Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #8

[cherrymeg]

hey, whatever works!
I posted the Cold Justice 'Tip' page....on the previous thread.
IMO, the 'team' could figure out the motive by talking to people and I love how they ask people point blank....did you murder so and so? And watch for the person's reaction...
This case....is ridiculous. I watched one short video clip of Janis...in the Memorial Garden...she was pruning the flower bushes...she just wants Stacy 'home' in a place Janis can go visit and 'talk' to her. Broke my heart.
She's not even asking for 'justice'...she just wants to know where Stacy is.

I think straight up asking gets an honest reaction, especially if they have no time to prepare. I love how they breakdown the suspects and then either eliminate them or not by questioning people and seeing if stories have changed. I know there have been episodes where they ask ex girlfriends or wives about a suspect. If you are dating someone at the time of a crime you might not come forward or you are young and love blinds you. I think few times an ex on Cold Justice said a husband or boyfriend threatened that they would end up like the victim. This is where time helps.

 

[MooseMeMuch]

I didn't make sense in my earlier post (got interrupted). Try again. They knew their prints were in the house (from earlier in the day/morning) so they had to say they went IN the house (after she 'called and called and called'). Then make up all those froo froo stories of searching for the women to include going to a sandwich shop and Shane Appleby's house.

 

[cherrymeg]

I don’t doubt Sherrill refinished furniture but I do wonder if the evidence of a sexual assault or any at all was in or around her work area. It’s odd no one else mentioned furniture or fumes. I didn’t think about it being flammable! That makes it even weirder for Sherrill, a “chain smoker” to work with those chemicals in a confined space.

Is there a picture of her work area? Or do you know where it was and if it had a door of it's own? She seemed pretty vigilant about locking the door. She could have had the windows opened to air out the house.

 

[cherrymeg]

I didn't make sense in my earlier post (got interrupted). Try again. They knew their prints were in the house (from earlier in the day/morning) so they had to say they went IN the house (after she 'called and called and called'). Then make up all those froo froo stories of searching for the women to include going to a sandwich shop and Shane Appleby's house.

Not stopping by Stacy's house if you claim to go everywhere else looking for them, is odd. Janis believed her daughter was at Janelle's house and she was okay with that, so she must have at least known who Janelle was. If you are comfortable enough to go into a house you aren't familiar with and hang out while no one is home, ringing a doorbell or calling a friend's house shouldn't be hard.

 

[Talullah]

I’ve never seen, heard or read about where she was refinishing furniture in MSM. That doesn’t mean it’s not there but it seems it’d be a bigger deal since she might’ve had a door open which could be how Cinnamon got out.

Is there a picture of her work area? Or do you know where it was and if it had a door of it's own? She seemed pretty vigilant about locking the door. She could have had the windows opened to air out the house.

 

[MooseMeMuch]

I think straight up asking gets an honest reaction, especially if they have no time to prepare. I love how they breakdown the suspects and then either eliminate them or not by questioning people and seeing if stories have changed. I know there have been episodes where they ask ex girlfriends or wives about a suspect. If you are dating someone at the time of a crime you might not come forward or you are young and love blinds you. I think few times an ex on Cold Justice said a husband or boyfriend threatened that they would end up like the victim. This is where time helps.

I think I watched that episode! Lol
Exactly....I'm with ya on all of it. And they don't bring 'em all down to the station...they bring 'em out into a more informal setting and get all conversationally....then BAM! That's what this convoluted mess needs....no 'scare tactics'...but gradual buildup, starting with easy questions then outta nowhere.....did you murder ____? BAM!

 

[MooseMeMuch]

Not stopping by Stacy's house if you claim to go everywhere else looking for them, is odd. Janis believed her daughter was at Janelle's house and she was okay with that, so she must have at least known who Janelle was. If you are comfortable enough to go into a house you aren't familiar with and hang out while no one is home, ringing a doorbell or calling a friend's house shouldn't be hard.

They'd been friends since they were ......... 4 years old.
Yeah.

 

[cherrymeg]

I think I watched that episode! Lol
Exactly....I'm with ya on all of it. And they don't bring 'em all down to the station...they bring 'em out into a more informal setting and get all conversationally....then BAM! That's what this convoluted mess needs....no 'scare tactics'...but gradual buildup, starting with easy questions then outta nowhere.....did you murder ____? BAM!

This exactly!

 

[MooseMeMuch]

If it is true that Sherrill was at Apco around the time that the girls supposedly left one of the parties then I believe that she was led there by a phone call from Suzie. Maybe the machine picked up the call before Sherrill could get to the phone and a distressed message was left and later erased.

Another reason to get to that house the next morning.
hmmmm

 

[cherrymeg]

@MooseMeMuch I would love to see this on Cold Justice. I'm actually watching an episode now. I would like to see what Janelle would say to them.

 

[cherrymeg]

Another reason to get to that house the next morning.
hmmmm

Who fiddles with an answering machine in someone else's house? I think I've asked the question before, apparently Janelle lol. An incriminating message would make sense. If Suzie called and left a message because something happened or she felt scared or threatened. That could have been another reason they needed to take Sherrill.
Janis finding all of her daughters things at the house but not her daughter and hearing that she hadn't been seen all day, checking the machine isn't crazy. She is a worried mom. She also wouldn't have any reason to believe Sherrill was with Stacy and Suzie. Suzie could have left a message saying where she was.

 

[Talullah]

I didn't make sense in my earlier post (got interrupted). Try again. They knew their prints were in the house (from earlier in the day/morning) so they had to say they went IN the house (after she 'called and called and called'). Then make up all those froo froo stories of searching for the women to include going to a sandwich shop and Shane Appleby's house.

They covenintly gave Shane an alibi too.

 

[asyousay]

A quote I saw and does anybody know if this is a relation to one of the grave robbers?

I don't understand this, you know," said John Recla, who stood outside Streeter's home Tuesday watching police survey the house. "I
just hope the Springfield Police Department gets this thing solved before someone is dead." End quote. June 10, 1992

 

[MooseMeMuch]

They covenintly gave Shane an alibi too.

Wow! Hadn't thought of that....yes, supposedly he was still in bed when the duo arrived.

 

[Missouri Mule]

A quote I saw and does anybody know if this is a relation to one of the grave robbers?

The brother.

 

[SweetMeat]

Refresh my memory: How long had Sherrill and Suzie lived at that address? It's possible that a previous occupant was the intended target.

I’m not sure how long they lived there but it wasn’t long. On the other hand, if anyone that wanted to do harm to someone that lived there then they would do their homework in casing the place before taking action. I still don’t believe all three were taken from the house forcibly. Sherrill possibly,not the other two.

 

[HmmWhoKnows]

You guys need to study the SPD released statement in 2012 and the James Wright (FBI) statement in 1992.

This is the 2012 SPD statement:
"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper 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 kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence"
Bolded important parts above^^

 

[Betty P]

You guys need to study the SPD released statement in 2012 and the James Wright (FBI) statement in 1992.

This is the 2012 SPD statement:
"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper 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 kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence"
Bolded important parts above^^

I still think that's a general description that's meant to elicit as many people possible to consider someone a suspect. They state the kidnapper may not have committed previous violent crimes. That's more of an open-ended statement to encourage any witness to come forward with information. They don't want someone thinking they shouldn't mention someone suspicious simply because they'd never committed this kind of crime before. Same may apply to referring to the perp in singular form. With so little evidence gathered, LE may not be 100% certain of those details.

 

[Talullah]

I still think that's a general description that's meant to elicit as many people possible to consider someone a suspect. They state the kidnapper may not have committed previous violent crimes. That's more of an open-ended statement to encourage any witness to come forward with information. They don't want someone thinking they shouldn't mention someone suspicious simply because they'd never committed this kind of crime before. Same may apply to referring to the perp in singular form. With so little evidence gathered, LE may not be 100% certain of those details.

I totally agree! The first 3 sentences are the only definitive statements. I wish there were subsequent FBI statements regarding this case as the investigation progressed

 

[k-mac]

You guys need to study the SPD released statement in 2012 and the James Wright (FBI) statement in 1992.

This is the 2012 SPD statement:
"The kidnapper clearly spent a considerable amount of time out and about from late at night on Saturday, June 6, 1992, into the morning of Sunday, June 7, 1992. The kidnapper had to have been unaccounted for at the time of the crime. Someone who knew or lived with the kidnapper in 1992 likely would have been aware of this fact. In addition, in order to explain his whereabouts on the night of the crime, the kidnapper may have fabricated a story regarding his activities.

Around the time of the crime, the kidnapper 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 kidnapper also may have developed an interest in the victims.

People who know the kidnapper may not believe he is capable of committing this type of crime, and he may not have a history of committing crimes of violence"
Bolded important parts above^^

yes as I stated above.
the term KIDNAPPER in this release is unfortunate.
because spd have no idea what happened to the girls.
probably imo why it wasn't solved.

tunnel vision to begin with