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

[Ozoner]

I think this was planned way before any of the parties. At least the attack on Delmar.

I just don't believe three women are subdued, and taken away without multiple people and a plan.

I believe a second location was already ready for them. I believe there was probably someone handling the inside of the house and even someone out watching and waiting in a vehicle, waiting for the other perps inside.

I think that there had to be multiple people OR a plan—not necessarily both.

One person could abduct three women with a carefully-laid plan and a handgun; two men might be able to pull it off without a plan.

I do think there was some kind of plan (and there may well have been more than one culprit, as you stated).

 

[cherrymeg]

Just throwing out my wild guess? Everyone assumes one or two of the victims were innocent bystanders. But there are possible situations where all three might be considered necessary to be removed by the perps.
It could have been a recent development. Someone overheard a conversation between the two girls at one of the parties? And that conversation included "did you tell your mom?" "yes, today.". Something big enough that it made someone move that night before it spread. It could be nothing more than fear that an act by minor players could bring down bigger fish.

That's just one possible scenario, my opinion only. But only looking at scenarios where it was an accident that all three had to be taken and the timing being random could mean overlooking possible scenarios for no good reason.

There are a million possibilities. There aren't bodies and the suspect list is almost anyone. One thing that seemed odd was the change of plans about staying at Janelle's house. The newspaper articles have several people mentioning Suzie having a stomach-ache. Is that something she said several times because she really wasn't feeling great or was she trying to leave or get away from a person politely? Stacy's mom might not have approved of Suzie as a friend for her daughter but maybe they hung out in the same crowd. Kids have secrets.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

I think that there had to be multiple people OR a plan—not necessarily both.

One person could abduct three women with a carefully-laid plan and a handgun; two men might be able to pull it off without a plan.

I do think there was some kind of plan (and there may well have been more than one culprit, as you stated).

IMO there HAD to be a plan. Because there had to be a second location staged for the murder and a burial.

I believe originally they were to be abducted by a group that was worried about what Suzie might say in court. And because Suzie knew, the mom knew too.

Stacy wasn't part of their plan... which is why they had to control her silence by murdering.

 

[cherrymeg]

I think that there had to be multiple people OR a plan—not necessarily both.

One person could abduct three women with a carefully-laid plan and a handgun; two men might be able to pull it off without a plan.

I do think there was some kind of plan (and there may well have been more than one culprit, as you stated).

Some killers fantasize and plan their murders but they seem to have to wait for the right time. Sometimes victims catch the predator's eye and are in a place or doing something that makes abduction easier. Michael Devlin described kidnapping Shawn Hornbeck. He had been planning to kidnap a boy driving around for years waiting for the right opportunity. Devlin is in jail and Shawn was found alive it's not the same scenario but it shows some abductors plan and think through everything that could go wrong, like being seen, or someone getting away, and use that to pick their moment and adapt to their surroundings. It's actually scary.
What drove Michael Devlin to kidnap two boys?

 

[Woofbark]

Just throwing out my wild guess? Everyone assumes one or two of the victims were innocent bystanders. But there are possible situations where all three might be considered necessary to be removed by the perps.
It could have been a recent development. Someone overheard a conversation between the two girls at one of the parties? And that conversation included "did you tell your mom?" "yes, today.". Something big enough that it made someone move that night before it spread. It could be nothing more than fear that an act by minor players could bring down bigger fish.

That's just one possible scenario, my opinion only. But only looking at scenarios where it was an accident that all three had to be taken and the timing being random could mean overlooking possible scenarios for no good reason.

Based on your post, is it known if anyone took photos or video at any of those parties? If so, then someone should review all of it. Your theory may be proven correct.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Based on your post, is it known if anyone took photos or video at any of those parties? If so, then someone should review all of it. Your theory may be proven correct.

The police have every picture/video taken at the parties. It didn't lead to any solutions as far as I know.

Steve Garrison, to my knowledge had an alibi that night, but there's other suspects who had really weak ones or none at all.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

From an earlier post on another thread (for reference)
From September 13, 1995 NewsLeader:

(on 3MW case)
"So investigators and prosecutors did not object to reducing Garrison's $10,000 bail to $2500 so he could post bond and get out of jail, said Darrell Moore, chief assistant county attorney. The thinking, law enforcement sources said, was that Garrison might talk in a different environment."
<snip>
"Garrison was captured 20 days later and jailed without bond. It was nine days after the reported mid-town assault" [the rape he is now imprisoned for]
<snip>
"Police detective Doug Thomas, the primary investigator in the missing women's case, was the officer alone with Garrison when he ran. Thomas would not comment on the escape, other than to say "There's nothing that happens down here every day that we don't have regrets that a different tack might have been taken."

So police had Garrison in their hands, hoping he'd talk, and just let him..."escape?" Like...what? Explain how that makes any lick of sense.

Has anyone held a fire to Doug Thomas and SPD over this?

The man primarily in charge of the case. The man who visited Garrison in prison multiple times over. The man who knew him since his stand off with police in 1990, the one who leaned on Garrison for multiple leads and digs has him in custody and lets him escape?

Ok, so I'd like to add to this logic/scenario.

If detectives thought Garrison would talk in a different setting, WTF didn't they just take him to a different setting. Police don't have to bail a person out, to take them somewhere, as long as they remain in custody.
Point is, it doesn't make any sense to me why they wouldn't have just, taken him somewhere more comfortable than jail.
Why did he have to bond out? Again, it doesn't make any sense.

 

[Woofbark]

I think the targets might have been Suzie and Stacy. This is just one theory. With people visiting for graduation that means they had contact with a number of strangers or relatives of friends. Those people would have possibly been gone by the time they were reported missing and never thought of as suspects. They were two attractive girls going to parties and maybe some psycho or psychos decided to follow them and lured Sherrill away from the house.
My thing with Sherrill as the target is why attempt kidnapping, rape or murder on a night when police are out, kids are going from one house to the next? It wouldn't be a night to plan a crime. If someone just wanted one women, planning it that night doesn't make sense. I think the kidnapper/s thought about it or had done something like it before but what made them act was an opportunity presenting itself. MOO

Based on this, is it possible that any of the person's of interest had relatives at those graduation parties? Perhaps there's a relation that hasn't been discovered yet. It could even be to one of those person's in prison.

 

[Zeke85]

I was wondering if anyone knew the address for the house parties that took place June 7 1992 at around 2am before the girls left,as well as any names of people who attended..

Postcard from Google Earth


Google Earth
#googleearth


Janelle Kirby lived on a S.Butterfield place and I read the party took place at one of janelle’s neighbor’s house on W.Coach rd..
Any info on this matter would be greatly appreciated..

 

[Betty P]

Ok, so I'd like to add to this logic/scenario.

If detectives thought Garrison would talk in a different setting, WTF didn't they just take him to a different setting. Police don't have to bail a person out, to take them somewhere, as long as they remain in custody.
Point is, it doesn't make any sense to me why they wouldn't have just, taken him somewhere more comfortable than jail.
Why did he have to bond out? Again, it doesn't make any sense.

Yeah, that's always been a red flag for me. Is this a case of the perp being a protected LE informant or something?

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Yeah, that's always been a red flag for me. Is this a case of the perp being a protected LE informant or something?

Ding ding ding!

I don't think he's being "protected" but I do think he has prime knowledge, and they're careful not to let him talk too much without complete control.

Not to sound like a conspiracy theorist but something fishy going on with the cops and Garrison. Explain why they still like him after failed digs. And gag orders?

Could it be that the digs didn't actually fail, but DID produce something? My guess is they have good evidence but it's all circumstantial because the crime scene was ruined by Janelle, Mike, and all the Kirbys, McCalls, and co. Another reason why there's barely any movement is because the perp is known. And it's "complicated."

Why did police need him to be in a hotel? Are we ever going to get a straight answer on this one? Should be flooding the police station inboxes and news station inboxes with this question. Surprised we had such lackluster journalism that they couldn't demand an answer to this.

 

[SAMS]

I would love verification from witnesses other than the waitress at Georges Steakhouse, that all 3 of the women were seen there that night (with Suzie being intoxicated), talking to unknown males. MOO

 

[Catmommy]

I would love verification from witnesses other than the waitress at Georges Steakhouse, that all 3 of the women were seen there that night (with Suzie being intoxicated), talking to unknown males. MOO

Yeah, that would actually make things easier, wouldn't it? Especially timeline wise. In my opinion, that's exactly why no one else has come forward with Steakhouse info to this day, because it doesn't exist.

 

[Woofbark]

I would love verification from witnesses other than the waitress at Georges Steakhouse, that all 3 of the women were seen there that night (with Suzie being intoxicated), talking to unknown males. MOO

After reading the news articles on this, I am also thinking that this was a case of mistaken identity. The gas station sighting would probably be mistaken identity as well. No employees at either place could fully confirm anything.

 

[cherrymeg]

After reading the news articles on this, I am also thinking that this was a case of mistaken identity. The gas station sighting would probably be mistaken identity as well. No employees at either place could fully confirm anything.

I thought the gas station sighting Sherrill might have been legit. Especially if she went there for gas a cigarettes. A cashier might have known her by name or sight. It could have been the wrong night. The George's sightings could been mistaken identities, could have been the wrong night a combination of both.

 

[Catmommy]

I thought the gas station sighting Sherrill might have been legit. Especially if she went there for gas a cigarettes. A cashier might have known her by name or sight. It could have been the wrong night. The George's sightings could been mistaken identities, could have been the wrong night a combination of both.

I do think that people want to help so much they sometimes scramble the date or time or even what they really saw. Nothing done maliciously and each lead should be investigated fully. That said, how much time and resources is spent on false information from people trying to "help"?

 

[Woofbark]

I thought the gas station sighting Sherrill might have been legit. Especially if she went there for gas a cigarettes. A cashier might have known her by name or sight. It could have been the wrong night. The George's sightings could been mistaken identities, could have been the wrong night a combination of both.

You could be right about the wrong night. Especially if that's where they usually got their gas.

 

[Woofbark]

I do think that people want to help so much they sometimes scramble the date or time or even what they really saw. Nothing done maliciously and each lead should be investigated fully. That said, how much time and resources is spent on false information from people trying to "help"?

I am hoping that part of that problem is caused by a strong desire to see justice done.

 

[cherrymeg]

I do think that people want to help so much they sometimes scramble the date or time or even what they really saw. Nothing done maliciously and each lead should be investigated fully. That said, how much time and resources is spent on false information from people trying to "help"?

The gas station and George's were both places that the Suzie, Sherrill and Stacy could have been at separately, together or in some pairing. If the date was wrong it doesn't mean the information isn't important. It could be relevant to what was going on in their lives. It could be a waste of time. I have my doubts about the woman that saw them in a van from her porch and heard them being threatened. I found it odd that the police department put a van that was similar on display outside the station (I think) trying to jog memories. That seems like it could be confusing. If you passed it regularly that would start looking really familiar.
Eye witnesses are often wrong. With over 25 years passing and no answers going back to that night and interviewing everyone again can't hurt. People that saw them in passing might not we great witnesses. If Suzie or Stacy and other kids went to George's frequently maybe someone can remember the atmosphere and what kind of people hung out there. They people they were with and the people in the Streeter/Levitt home the next day should be questioned. Some of their peers might have seemed harmless at 18 and were overlooked but could now have a history of crime. Or might have confessed to partners or spouses if they knew what happened. They might have gone out of state. People that don't follow true crime aren't even aware of big cases unless they happened near them. My parents watched Mindhunter and they had never heard of the Atlanta Child Killings. They were alive at the time. If someone said they covered up the murders of three women and if they didn't say where it happened I might think the person was nuts, lying to scare me, or trying to sound interesting (murdering women and kids never makes someone interesting lol). Maybe the interest in true crime can help move this case forward. There is also a movie it might be a short based on the case coming out in october. I don't know what to think but it could help get their case out there.

Hopefully I'm not breaking any rules posting IMDB trailer.
The Springfield Three! from Gigi Gustin

 

[cherrymeg]

The police have every picture/video taken at the parties. It didn't lead to any solutions as far as I know.

Steve Garrison, to my knowledge had an alibi that night, but there's other suspects who had really weak ones or none at all.

It could be someone who never made it on their radar. The pictures could help with a timeline of where they were but if the perpetrator/s blended in, like they were supposed to be there that wouldn't prove guilt. Unlike today where people take pictures constantly and post them online, in the 90's and even early 2000's you had to have a camera to take pictures or decent ones. Carrying around a camera takes up room in your purse, if you are going to be drinking or putting down your purse you risk breaking it or getting it stolen. You have to remember to take pictures which if you are having fun you might be too busy to. Now there would be photos and videos from every angle and a location and timestamp.