MO - Sherrill Levitt, 47, Suzie Streeter, 19, & Stacy McCall, 18, Springfield, 7 June 1992 #13

[reprisal]

reprisal
Member, Male

reprisal was last seen:

Viewing thread The Springfield Three - New Discussion, 1 minute ago

• 
  li" data-history="on" style="margin: -23px 0px 0px; padding: 0px 20px; font-size: 12px; background: rgb(246, 241, 232); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(240, 188, 119); overflow-wrap: normal; min-height: 23px; display: table; width: 618.182px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; position: relative;">
• Profile Posts
• Recent Activity
• Postings
• Information

• 
  140
  1. 
     Scooby Doo 4U Don't you ever threaten me again.......! Unless you want to meet me in person and talk **** to my face......Pussy Ass Little *****!
     

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

reprisal
Member, Male

reprisal was last seen:

Viewing thread The Springfield Three - New Discussion, 1 minute ago

• 
  li" data-history="on" style="margin: -23px 0px 0px; padding: 0px 20px; font-size: 12px; background: rgb(246, 241, 232); border-bottom: 1px solid rgb(240, 188, 119); overflow-wrap: normal; min-height: 23px; display: table; width: 618.182px; box-sizing: border-box; height: auto; position: relative;">
• Profile Posts
• Recent Activity
• Postings
• Information

• 
  140
  1. 
     Scooby Doo 4U Don't you ever threaten me again.......! Unless you want to meet me in person and talk **** to my face......Pussy Ass Little *****!

No body cares. Are you here to antagonize people, or do you really care about talking about this case like a civil adult.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Susie's statement of Dusty's confession to her of what they did, would by no means be considered hearsay Richard. Have you ever heard of Sworn Affidavit Statements. Not hearsay what so ever.

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

Sorry, but you can't define hearsay by some googled definition. What he told her, wouldn't automatically be considered hearsay. That would be up to a judge to decide if it fell into the legal spectrum of hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not automatically inadmissible in a court of law. Again it is taken on a case by case basis, based on the judge presiding over the trial, and the significance of evidentiary value of the statement, and the facts of the matter at hand.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

dont mean jack....... and you don’t know what drug Dealing criminal types know of care about regarding the law.....they may have been spooked. Sorry but three people dont disappear without a trace unless powerful groups are at play

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Sorry, but you can't define hearsay by some googled definition. What he told her, wouldn't automatically be considered hearsay. That would be up to a judge to decide if it fell into the legal spectrum of hearsay. And hearsay evidence is not automatically inadmissible in a court of law. Again it is taken on a case by case basis, based on the judge presiding over the trial, and the significance of evidentiary value of the statement, and the facts of the matter at hand.

I looked at many different law pages and they all said the same thing. Also second hand knowledge is the definition of hearsay. They said it is almost never admissible. Considering Dusty’s statement which was first hand knowledge was the same it would not be.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

I looked at many different law pages and they all said the same thing. Also second hand knowledge is the definition of hearsay. They said it is almost never admissible. Considering Dusty’s statement which was first hand knowledge was the same it would not be.

You sure sound anxious to convince us hearsay wouldnt make the guys your husband once knew get involved in an abduction/murder...
btw wheres your proof they perpetrators would have law books on hand in 1992 to influence their choice..?

btw x2: a lawyer can call anyone he wants to the stand. Writing an ‘official statement’ ups those odds

 

[Talullah]

The standard definition of hearsay as found in the widely used Black's Law Dictionary. - University Law - Marked by Teachers.com

 

[Missouri Mule]

I looked at many different law pages and they all said the same thing. Also second hand knowledge is the definition of hearsay. They said it is almost never admissible. Considering Dusty’s statement which was first hand knowledge was the same it would not be.

If Suzie saw him drive up to the crypt that is not hearsay.

If Dusty told her directly what he had done, that is not hearsay.

If she just heard rumors or something told her by a mutual friend that is hearsay.

What happened? Please be specific. It would be enormously be helpful if he would simply come here and just tell us what happened.

Surely you are not saying she made a written statement out of whole cloth because she was sore at him.

2 + 2 does not add up to 5. This can be cleared up rather quickly. The truth is an absolute defense.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

If Suzie saw him drive up to the crypt that is not hearsay.

If Dusty told her directly what he had done, that is not hearsay.

If she just heard rumors or something told her by a mutual friend that is hearsay.

What happened? Please be specific. It would be enormously be helpful if he would simply come here and just tell us what happened.

Surely you are not saying she made a written statement out of whole cloth because she was sore at him.

2 + 2 does not add up to 5. This can be cleared up rather quickly. The truth is an absolute defense.

2nd hand knowledge is hearsay according to the law.

Both Mike and I have on numerous times stated why she made the statement. It is actually in the report. If you want to make up things and insinuate things that have never been stated that is on you. The fact that this is still a question after it has been stated many times is why Mike is no longer on here, Dusty won’t go on here, and probably why others do not go on here. Yes you absolutely don’t have to believe, but when it is the truth you aren’t going to get a different answer. It seems people only listen when it matches what they think. Think whatever you want. Thankfully that does not change the truth.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Now this is pretty exciting. It is amazing what they can do with dna now. I don’t know if they have any dna evidence, but it does give hope to lots of unsolved crimes.

Home DNA Testing Kit Leads To Arrest Of Man in 1998 Rape Case

 

[Scooby Doo 4U]

I looked at many different law pages and they all said the same thing. Also second hand knowledge is the definition of hearsay. They said it is almost never admissible. Considering Dusty’s statement which was first hand knowledge was the same it would not be.

Take an upper division criminal evidence class, taught by a seasoned lawyer/professor, and then come back and tell me how wrong Im not, about what I know about the matter at hand. Enough Said!

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

2nd hand knowledge is hearsay according to the law.

Both Mike and I have on numerous times stated why she made the statement. It is actually in the report. If you want to make up things and insinuate things that have never been stated that is on you. The fact that this is still a question after it has been stated many times is why Mike is no longer on here, Dusty won’t go on here, and probably why others do not go on here. Yes you absolutely don’t have to believe, but when it is the truth you aren’t going to get a different answer. It seems people only listen when it matches what they think. Think whatever you want. Thankfully that does not change the truth.

The truth is that dusty said was on commercial street to the cops. Your husband or Dusty is lying.

Calling Asher the liar is....forgive my pun, a cop out.

You’ve been exposed and you’re back on here again putting in the time reframing then narrative.......you can’t keep changing the truth. The truth is the truth

If Asher was truly lying then you would sue him and I don’t see you doing that......u do know Asher has information compiled by multiple sources than mike... so it’s mike word against tons of other corroborators..I know this because in 48 hours they talk to numerous partygoers from the concert....all u have is the word of a guy with a lot to lose if one of his buddies is caught with a hand in this

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

2nd hand knowledge is hearsay according to the law.

Both Mike and I have on numerous times stated why she made the statement. It is actually in the report. If you want to make up things and insinuate things that have never been stated that is on you. The fact that this is still a question after it has been stated many times is why Mike is no longer on here, Dusty won’t go on here, and probably why others do not go on here. Yes you absolutely don’t have to believe, but when it is the truth you aren’t going to get a different answer. It seems people only listen when it matches what they think. Think whatever you want. Thankfully that does not change the truth.

Your entire “truth” is through Mike’s word.......... NOT PROVEN

Asher exposes your husband twice yet you still stand by him..... your tactics are so obvious. “Attack the cop with millions of files and witness statements” instead of turning the mirror on your “Angel” of a husband who couldnt possibly tell a lie or two to save his ass......oh wait he has documented history of telling lies on here and other forums. .

 

[Valiant]

She could have known A LOT OF OTHER THINGS. A lot of other things that could have easily worried someone(s) enough at the thought of going to prison, or going back to prison, to have committed the 3MW crime. People get murdered for many many different reasons Richard. Some make sense, Some don't. But you can't just flat out discount that angle. Period. You don't know what she may or may not have known, beyond the grave robbing crime. She hung with that crowd, she may have known a lot of things that someone felt posed a threat to them, if she were to reveal them to police. And you can't trust police when they down play her statement. They aren't obligated to be honest about their statements to the public, and you know it. They play that game all the time. You really need to dig deeper in your investigative analytical thought process.

Or someone (or a group of someones) might have thought Suzie knew more than she really did. And they could have though Suzie confided in her Mom and Stacy - meaning all three had to go. And it is quite possible, IMO, that rather innocent conversations among their group of friends could have been what triggered the event. I don't really think the actual crime was performed by any of the group directly around Suzie, but by figures once or twice removed from that group based on chit-chat among those who knew Suzie (and I'm not accusing those of anything illegal either).

 

[irisheyesofblue]

The truth is that dusty said was on commercial street to the cops. Your husband or Dusty is lying.

Calling Asher the liar is....forgive my pun, a cop out.

You’ve been exposed and you’re back on here again putting in the time reframing then narrative.......you can’t keep changing the truth. The truth is the truth

If Asher was truly lying then you would sue him and I don’t see you doing that......u do know Asher has information compiled by multiple sources than mike... so it’s mike word against tons of other corroborators..I know this because in 48 hours they talk to numerous partygoers from the concert....all u have is the word of a guy with a lot to lose if one of his buddies is caught with a hand in this

The concert Mike said they were at was ON COMMERCIAL ST. How is that lying??? Mike has said OVER AND OVER AND OVER again they helped the band at the concert, helped unload them and then went back to the apartment where Dusty passed out in Mike’s sister’s bed. First though they were on COMMERCIAL ST. Thank you for yet showing again why others don’t post. Also they barely talked to any at the concert. We know of a couple, but also know many that WEREN’T interviewed. Some were even in the band and have written me saying how they thought that was odd considering they were helping them you would think they would be the first to be interviewed over random people at the concert.

I would LOVE for Asher to dispute what I have said on his page on FB!!! Do you know how hard it is to sue a person over lies on those shows or the internet? It is hard and rarely won. Believe me we looked into it.

 

[irisheyesofblue]

Your entire “truth” is through Mike’s word.......... NOT PROVEN

Asher exposes your husband twice yet you still stand by him..... your tactics are so obvious. “Attack the cop with millions of files and witness statements” instead of turning the mirror on your “Angel” of a husband who couldnt possibly tell a lie or two to save his ass......oh wait he has documented history of telling lies on here and other forums. .

Asher goes against things HE signed off on in reports in the case file. If he is telling the truth on tv HE is lying in police documents. I’m going with the police documents from 92 and not the entertainment crime show.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The concert Mike said they were at was ON COMMERCIAL ST. How is that lying??? Mike has said OVER AND OVER AND OVER again they helped the band at the concert, helped unload them and then went back to the apartment where Dusty passed out in Mike’s sister’s bed. First though they were on COMMERCIAL ST. Thank you for yet showing again why others don’t post. Also they barely talked to any at the concert. We know of a couple, but also know many that WEREN’T interviewed. Some were even in the band and have written me saying how they thought that was odd considering they were helping them you would think they would be the first to be interviewed over random people at the concert.

I would LOVE for Asher to dispute what I have said on his page on FB!!! Do you know how hard it is to sue a person over lies on those shows or the internet? It is hard and rarely won. Believe me we looked into it.

I would love to know as well. He and I are not exactly bosom buddies.

I’ll be frank. I do not believe your husband or his friends were involved. I am MUCH more inclined to believe the cops are dirty. I make that judgement based on personal contact with them.

It is unfortunate that any of you have had to endure this for so long. It is, however, vital that we hear directly from Dusty. His reticence does not help your case.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

Asher goes against things HE signed off on in reports in the case file. If he is telling the truth on tv HE is lying in police documents. I’m going with the police documents from 92 and not the entertainment crime show.

post the picture of his signature....wasnt it hutcheson that did the poly?

post the pic of just his signature and nothing else...dont need to share whole document.

 

[ArkansasTimeTraveler]

The concert Mike said they were at was ON COMMERCIAL ST. How is that lying??? Mike has said OVER AND OVER AND OVER again they helped the band at the concert, helped unload them and then went back to the apartment where Dusty passed out in Mike’s sister’s bed. First though they were on COMMERCIAL ST. Thank you for yet showing again why others don’t post. Also they barely talked to any at the concert. We know of a couple, but also know many that WEREN’T interviewed. Some were even in the band and have written me saying how they thought that was odd considering they were helping them you would think they would be the first to be interviewed over random people at the concert.

I would LOVE for Asher to dispute what I have said on his page on FB!!! Do you know how hard it is to sue a person over lies on those shows or the internet? It is hard and rarely won. Believe me we looked into it.

so Dusty passed out on commercial street then wakes up and passes out again at Cathe's?

yes I know YOUR story. Unfortunately your story does not equal truth. Helping bands then passing out is different. Recla told the cops he was passed out on commercial st.

which begs the ?...why didn't he just say he was at Cathe's to the cops?