assault on Sherrill had just begun when the girls showed up unexpectedly. No time to complete his intentions but something had to be done about the potential witnesses who were now part of the equation and had to be dealt with. By taking command of the situation, he was able to remove all three from the house, using a weapon and coercion in my guesstimate, transfer them to a more secure location and do what he did on his own timeline. No assault of anyone was committed at the house thus no evidence of such. I don't think any of the women lived very long after they were removed. Bad guy now had three victims instead of the one he was after. Why would anyone follow two girls home and come in after them without knowing who else was in the house and whether or not they were armed?

Because if he's there to do harm to Sherrill, where is the evidence of that anywhere in the house? And if his intent was to remove Sherrill to a different location, why did he either not do this until the girls came home, or returned back to the house after already removing Sherrill? Sherrill being the main target has never made sense to me.

(respectfully bolded on both) I totally get there are oddities in this theory, but there are in all of the theories surrouding this case, jmo, and that's because... the entire set of circumstances is completely bizarre, jmo reflecting the perp's twisted psyche. Really, we can't even tell from the condition of the house that this is an abduction at all.

And that, I think, is what the perp wanted. There are "no signs" of SA just like there are "no signs" he ever entered that house. I do think he had control of the house, I think he murdered the victims in there, then he had the time to cover his tracks in just such a way.

Could it have happened entirely differently? Of course it could, so keeping an open mind for sure. Could this be someone who popped by with a "graduation gift"when one or more of the women were there, and the "graduation gift" is a gun? Yes. Imagination can run wild on this, and it can go in so many directions. Personally, I think the poor victims were killed before anyone left that house. Too many possibilities with these women being boarded into a vehicle by a single perp, and none of them good for him, things could easily go very wrong for him-- unless there were multiple perps. And I don't think the perp in any scenario would have Stacy boarding anywhere in her underwear only, so did she have something of Suzie's or Sherrill's on? There are too many unanswered questions here, and I think that's by design, the perp's design. Might be wrong, but jmo no answer we get on this is going to be a good or happy one decades later.

 

[TheCars1986]

Because possibly, just possibly, the assault on Sherrill had just begun when the girls showed up unexpectedly. No time to complete his intentions but something had to be done about the potential witnesses who were now part of the equation and had to be dealt with. By taking command of the situation, he was able to remove all three from the house, using a weapon and coercion in my guesstimate, transfer them to a more secure location and do what he did on his own timeline.

But the girls were in the house long enough to get undressed and ready for bed. Not saying that this would have taken a long amount of time, but the perp/s would have been in the house for an extended period of time. And if the goal was Sherrill and Sherrill alone, why did the perp/s not let Suzie and Stacy go to bed and remove Sherrill while they slept?

Why would anyone follow two girls home and come in after them without knowing who else was in the house and whether or not they were armed?

They may have never went into the house and they knew the girls.

 

[TheCars1986]

Also, in one of the many Springfield News-Leader articles written after the disappearances there is an interview with Sherrill's step-daughter that said Sherrill would have done everything she could have to protected Suzie, even if it meant sacrificing herself to protect her. She said the only way Sherrill would have been cooperative is if someone had Suzie threatened and that Sherrill was a fighter.

"If they had been after my mom, she would have gone with them to spare Suzie and her friend. That's the kind of person she is. But if they were after Suzie, she would have never let them leave without taking her too."

 

[TheCars1986]

I keep going back to the date when all of this happened...graduation day. Why did all of this happen on the first time that Stacy was to spend the night on Delmar? Why did whatever happen to the women most likely happen after Suzie and Stacy returned home?

 

[Catmommy]

I keep going back to the date when all of this happened...graduation day. Why did all of this happen on the first time that Stacy was to spend the night on Delmar? Why did whatever happen to the women most likely happen after Suzie and Stacy returned home?

That's just it. Stacy wasn't supposed to spend the night at Delmar. Neither was Suzie. It was literally a last minute change to their plans.

 

[snooptroop88]

That's just it. Stacy wasn't supposed to spend the night at Delmar. Neither was Suzie. It was literally a last minute change to their plans.

Exactly. I think it was Sherrill and the house that really made psycho perp "zero in."

But the truly frustrating (and I really mean truly frustrating) thing about all of this is there are so, so, so many different motivations and scenarios possible. Was it one perp? Was it more than one? How many? Did the perp/s know any of the women? Was it sexually motivated? If not, what was the motivation? It sure wasn't robbery. And how'd he get in?

Honestly, I wouldn't disregard the layout & location of that house, and agreed this whole thing seems like it has to be in some way tied in with graduation day, but I think that was someone that was in town that day for a graduation, someone who didn't live there, a traveler. And he saw that house and at least one occupant. And he sized the whole thing up through his own twisted lens. A few people on here were really into this hired hit theory. I sort of (??) agree, but I don't think anyone had to have hired or could have hired the person who did this. But he's just as effective as if he were a hired hit, maybe more effective. Only a guess, though, and jmo. I still have a feeling the varnishing & the furniture hold some important answer on this.

Another note. I went through Springfield newspapers that I could access searching for info on 1717 E. Delmar's history, I could find things up through maybe late 1960s (limited sources available to me). That house was rented out quite often in the day, I don't know if that was still the case by the time Sherrill and Suzie moved in. And it wasn't just that house, it seems like a few houses on Delmar were being rented out pretty regularly. So I kind of keep this in mind as I look at that house and the area. Rented-out houses can translate into people that aren't necessarily putting down roots, at least some of those renters may just be passing through. And all of this, jmo, it creates more and more exposure for those in Suzie & Sherrill's home and the home itself, already pretty much astride Glenstone, which was once part of Highway 65. In the mid '60s, US65 shifted a bit away, but Glenstone does actually join into the current US65, and is known as US65-Business route, running parallel to the actual US65 until it intersects with it. US 65 apparently (?) runs all the way from Minnesota to Louisiana. And then, you have Sherrill working at the salon, more exposure, and I think there might have been quite a lot of it, potentially. I found an ad for Sherrill's New Attitudes Hair Salon, it says "Heer's Park Central." Was the salon IN the old Heer's building? From what I can find, it does look like Sherrill may have worked in that building, at least for a time. Heer's in the late 60s was evidently a huge department store, I see it advertised with five parking lots and four eating places (at least one a fairly formal type restaurant, one source is saying there was a rooftop restaurant & observation deck), a basement, a mezzanine, beauty shop, place to pay utilities, at least five floors selling clothing, firearms, toiletries, furniture, Santa visited there to take pics with the kids, you could have your portrait done in oils there, there were bridal consultants, back to college wardrobe consultants, one source says there was an actual theater in the Heer's building And judging by this ad, Heer's was particularly interested in drawing in tourists:

(Is this where Sherrill bought Suzie's waterbed?) Heer's ended up shutting down after bankruptcy in 1995, I don't know if Sherrill was even at this location by 1992. If she was there at some point, she must have moved for some reason because she was at Sunshine Street by 1992, based on information available. And then, aside from the location of the house and Sherrill's busy salon career that puts her in contact with many people regardless of its exact location... aside from all that, Suzie has that "Sweetr" plate, more exposure.

 

[snooptroop88]

Also, just putting this out there, has anyone noted already (apologies if so) that an intruder might have made use of the doggie door to gain entry? Have been watching videos on this, and even if an intruder can get part of his upper body through, he can possibly wriggle his way around so as to unlock/unlatch the door. (He might also be able to just crawl all the way through.) I've never seen any image of that doggie door at the house, so I don't know how it's configured, or what the height/width would be like. But in one of these videos, they noted "no signs of forced entry" when this was done.