The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #1

[Ken]

I would bet my bottom dollar that if an outside, retired investigator would take a complete look at the case, it would be solved within a month or less.

Richard, he would have to persuade someone to turn States Evidence and he would have to persuade LE to act on the information in a timely manner. 30 days is stretching it a bit. 300 days would be more appropriate.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Richard, he would have to persuade someone to turn States Evidence and he would have to persuade LE to act on the information in a timely manner. 30 days is stretching it a bit. 300 days would be more appropriate.

Really? I would say 30 minutes would be more like it. I'll bet he could pick up the phone and get it done if he was good at his job. I would give my right arm to see this case file. I didn't work as a police investigator but this case looks like a slam dunk to me. The time for waiting is long overdue -- some 14 years to be exact. All he needs is a taped or signed confession from just one of them and this case is effectively solved. That doesn't include conviction and execution but I think that would proceed smoothly from there.

Who's "LE?"

 

[Ken]

Who's "LE?"

LE = law enforcement.

 

[Missouri Mule]

LE = law enforcement.

Why would it take 300 days? They've had their chance. That's why I said this needs to be turned over to a competent investigator.

I don't want to toot my horn but I once had a case that was messed over for seven years and it landed on my desk. I solved that case in about 60 days and locked horns with one of Springfield's most well known attorneys in the process. I soon ran him off the case and got my pound of flesh and a big payday for the proper individuals. It can be done but foot dragging as has been done will never solve this case.

 

[Ken]

All he needs is a taped or signed confession from just one of them and this case is effectively solved.

Robert Cox stated on camera in his 1996 prison interview that it would be stupid for someone to do that. IF the retired investigator were to find the remains first; then he may be able to twist some arms to get a confession. Without remains, nobody is going to talk.

 

[Trooogrit]

I am in Nebraska and recently a body was found that was sunken in a barrel. This particular woman was killed by her ex husband back about 23 years. After finding the remains a lot of people started recalling conversations in which this ex husband had made threats to others about this. They came forward and the DNA established it was his missing ex wife. I guess what I am saying is it jogged there memories. Turns out the guy was potentially a serial killer of prostitutes in the area. This is hard to establish because he committed suicide when he knew he was caught. You may be very correct in thinking that the bodies being found would open up the potential for a confessor.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Robert Cox stated on camera in his 1996 prison interview that it would be stupid for someone to do that. IF the retired investigator were to find the remains first; then he may be able to twist some arms to get a confession. Without remains, nobody is going to talk.

I don't want to make this symplistic but it works like this. An investigation begins with the assumption that everyone is a suspect and it boils down to a process of elimination. Once the list of suspects is determined then it continues to be whittled down still further until the most likely ones are ascertained. The number will be quite small. And they had to have the motive, the means, and the opportunity. Who meets that criteria?

At some point in the investigation the suspects will be put on notice that they are not off the hook or they will realize it themselves. And then the focus will remain on them as long as it takes. I see nothing wrong with the PD simply telling the public that they have a suspect(s) but they can't convict on the available evidence. In recent years, they have used the term "person of interest" to define such a person. It's the ultimate way of applying pressure and alerting the public to provide leads.

"Many law enforcement officials now use the vague term “person of interest” to describe people caught up in their investigations. That poses a challenge for journalists, who must try to convey a situation accurately without unfairly tarring someone’s reputation."

http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:-JOi0KZgke8J:www.ajr.org/Article.asp%3Fid%3D4042+person+of+interest&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=3

At this point in time we don't even know if the police department even has a "person of interest" in mind, much less actual suspects.
http://209.85.165.104/archive.asp?issue=77

​

 

[Ken]

I don't want to make this symplistic but it works like this. An investigation begins with the assumption that everyone is a suspect and it boils down to a process of elimination.

Symplistic? (sic).

Without remains, nobody will talk...it's quite simple.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Symplistic? (sic).

Without remains, nobody will talk...it's quite simple.

Contrary to popular thought, it is not necessary to have a body to prove capital murder. We may safely assume that the women are deceased and were murdered. If the evidence, circumstantial though it may be, it is still possible to convict and execute these criminals.
It is true that failure to find the bodies is an obstacle, it is not an insurmountable obstacle. But this is not the point of my posts. The point was that the case has fallen into a black hole. And this only encourages the perps to believe they have escaped prosecution. The police do no favors by failing to keep the public informed and the perps on their guard. Every day the perps should go to bed with the full knowledge that they have murdered three women and that the police are looking over their shoulder. Not a day should go by that they aren't thinking this is the day that they get caught. It is said that "out of mind; out of sight." This is where the case is now.

 

[Ken]

Contrary to popular thought, it is not necessary to have a body to prove capital murder. We may safely assume that the women are deceased and were murdered.

Yes, it's possible to prove capital murder without a body. However, regarding this case; I will have to use your catch phrase: "I'm not holding my breath". Additionally, Stacy McCall has never been legally declared dead by her family. They want to be "shown" some results.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Yes, it's possible to prove capital murder without a body. However, regarding this case; I will have to use your catch phrase: "I'm not holding my breath". Additionally, Stacy McCall has never been legally declared dead by her family. They want to be "shown" some results.

That's certainly true, although I have wondered for a long time if the unwillingness to accept reality has stymied efforts to solve the crime. I can't say how I might feel if I were in the McCall's shoes, however. I know of no case where any adults have been gone for this period of time and have resurfaced alive. We heard of the rumors that they were somehow spirited out of the country and are held in bondage, etc., but I think the odds of that being true are somewhere between zero and none. If Stacy McCall, Suzie Streeter and Sherill Levitt were here to speak for themselves I'm sure they would simply say that they wanted justice done and that entails finding the guilty and justice enacted.

At some point the living have to get on with their lives. But the crime must be solved and the perpetrators held to account. And we, the ones on the outside, want to believe that our justice system is capable of offering the degree of security and stability that a civilized society should afford its citizens. We've not seen that as evidenced by this unsolved case which is why I believe it must be put in the hands of an unbiased investigator or investigators who have no ax to grind. There was speculation from some that the investigation was botched and/or there was possible police corruption. What is the truth? Isn't that the minimum we should expect?

 

[Missouri Mule]

I really hate to see this thread just die out like this. There is some new information that has come to light recently that is not in the public domain. It has to do with the America Most Wanted caller.

Just a fyi: There was a fictional short story written in 1998 about this case. Most of it is true but some new angles that haven't been covered previously are also in the short story. If anyone is interested this is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/spence-missing.html

 

[Ken]

Just a fyi: There was a fictional short story written in 1998 about this case. Most of it is true but some new angles that haven't been covered previously are also in the short story. If anyone is interested this is the link.

http://www.nytimes.com/books/first/s/spence-missing.html

I read chapter one of this piece of crap written by June Spence. This is a book that should never have been written. Ironically, it was written in 1998, the same year I experienced my vision with Stacy McCall. The italics come from the book. My comments follow...

"Adelle (Stacy McCall), the consummate perfectionist, was failing precalculus."
I know for a fact that Stacy was a numbers freak. She loved numbers. It's not likely that she would be failing any math class.

"She carried herself as if maybe she thought she was a little better than everyone else. We detect the trace of a smugly superior smirk in her wedding dress video."
Huh? This isn't the Stacy McCall that transformed my life 8 years ago. This isn't the Stacy that I know.

"Adelle's ( Stacy's ) parents will reemerge woefully from time to time, but in retrospect we will see that it was here the story's last traces turned to ash."
Again I must say this...huh? Eight years ago, Stacy told me where to look to find her. Even though there has been a delay due to Springfield's ice storm; we will know something soon. I know this sounds cliche; but I have waited my whole life for this. I want to know what it's like when the whole thing works.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I read chapter one of this piece of crap written by June Spence. This is a book that should never have been written. Ironically, it was written in 1998, the same year I experienced my vision with Stacy McCall. The italics come from the book. My comments follow...

"Adelle (Stacy McCall), the consummate perfectionist, was failing precalculus."
I know for a fact that Stacy was a numbers freak. She loved numbers. It's not likely that she would be failing any math class.

"She carried herself as if maybe she thought she was a little better than everyone else. We detect the trace of a smugly superior smirk in her wedding dress video."
Huh? This isn't the Stacy McCall that transformed my life 8 years ago. This isn't the Stacy that I know.

"Adelle's ( Stacy's ) parents will reemerge woefully from time to time, but in retrospect we will see that it was here the story's last traces turned to ash."
Again I must say this...huh? Eight years ago, Stacy told me where to look to find her. Even though there has been a delay due to Springfield's ice storm; we will know something soon. I know this sounds cliche; but I have waited my whole life for this. I want to know what it's like when the whole thing works.

So you have visions of Stacy and that carries more weight than this author who after all wrote a work of fiction based on real events? Why do you know something that she does not? I know you are sincere in your beliefs, but the truth of the matter is there is vast disagreement on the police department and others familiar with this case; people that have actual knowledge and facts at their disposal.
I want to believe you are right. But I fear your optimism is misplaced. I base my views on known facts and not visions. In the history of mankind not a single person has ever come back from the "other side" to communicate with the living.

Getting back to the subject at hand, there are actual facts that have come to light that have a bearing on this case. I made reference to the "America Most Wanted" series and who might have placed the call from Florida with "vital information." We now know that it was not the brother of the young woman who Cox almost certainly murdered in Florida (later freed by the Florida Supreme Court from death row). We know that because he has told us that. And we can almost surely rule out Cox because he wasn't in Florida at the time based on his employment history. Who else may have been in Florida at that airing? I would like to know why the police haven't determined the whereabouts of the "six suspects" that are believed to be tied to the homicides at the time that AMW aired in December, 1992. Wouldn't you?

 

[Ken]

I would like to know why the police haven't determined the whereabouts of the "six suspects" that are believed to be tied to the homicides at the time that AMW aired in December, 1992. Wouldn't you?

Richard, in an earlier post you wrote: "At this point in time we don't even know if the police department even has a "person of interest" in mind, much less actual suspects." This seems to conflict with what you just wrote.

 

[Ken]

In the history of mankind not a single person has ever come back from the "other side" to communicate with the living.

The Bible states that Jesus came back and ate a honeycomb and a broiled fish. Luke 24:41-43.

 

[Ken]

So you have visions of Stacy and that carries more weight than this author who after all wrote a work of fiction based on real events? Why do you know something that she does not?

Yes and Yes.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Richard, in an earlier post you wrote: "At this point in time we don't even know if the police department even has a "person of interest" in mind, much less actual suspects." This seems to conflict with what you just wrote.

The distinction would lie in that a "person of interest" would be considered the one most likely to have commited the crime. If I were named as a "person of interest" I would be most concerned rather than a run of the mill suspect. As a matter of fact, when a crime is first committed, every person on the planet is a "suspect." It is just a matter of a process of elimination until the most likely individuals are determined. A significant percentage of murders are as you know commited by family members, they would be first on the list to eliminate. If their answers don't compute no competent investigator would eliminate them, such as evidenced in the Jon Benet Ramsey case.

For example, I would be a suspect at the time of the crime. However, I have an airtight alibi in that I was 1,800 miles away in Montana at the time. Cox, on the other hand was a native of Springfield, worked in the area of the crime at or about the time of the crime, had a criminal history, and was capable of carrying out the crime (being a former Army Ranger) and refuses to deny he didn't do it. He can not be eliminated until he can produce evidence he couldn't have done it. One of the great mysteries is why he won't even deny the crime. Ostensibly it is to keep out of the general population. Is it because of a generalized fear from the rest of the inmates or because he knows there is a contract on his life and he would have a shive stuck in his back in the laundry room? Some of the other suspects are less likely for various reasons and then there are those who the police have no clue because the investigation was so botched.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The Bible states that Jesus came back and ate a honeycomb and a broiled fish. Luke 24:41-43.

That's legend and there is no tangible evidence that ever happened. Many people do not accept this as truth.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Yes and Yes.

Please elaborate.