Missouri - The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #9

[SpringfieldMan341]

Thanks Michelle. I wonder why the cops say he was in town then. One time a blunder. Three times...that's weird. Something is off. Good to have Mike's side!

 

[asyousay]

This is what Mike said

W. Village Ln was my parents house.

Joe and I moved into Cathe’s apartment when we came down from Chicago in late 91.

Joe didn’t know anyone in Spfld when we moved there. He hung out with my friends and never really made any friends of his own. When we went back to Chicago in March of 92, the cops that were looking for me made sure all of our friends knew that he ratted on me. When I found that out, I told our friends in Chicago that he was a rat and left him there.
He had no friends to stay with in Spfld. and no reason to come back after we left. Everyone in Spfld who knew him, hated him.

So if he treated his own friend like this for grassing on him then it’s safe to say he was very angry with Suzie then and her roll in him being arrested?!

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Ok, Just so I'm understanding this right. Mike was in Springfield on June 6th, 1992. Is that what you mean by that. Sorry, just making sure I'm understanding it right.

Yes he was. He was helping at a concert his friend’s band was playing at.

 

[SpringfieldMan341]

Michelle and Mike, thanks again for your answers

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Last but not least, Joe testified against Mike. Dusty did as well. Why did Mike forgive Dusty and not Joe?

Dusty did not testify against Mike. Joe testified against both of them on a plea deal.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

So if he treated his own friend like this for grassing on him then it’s safe to say he was very angry with Suzie then and her roll in him being arrested?!

There were three statements for the GR. Joe, Dusty, and Suzie. Joe took a plea deal to testify against Mike and Joe. Suzie only made a statement just like Dusty. Mike just had nothing to do with Joe again. Joe was the reason they were arrested not Suzie.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

There were three statements for the GR. Joe, Dusty, and Suzie. Joe took a plea deal to testify against Mike and Joe. Suzie only made a statement just like Dusty. Mike just had nothing to do with Joe again. Joe was the reason they were arrested not Suzie.

Should say Joe took a plea deal to testify against Mike and Dusty.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

Yes he was. He was helping at a concert his friend’s band was playing at.

Ok, Thank you, I was just confused about what you were saying. Thank you for clearing that up. The last thing we need is anymore confusion or rumors starting about this case, and about people who are innocent.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

So if he treated his own friend like this for grassing on him then it’s safe to say he was very angry with Suzie then and her roll in him being arrested?!

But here's my opinion on that. No one in their right mind, who had just been part of a triple homicide, would ever say something like that to a detective during an interview. That's what eventually lead me to believe that Mike had nothing to do with the crime. He would have had to be crazy to say something like that, if he had been part of the crime. And I don't feel that he was!

 

[Blue Girl1991]

But here's my opinion on that. No one in their right mind, who had just been part of a triple homicide, would ever say something like that to a detective during an interview. That's what eventually lead me to believe that Mike had nothing to do with the crime. He would have had to be crazy to say something like that, if he had been part of the crime. And I don't feel that he was!

I agree Scooby Doo 4U , it's not something that a killer will do.
I also think that no one is going to commit such a heinous crime that can result in life imprisonment in order to avoid very light punishment, even not prison.
A crime like this can be committed likely by very professional criminals,
in my opinion it was a very planned crime , someone gave an order and sent the perps to do it.

 

[SpringfieldMan341]

I agree Scooby Doo 4U , it's not something that a killer will do.
I also think that no one is going to commit such a heinous crime that can result in life imprisonment in order to to avoid very light punishment, even not prison.
Aa crime like this can be committed likely by very professional criminals,
in my opinion it was a very planned crime , someone gave an order and sent the perps to do it.

Agreed!!

 

[Catmommy]

And I continue to believe that because NOONE expected the girls to be at Sherrill's , she was the target and the girls became collateral damage because of the last minute decision for them to sleep there. The perp removed them all before the sun came up so as not to be seen and used a gun to maintain control over the three women. Again, he could have had one tie the rest before being tied herself. Someone knows what happened but it isn't a couple of people who were teenagers at the time.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

Trying to get an idea of who he was around when not around Mike or Dusty. He is a suspect in this case according to SPD in 1992.

That makes perfect sense!! And he seems to be a big mystery. Not a lot of information was published about him. Good angle!!

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

Very true. I do not think Mike's statement means much one way or another. Cops can be jerks. Allen Neal even said in Disappeared that Mike had a disagreement with the officer who questioned him and that he was provoked.

I think it's something that TV shows like to talk about for the sensationalism. Means little to this case. IMO

I think I finally have come around to agreeing with this assessment. I don't think Mike had anything to do with this crime, and I agree, I think the cop just pushed his buttons to the point that he lashed out at him. But in the end, no one in their right mind who had committed a crime of this magnitude, and didn't want to get caught, would ever say something like that. I think he was just pissed off at the cop and the interrogation and said what he said. Don't think it has any hidden meaning beyond that!

 

[asyousay]

I have yet to see anything that shows this forum the GR wasn’t somehow involved in this crime.

These men robbed off the dead so obviously not the brightest tools in the shed to begin with and certainly had no moral compass.

It’s the same way I don’t rule out Janelle, Mike or anybody else in the case. The GR were in town and certainly had a very strong motive to shut up Suzie and get revenge.

It’s also very interesting that there are ties to Garrison who is another person capable of this crime.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

I have yet to see anything that shows this forum the GR wasn’t somehow involved in this crime.

These men robbed off the dead so obviously not the brightest tools in the shed to begin with and certainly had no moral compass.

It’s the same way I don’t rule out Janelle, Mike or anybody else in the case. The GR were in town and certainly had a very strong motive to shut up Suzie and get revenge.

It’s also very interesting that there are ties to Garrison who is another person capable of this crime.

What strong motive? There were three statements made, all pretty much exactly the same. Joe however also did a plea deal to testify against. There was only one of the three on the witness list and that was Joe. The officer that took both Joe and Dusty’s statement was just as good as Suzie in court because he was told the same thing. He too was on the witness list. Joe is the reason they got in trouble not Suzie.

 

[asyousay]

What strong motive? There were three statements made, all pretty much exactly the same. Joe however also did a plea deal to testify against. There was only one of the three on the witness list and that was Joe. The officer that took both Joe and Dusty’s statement was just as good as Suzie in court because he was told the same thing. He too was on the witness list. Joe is the reason they got in trouble not Suzie.

The fact that Suzie got them into trouble and they were facing jail time for all they knew. Let’s not pretend that they all wasn’t absolutely furious that Suzie went to the cops and that gives them motive.

You are married to one of them so of course your going to defend Mike which is your right but they had a motive.

Also add in the fact ( even though you claim otherwise) that they left town after the girls vanished which could be taken as a sign of guilt.

imo

 

[irisheyesofblue]

The fact that Suzie got them into trouble and they were facing jail time for all they knew. Let’s not pretend that they all wasn’t absolutely furious that Suzie went to the cops and that gives them motive.

You are married to one of them so of course your going to defend Mike which is your right but they had a motive.

Also add in the fact ( even though you claim otherwise) that they left town after the girls vanished which could be taken as a sign of guilt.

imo

They left before, NOT after. I state this because it is in the file and it is true.

What I have is in the case file. What got them in trouble was Joe bragging about it at a party. That person called it into crime stoppers. AFTER that phone call they brought in Joe. All of this is in the file. I’m

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Just being honest. If I was only wanting to protect my husband I would not be on this board right now. I would go back to ignoring it like I have for months. This board actually have not been on for years. In all honesty when we aren’t on them we don’t have to deal with this. He is not being looked at by anyone other than a few people on these boards. However, I would love for this to be solved one day, not just for us, but the families as well and spreading falsehoods is not going to do that. All that does is muddy the waters even more.

 

[asyousay]

They left before, NOT after. I state this because it is in the file and it is true.

What I have is in the case file. What got them in trouble was Joe bragging about it at a party. That person called it into crime stoppers. AFTER that phone call they brought in Joe. All of this is in the file. I’m

We can’t see the case file so why should we take your word for it?

The reports that have been out since 1992 claim otherwise. These reporters who also reported on the case don’t have a agenda either.

You are obviously trying to do a good thing by explaining Mike’s side and I understand that but each poster on this forum can make up their own mind who they think is responsible.

You won’t change mine unless I see documentation of what you are claiming as it doesn’t fit in with the facts that are known and are in the public domain.