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

[Scooby Doo 4U]

What is your goal here? Anything either of the Clays say you dispute. What is it that you want from them? They have answered questions and put up with accusations that LE put to bed a long time ago. Everyone's goal should be for this case to be solved not to be right.

In defense of "OzarksTrailBlazer" I will say this. The Clays have said "A lot of things". Some things have been true, however, other things have been said one way, and then said a different way as time passed. Stories have not contained the same details consistently, through out the years. When things have been challenged, the answers don't make sense sometimes, based on things that have been claimed in the past and in past statements.
So I agree with OzarksTrailBlazer, in being skeptical and suspicious. I can't name any of the incidences off the top of my head, but other can validate what I say. I know this dynamic is true though. With all due respect.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

Asher was unprofessional.

How was Det. Asher Unprofessional? He seemed to be one of the more professional ones in the bunch.
Not sure why you're saying that?

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

In defense of "OzarksTrailBlazer" I will say this. The Clays have said "A lot of things". Some things have been true, however, other things have been said one way, and then said a different way as time passed. Stories have not contained the same details consistently, through out the years. When things have been challenged, the answers don't make sense sometimes, based on things that have been claimed in the past and in past statements.
So I agree with OzarksTrailBlazer, in being skeptical and suspicious. I can't name any of the incidences off the top of my head, but other can validate what I say. I know this dynamic is true though. With all due respect.

My biggest thing with the Clays and their narrative here is the thing where Mike claimed to have been Suzie's friend. But did not say anything like that in 2012 when he first started posting on various forums. It still sits with me. Not to mention a friend wouldn't hope another friend is dead.

The revisionism is well documented

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

I linked it earlier in the thread I don't know if you or anyone wants me to repost it. It's all over the place it has Stacy's family, interviews, a taped polygraph then it's got psychics, missing kids that were returned, and the sheep/goats it's like huh? I didn't like his assumptions about Suzie while staring at her pictures. Actually just voicing his opinions about her just came off as unprofessional.

What assumptions are you referring to? All I recall Det. Asher saying is that, Some of the pictures looked a little racy, and that a couple were missing.
"Racy" is an opinion statement, not an assumption.

 

[cherrymeg]

Found no connection or found no proof (i.e. bodies)?

The law doesn't work that way. His vandalism trial doesn't have anything to do with 3MW as far as sentencing, etc. His lawyer would have a field day if the judge wanted to give a harsh sentence over suspected guilt in another crime.

Ever wonder why Joe's case was separated from Mike and Dusty's? Even with Dusty and Mike using a different lawyer? And Mike using Joe's lawyer?

Why did Joe and Mike's lawyer (both represented by Stephen Lada) agree to opposite sentences? Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Couldn't be that Joe was a CI, right? Cases filed separately prior to snitching btw. So there goes that excuse.

Instead of arguing about every detail that someone gives you why not ask a question? If you think Mike has answers than ask what you want to know.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

My biggest thing with the Clays and their narrative here is the thing where Mike claimed to have been Suzie's friend. But did not say anything like that in 2012 when he first started posting on various forums. It still sits with me. Not to mention a friend wouldn't hope another friend is dead.

The revisionism is well documented

THANK YOU! It is comments like what you mentioned that I was referring to! A far cry from "I hope those 's are dead".....Right!

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Again we go back to this: criminals magically know what is/isn't going to be discussed in a trial? A lot of them aren't that bright.

But also, that aside, they could ask about non-vandalism topics if it pertained to how they know certain people. Which is the entire point. I believe they were abducted to be scared into not saying things to the cops.

But yet Joe can talk all he wants and he had first hand knowledge not second, third, and so on? That makes zero sense.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

Instead of arguing about every detail that someone gives you why not ask a question? If you think Mike has answers than ask what you want to know.

But Cherrymeg......that's the problem. We've been down this road already with "Mike" and "Co." People have already "Asked" the questions. But the answers don't make sense. And have not remained consistent over the years. That's the problem.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

But yet Joe can talk all he wants and he had first hand knowledge not second, third, and so on? That makes zero sense.

Does it make sense if Joe was one of the ones involved in the abduction? Directly or indirectly?

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Does it make sense if Joe was one of the ones involved in the abduction? Directly or indirectly?

No it does not because he is known to blab. If he was a part of that why would they keep him alive.

 

[cherrymeg]

But Cherrymeg......that's the problem. We've been down this road already with "Mike" and "Co." People have already "Asked" the questions. But the answers don't make sense. And have not remained consistent over the years. That's the problem.

I reread a past thread and people were really hostile. Their answers made sense. I'm confused by people that imply they have inside knowledge when they are as in the dark as everyone else.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

No it does not because he is known to blab. If he was a part of that why would they keep him alive.

You missed my point.

Again, if he was someone who took part in doing it, why would he worry about being kept alive? If he indeed did it.

 

[cherrymeg]

You missed my point.

Again, if he was someone who took part in doing it, why would he worry about being kept alive? If he indeed did it.

Do you think he was involved or did it? I'm not being smart I'm curious.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

You missed my point.

Again, if he was someone who took part in doing it, why would he worry about being kept alive? If he indeed did it.

Because as you said “if he took part”. Are you saying a guy that could not keep his mouth shut for an institutional vandalism case was able to do this all on his own? If he was part of a team why would they keep the one alive that talks about things that get him caught at parties?

 

[cherrymeg]

Because as you said “if he took part”. Are you saying a guy that could not keep his mouth shut for an institutional vandalism case was able to do this all on his own? If he was part of a team why would they keep the one alive that talks about things that get him caught at parties?

I thought the only reason is bond was upped was because he violated the terms or ran and at that time he was a POI. That was less than a month after they disappeared. It seems like early theories that didn't pan out for cops are still being repeated either about your husband, Dusty and Joe or Suzie and Sherrill. The police talked about looking into her background and didn't come up with anything that seemed linked to her disappearance. Rumors and theories take on a life of their own. In the one news article someone asks if Suzie's dad was in the CIA.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Because as you said “if he took part”. Are you saying a guy that could not keep his mouth shut for an institutional vandalism case was able to do this all on his own? If he was part of a team why would they keep the one alive that talks about things that get him caught at parties?

Doesn’t matter if you think he is capable or not.

He can indeed keep his mouth shut.

Ronnie Busick was a big talker too. But he also knew what NOT to talk about. See what I’m saying?

Has Joe opened his mouth about this since?

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Doesn’t matter if you think he is capable or not.

He can indeed keep his mouth shut.

Ronnie Busick was a big talker too. But he also knew what NOT to talk about. See what I’m saying?

Has Joe opened his mouth about this since?

All I know is that he could not keep his mouth shut before. So you are to have me believe that people involved would see that he could not before and assume out of the goodness of their hearts that he could now even after agreeing to testify against Mike yet kill three innocent people that had second and third hand knowledge?

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Found no connection or found no proof (i.e. bodies)?

The law doesn't work that way. His vandalism trial doesn't have anything to do with 3MW as far as sentencing, etc. His lawyer would have a field day if the judge wanted to give a harsh sentence over suspected guilt in another crime.

Ever wonder why Joe's case was separated from Mike and Dusty's? Even with Dusty and Mike using a different lawyer? And Mike using Joe's lawyer?

Why did Joe and Mike's lawyer (both represented by Stephen Lada) agree to opposite sentences? Things that make you go hmmmmmm.

Couldn't be that Joe was a CI, right? Cases filed separately prior to snitching btw. So there goes that excuse.

Also Mike and Joe both had public defenders as lawyers, but they were two different public defenders. All three had different lawyers.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

Also Mike and Joe both had public defenders as lawyers, but they were two different public defenders. All three had different lawyers.

Joe used Stephen Lada and so did Mike. Dusty's was different.

Attached screenshots. Different case numbers.

Look at the dockets. Mike used Lada every single appearance. So did Joe.

 

[OzarksTrailBlazer]

All I know is that he could not keep his mouth shut before. So you are to have me believe that people involved would see that he could not before and assume out of the goodness of their hearts that he could now even after agreeing to testify against Mike yet kill three innocent people that had second and third hand knowledge?

I'm saying Joe and/or someone he knew (and someone Garrison also knew) were spooked by the women talking to cops. This doesn't stop with Suzie. There may have been concerns of what Sherrill knew as well.