MO - Sherrill Levitt, 47, Suzie Streeter, 19, & Stacy McCall, 18, Springfield, 7 June 1992 #11

[irisheyesofblue]

What assumptions are we talking about here? To be clear.

Not going on the round about with you. You can read and see where I respond and figure it out.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Mike did not have a lawyer for the vandalism before Joe made a statement.

Help me with that. Mike has a lawyer before Joe is even extradited back. He then assumes the same lawyer Mike has.

Mike:
07/22/1992 Judge/Clerk - Note
CASE RECEIVED IN AC 21. DEFT CLAY IN PERSON. PUBLIC DEFENDER APPOINTED FOR DEFT CLAY.

-----
Joe:

08/14/1992 Hearing Scheduled
Court Date Scheduled for: PRELIMINARY HEARING SCHEDULED ON : 09/16/92 AT 02:00 PM
Judge/Clerk - Note
Deft appears in person. Charges read. Prel. hearing set Se ptember 16, 1992 at 2:00 pm. Public Defender appointed.

09/04/1992 Judge/Clerk - Note
P.D. S Lada files Entry of Appearance on behalf of Deft. td t

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Help me with that. Mike has a lawyer before Joe is even extradited back. He then assumes the same lawyer Mike has.

07/22/1992 Judge/Clerk - Note
CASE RECEIVED IN AC 21. DEFT CLAY IN PERSON. PUBLIC DEFENDE R APPOINTED FOR DEFT CLAY.

Joe made a statement BEFORE he left for IL.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Joe made a statement BEFORE he left for IL.

His statement isn't when he snitched.

Different things. The statement isn't important here. They all made statements in March 1992.

Snitching to get out of jail time is all I care about. Plus the fact that Mike and Dusty get $2500 bonds versus Joe's 10k bond. Then his bigger fugitive bond.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

His statement isn't when he snitched.

Different things. The statement isn't important here. They all made statements in March 1992.

Snitching to get out of jail time is all I care about. Plus the fact that Mike and Dusty get $2500 bonds versus Joe's 10k bond. Then his bigger fugitive bond.

So then Suzie did not snitch either. You can’t have it both ways.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

If you hate Joe so much, why are you trying to get us to believe he was not in town so badly? And that he wasn't capable of being involved? I'm confused on that. Because nothing you've given is verified truth. Polygraphs aren't gospel. Especially when Asher refuses to acknowledge.

I have never said I thought he was in town. I’ve actually said I think the opposite from files and from what people have said that knew him.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

I have never said I thought he was in town. I’ve actually said I think the opposite from files and from what people have said that knew him.

I’ve also never said I hate him. More assumptions.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

I’ve also never said I hate him. More assumptions.

Nope. You did say you were not fond. And Mike spoke of him as if he were equal to dirt. So okay, *hate* is strong. Same difference. You mentioned having friends speak of his "creepiness" before too.

And yes why do you care if I think he was in town or not?

 

[irisheyesofblue]

I have never said I thought he was in town. I’ve actually said I think the opposite from files and from what people have said that knew him.

Because the only way this will be solved is with facts. I want this solved.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Because the only way this will be solved is with facts. I want this solved.

Facts:

Asher doesn't commit to the polygraph of Riedel.
Riedel was said to have been in town according to the cops two separate times.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Nope. You did say you were not fond. And Mike spoke of him as if he were equal to dirt. So okay, *hate* is strong. Same difference. You mentioned having friends speak of his "creepiness" before too.

And yes why do you care if I think he was in town or not?

Hate and not find are two different things. Hate is a very strong word. I never met the guy. Do I want to, no.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Facts:

Asher refuses to accept the polygraph of Riedel.
Riedel was said to have been in town according to the cops two separate times.

I swear it does not matter what I say you will believe what I want. You go from saying how Joe did not pass the lie detector to they mean nothing when you find out he did. You only hear what you want. You not accepting truths will not get this solved, but you spin this any way you want. I’m done entertaining you and will only point out things that are not true.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

I swear it does not matter what I say you will believe what I want. You go from saying how Joe did not pass the lie detector to they mean nothing when you find out he did. You only hear what you want. You not accepting truths will not get this solved, but you spin this any way you want. I’m done entertaining you and will only point out things that are not true.

Actually you're refusing to accept truth. I posted my facts.

You still have not.

I've told you countless times Asher wouldn't cop to Joe passing or not passing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You keep conflating Joe passing the polygraph according to the administrating detective with the fact that I claimed the cops (Asher) wouldn't commit to saying he passed, for the record. I found that suspicious. Any reasonable person would.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Actually you're refusing to accept truth. I posted my facts.

You still have not.

I've told you countless times Asher wouldn't cop to Joe passing or not passing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You keep conflating Joe passing the polygraph according to the administrating detective with the fact that I claimed the cops (Asher) wouldn't commit to saying he passed, for the record. I found that suspicious. Any reasonable person would.

I believe he passed because I saw that he passed according to the document that had. How in the world is that hard to believe? Are you saying that a news byte where they have been known to not tell the truth sometimes for reasons is a better source than the police document itself?

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

I believe he passed because I saw that he passed according to the document that had. How in the world is that hard to believe? Are you saying that a news byte where they have been known to not tell the truth sometimes for reasons is a better source than the police document itself?

It is cops who have provably lied about poly results.

https://www.popsci.com/polygraph-test-science/ This is an article about how they have never been accurate.

In your document, does it say "The conclusion is that he was being 'truthful'"? And you take cops at their word? After all the things they said about Mike?

That's your proof he was in town? Because that document does not say that. It just says he left at the end of June and never returned. Key phrasing: "end of June" meaning he wasn't accounted for on June 7th, 1992.

So how do you explain cops telling the public he was in town in June and September of 1992. Once when Riedel was back in IL and once when he was back here in Springfield awaiting trial.

You also keep conflating the snitching with "statement." Different things. Don't confuse them. It's getting tiring correcting this fact.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Actually you're refusing to accept truth. I posted my facts.

You still have not.

I've told you countless times Asher wouldn't cop to Joe passing or not passing. Stop putting words in my mouth.

You keep conflating Joe passing the polygraph according to the administrating detective with the fact that I claimed the cops (Asher) wouldn't commit to saying he passed, for the record. I found that suspicious. Any reasonable person would.

I believe he passed because I saw that he passed according to the document that had both How in the world is that hard to believe?
[QUOTE="OzarksTrailBlazer, post: 15459107, member: 236364.

I’m done trying to defend believing court documents. If you don’t want to that is on you.

 

[cherrymeg]

I believe he passed because I saw that he passed according to the document that had both How in the world is that hard to believe?
[QUOTE="OzarksTrailBlazer, post: 15459107, member: 236364.

I’m done trying to defend believing court documents. If you don’t want to that is on you.

It's not really worth arguing about. I don't think the polygraph is important to the case either way. There has to be something better to discuss about this case.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

It's not really worth arguing about. I don't think the polygraph is important to the case either way. There has to be something better to discuss about this case.

I agree

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

You guys don't think it's suspicious that cops are willing to say Mike and Dusty are in the clear but refused to answer about Joe?

And you don't think it's suspicious that the head honcho grave robber, known for breaking into homes in the area, shouldn't be looked at as a viable suspect here? Especially with connections to Garrison criminal types? Who cops loved more than anyone for information...

I choose not to believe an Ozarks Boogeyman serial killer did this. I am with the victims' families/friends on this -- someone they knew did it.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Irish, how do you feel about the DA suggesting in 2017 that Mike and Dusty and Joe are not cleared?

Why would he say that if polygraphs are end all-be all?