The Springfield Three--missing since June 1992 - #4

[monkeymann]

The above scenereo would also explain why it didn't matter that the girls weren't suppose to be at Sherrell's house that night....Because it didn't matter. The events that were put into motion happened after they left Georges...Not the party, Not someone following from the party, or from anywhere other then Georges.
I think it could be plausable.....I seems to make a heck of a lot more sense then any of the other theorys...at least for now!

 

[monkeymann]

I've also had another thought.....

Regarding the "Early Morning Sighting" by the lady sitting on her porch.

I believe the lady lived on Grand Street if I'm correct....(Someone please clarify this if I'm incorrect)....My question is this:

Why did the van pull into the driveway momentarily. Did it pull out and continue traveling the same way it was originally going, or did it turn around and go back in the direction it came? What was the purpose of the van stopping in the driveway I wonder?

Also...If someone did indeed follow the 3MW home from Georges they would have had to have waited a period of time before they made their move to the house. I say this because once the women came home, they aparently took off their make up and went to bed. I would think this would have taken at least a half an hour to 45-mins. So my point is this. If the girls left the party at 2am (Ish), and arrived at home at aprox. 2:30-2:45am, it would have been at least 3:00am or later when they got to Georges. Tack on another hour to eat...(If they did indeed end up eating....I thought they might have been so bothered by the men they encountered that they left with out eating)....but if they did eat, this would put them back home at around 4:00am or a little later. Add another half hour to 45-mins. for the 3MW to take make up off and get into bed, it would probably be close to 5:00am when they were abducted.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I've also had another thought.....

Regarding the "Early Morning Sighting" by the lady sitting on her porch.

I believe the lady lived on Grand Street if I'm correct....(Someone please clarify this if I'm incorrect)....My question is this:

Why did the van pull into the driveway momentarily. Did it pull out and continue traveling the same way it was originally going, or did it turn around and go back in the direction it came? What was the purpose of the van stopping in the driveway I wonder?

Also...If someone did indeed follow the 3MW home from Georges they would have had to have waited a period of time before they made their move to the house. I say this because once the women came home, they aparently took off their make up and went to bed. I would think this would have taken at least a half an hour to 45-mins. So my point is this. If the girls left the party at 2am (Ish), and arrived at home at aprox. 2:30-2:45am, it would have been at least 3:00am or later when they got to Georges. Tack on another hour to eat...(If they did indeed end up eating....I thought they might have been so bothered by the men they encountered that they left with out eating)....but if they did eat, this would put them back home at around 4:00am or a little later. Add another half hour to 45-mins. for the 3MW to take make up off and get into bed, it would probably be close to 5:00am when they were abducted.

I essentially concur with your timeline of events. They would have had to be gone by NLT about 5:20 AM in order not to be seen in the early morning twilight.

As to an earlier question the number of men at George's, I can't cite where I saw that. Perhaps I am remembering incorrectly. We know it was more than one.

On the van sighting, it almost certainly was on Grand. The reason it had to turn around is because Grand does not extend across the U.S. 65 bypass. Had the van continued, it would have "T'd" and it could only have gone north or south. I would look at a mapquest to get the sense of this. It would have gone back to Oak Grove, turned right/north to Cherry, which would go completely out of town. If it continued it could have gone all the way out to "B" which runs north and south from Rogersville to Northview. There would have been virtually no traffic going this way. A person leaving the Delmar address would very likely assume that Grand was a through street out of town. That is why the turnaround was necessary when it became evident it didn't. I'm guessing it went out to "B" and then approximately to Shiloh Road. Again, a mapquest will reflect why this would the logical route.

As to the George's scenario, what I don't understand is why not all of the customers who could be identified through credit card receipts or other means were not contacted in order to confirm or knock down this sighting. Were they? We don't know. We have never to my knowledge been informed by the police department why they discounted this possible sighting except they didn't believe it happened or was not credible. If in fact that the waitress extends the time all the way to 4 AM, it seems perfectly credible to me.

But this is just a theory among other theories. Any other possible combination of things may have occurred but it is evident that until and unless all possible scenarios are looked at and eliminated; much the same way suspects are eliminated that the investigation was not properly handled. One cannot simply say "I don't think it happened this way" and proceed to discount it.

But in the end our hands are tied because we do not possess the list of the 12 suspects. We can probably identify only one for certain who would be Cox. I'm not at all certain we can say any of the others are definitely on the agreed upon list of 12 suspects as stated in the news article that all four agencies who have had the opportunity to have looked at the case believe are viable suspects. From what I have given to believe, nothing that "Moe" has volunteered has proven to be accurate. So we don't even know if he is on the list. So if Cox is on the list and all can agree, who are the remaining 11 suspects? I can only guess.

 

[kemo]

Monkeymann,You are correct, the fact that the girls made it home and had time to get ready for bed argues against anyone following them home from George's. If some young men they knew, who they had met at George's came back and were "let in", I would have expected Stacy to put her pants back on. The "disturbed" bind suggests the possibility that someone drove into the driveway after the girls were ready for bed, but if they were "let in", it would seem they were of no interest to Stacy ,ie they (he, she ?) were friends or relatives of Sherill not boys Stacy's age (unless it was some boy she didn't want to see).

Nothing I have read would indicate that the reported interaction between the "clean cut men" and the women was anything other than friendly, in fact my impression was that they were "together"; presumably eating together, The article above does not say this directly. Is there any better account of what the waitress claimed she saw?

I have been skeptical of "porch lady" but if you look at Google Earth, you will see that, for someone not very familiar with Springfield, E. Grand would be a good means of getting out of town to the east. Once you got to around "porch lady's," block however, it would become obvious that E Grand ends at the freeway and you would have to turn around and go back to S Oak Grove. This proves nothing but it does add a little credibility to her "sighting".

Mule (or anyone else), Perhaps you could clear something up for me. How important was Suzie's testimony to the prosecution of the Grave Robbers? You suggested that the case went "down the tubes" but was it because the "star witness" disappeared? We know the Grave Robbers were "cleared" but the "coincedence" of Suzie presumably being murdered one week before she was to testify is "worrysome".

 

[monkeymann]

I've wondered about the Grave Robber angle as well. Depending upon what level of charges the grave robbers were facing, and how much jail/prison time one or more of them might have been facing...who know's what they were capable of. One of them might have had enough of a criminal record that it might have sent them to prison if they were convicted. If this were the case then I can see where this might lead to murder. I wonder if they already knew where Susie and Sherrell lived?

 

[monkeymann]

When I was a kid I lived less than a block from Grand & Oak Grove. I agree that this would have been a relitively discrete way to take out of town. I didn't know for a fact that Grand didn't go through, but I thought that Cherry did. I wish we knew who the "Porch Lady" was. I'd like to be able to re-interview her regarding the van siteing. I also wish we knew who the waitress at George's was for the same reason.

 

[wfgodot]

I've always thought the Grave Robber angle is not one of motive, but of access.

 

[Indianagirl]

The Kansas City Star
July 2, 1992
Edition: MID-AMERICA
Section: MID-AMERICA
Page: C2

Inquiry goes on in missing-women case Police to question man, but they doubt that he is involved. Author: The Associated Press
Article Text:
SPRINGFIELD - A man accused of vandalizing a tomb will be questioned in the disappearance of three women, but police said Wednesday that they expect to eliminate him as a suspect in the missing-persons case.
The 21-year-old man was arrested Monday in Mundelein, Ill., and was being held Wednesday in the Lake County Jail. Authorities haven't said when he'll be returned to Springfield.
Capt. Tony Glenn said detectives needed to confirm the man wasn't involved in the disappearance of Sherrill Levitt, 47; Suzie Streeter, 19; and Stacy McCall, 18.
Investigators became interested in the man shortly after the women vanished from Levitt's home early June 7. The man and two others were charged last week with felony institutional vandalism. They are accused of breaking into a mausoleum at Springfield's Maple Park Cemetery on Feb. 21 and stealing a skull and some bones.
One of the other accused vandals is a former boyfriend of Streeter, who gave a statement to officers investigating the vandalism.
"We interviewed a ton of people in that case. She was one of them," Glenn said.
Streeter's statement was insignificant in the vandalism case, and it "has nothing to do with her missing now," Glenn said. Police have said her former boyfriend, 20, sold 26 grams of gold teeth fillings from the skull at a Springfield pawn shop for $30.
The ex-boyfriend and the third alleged vandal, 19, were questioned extensively in the disappearances, and both are cleared as suspects, Glenn said.
Investigators say the 21-year-old arrested in Illinois isn't a Springfield resident, but he is thought to have been in Springfield on June 7.
Copyright 1992, 1996 The Kansas City Star Co.
Record Number: 104731

This article was printed on July 2, 1992 and indicates the three were charged with a felony the previous week. So, that would have been after the abduction. I don't see a motive in this area nor any connection to the abduction.

 

[Trooogrit]

The "Georges" lead would be huge and SPD should have checked it out. If the "clean cut" young men existed, they would have come forward, unless they were involved. The waitress should have been able to identify the "ticket" for that table. There are many ways patrons who were there at that time could have been located: credit card records, appeals through the media, have someone interviewing people late the following Sat. night etc.

LE invested a lot of resources on the "porch lady" van lead. This lead would have been better since they should have been able to get descriptions and perhaps composites of the Perps IF, at its a big IF, the lead was worth pursueing. Apperantly the lead was not.

The decision to "clear" the grave robbers, to pursue the "Van" lead and not the "Georges" lead and the decision not to contact everyone on the "roledex" are all "calls" that someone in charge of the investigation made. We can't "judge" the wisdom of these decisions because we have little information.

Be careful what you believe, the graverobbers were not cleared. They were looked at intensively, but not eliminated. I am sure they are 3 of the 12. You can only go so far. They were questioned and surveillance was put on them and they were polygraphed.

"The former boyfriend 20 apparently sold the gold filling for $30.00 at a Springfield pawn shop. A crime stoppers tip led to the arrest in early March.

Police sources say investigators extensively questioned the former boyfriend and conducted up to 48 hours of surveilance on him after the abductions.

Police also checked into the possibility of cult activity involving the 3 men but found no evidence." NL July 1, 1992

As far as Levitt's customer list, they were not ignored and a large amount of them were contacted.

"Interviews with Levitt's hair salon clients and the young women's friends will continue through the weekend." NL JUne 12, 1992

The Georges sighting.
"A waitress at Goerge's Steakhouse says she saw Levitt, Streeter, and a young brunette in the restaurant between 1 and 3 a.m." NL June 23, 1992.

Reasons behind the police not believing the tip to be credible.

"Police are skeptical that the sighting of the three at George' steakhouse on June 7 said Worsham and Webb. The timing of the sighting and the clothing they were supposedly wearing is inconcistent with known FACTS"
NL July 6, 1992


THE Van Sighting was not reported until June 24th

"On June 24th the witness called the police. But even after the investigator took a report, the incident was forgotten for a month in mounds of other reports on the case.
Why?
"It was another van sighting not thought to be significant enough to warrant reassignment at the time," Lt Mike Brazeal said." NL August 17, 1992

You are correct we have little information, that is why I dont believe most of the hearsay that is out there.

 

[kemo]

It sounds like it was a Grand Jury that Suzie was supposed to have testified at and which appears to have subsequently indicted the Grave robbers (including Mike Kovacs, Suzie's ex-boyfriend). This article makes the case that Suzie's Testimony wasn't important and Sprigfield LE checked them out very "extensively" before clearing them.

You have to give the PD credit for basic competence but I recall that there was some controversy of the "Chief''s" decision to "clear" them. That doesn't jibe with this news story. It comes down to the question of how solid was the basis for clearing them?

I believe quite strongly that this was a "Victim knew the perp" crime. Obviouly we have debated this issue ad nauseam and, short of additional information, we will get nowhere, Still I think the investigation should have started with the "Grave Robbers".

 

[Trooogrit]

It sounds like it was a Grand Jury that Suzie was supposed to have testified at and which appears to have subsequently indicted the Grave robbers (including Mike Kovacs, Suzie's ex-boyfriend). This article makes the case that Suzie's Testimony wasn't important and Sprigfield LE checked them out very "extensively" before clearing them.

You have to give the PD credit for basic competence but I recall that there was some controversy of the "Chief''s" decision to "clear" them. That doesn't jibe with this news story. It comes down to the question of how solid was the basis for clearing them?

I believe quite strongly that this was a "Victim knew the perp" crime. Obviouly we have debated this issue ad nauseam and, short of additional information, we will get nowhere, Still I think the investigation should have started with the "Grave Robbers".

It did start with the grave robbers, the former boyfriend that wasnt a grave robber and the older brother Bartt, we dont have the details of that, but they would be the "likely" suspects. To be honest I dont think 3 20 year old punks could keep something like this quiet, and none of them had been in real trouble up to that point, so I believe they would have cracked. Plus you have 3 passed polygraphs. Even with the dispute about verocity of polygraphs 3 of them passed is long odds.

 

[Indianagirl]

It sounds like it was a Grand Jury that Suzie was supposed to have testified at and which appears to have subsequently indicted the Grave robbers (including Mike Kovacs, Suzie's ex-boyfriend). This article makes the case that Suzie's Testimony wasn't important and Sprigfield LE checked them out very "extensively" before clearing them.

You have to give the PD credit for basic competence but I recall that there was some controversy of the "Chief''s" decision to "clear" them. That doesn't jibe with this news story. It comes down to the question of how solid was the basis for clearing them?

I believe quite strongly that this was a "Victim knew the perp" crime. Obviouly we have debated this issue ad nauseam and, short of additional information, we will get nowhere, Still I think the investigation should have started with the "Grave Robbers".

Kovaks wasn't one of the grave robbers, Recla was.

 

[monkeymann]

I really wonder if the grave robber group was capable of this crime. I have wondered though, if it were a "Sexually Motivated" crime, why wasn't it committed in the house. I've wondered about this point a lot. Why were the women removed from the house? It seems like this would be the most risky thing a perpetrator could do in terms of getting caught. It would make more sense from a criminal stand point to force your way into the house and committ the crime in the house...if it were a sexually motivated crime.
However, since the 3MW were removed from the house, and there didn't appear to be any evidence of a struggle or rape having taken place in the house, It really makes it look like the crime was a "Getting Rid of the 3MW" type of crime.
Has anyone other then me thought about this particular angle?

 

[monkeymann]

Course I guess it could have eventually ended up being both a "sexually motivated" crime as well as a "get rid of the 3MW" crime after they were taken from the house.
However, if the initial motivation for the crime was not sexual, as a lot of people have thought over the years, but instead was to make the women disappear for what ever reason, then I believe the list of suspects could be narrowed down considerably.

 

[Missouri Mule]

The Georges sighting.
"A waitress at Goerge's Steakhouse says she saw Levitt, Streeter, and a young brunette in the restaurant between 1 and 3 a.m." NL June 23, 1992.

Reasons behind the police not believing the tip to be credible.

"Police are skeptical that the sighting of the three at George' steakhouse on June 7 said Worsham and Webb. The timing of the sighting and the clothing they were supposedly wearing is inconcistent with known FACTS"
NL July 6, 1992

This bugs the heck out of me. What "facts" are not consistent? If the sighting could have been as long as until 4 PM, that doesn't rule it out. As far as the clothes go, it seems that a change of clothing might have occurred prior to them going there.

The NL says between 1 and 3 AM. Yet the other article from the the K.C. Star says could have been as late as 4 AM. The reporting is inconsistent; not the facts in my view. From the K.C. Star:

"The waitress identified Levitt and Streeter as regular customers. She said the two were at the restaurant sometime between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., and possibly as late as 4 a.m. on June 7."

However, the NL article is dated July 6, 1992 and the K.C. Star report was dated June 24, 1992. So on the surface, it would appear the NL report was or should have been more accurate than the earlier K.C. Star report. I'm not sure why there are two separate versions of this but it would have been helpful if the NL simply had stated that an earlier report the women were there until as late as 4 AM was not accurate as stated by the police. This is absolutely critical to understanding the timeline of the case. I don't consider the clothing as particularly important; however I view the timeline as ultra critical.

I have to believe, or would like to believe, that someone in the SPD reads these threads from time to time and could take the time to simply clear these kinds of inconsistencies up. What possible harm could there be? This is not information known only to the perps but should be public information. I just find it very frustrating to sort through these kinds of fuzzy "facts." My $0.02.

 

[Trooogrit]

This bugs the heck out of me. What "facts" are not consistent? If the sighting could have been as long as until 4 PM, that doesn't rule it out. As far as the clothes go, it seems that a change of clothing might have occurred prior to them going there.

The NL says between 1 and 3 AM. Yet the other article from the the K.C. Star says could have been as late as 4 AM. The reporting is inconsistent; not the facts in my view. From the K.C. Star:

"The waitress identified Levitt and Streeter as regular customers. She said the two were at the restaurant sometime between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., and possibly as late as 4 a.m. on June 7."

However, the NL article is dated July 6, 1992 and the K.C. Star report was dated June 24, 1992. So on the surface, it would appear the NL report was or should have been more accurate than the earlier K.C. Star report. I'm not sure why there are two separate versions of this but it would have been helpful if the NL simply had stated that an earlier report the women were there until as late as 4 AM was not accurate as stated by the police. This is absolutely critical to understanding the timeline of the case. I don't consider the clothing as particularly important; however I view the timeline as ultra critical.

I have to believe, or would like to believe, that someone in the SPD reads these threads from time to time and could take the time to simply clear these kinds of inconsistencies up. What possible harm could there be? This is not information known only to the perps but should be public information. I just find it very frustrating to sort through these kinds of fuzzy "facts." My $0.02.

Well here are some more reasons I have never taken the tip very serious.

This sounds a little less than regular customers........

"The steak house was filled with the bar crowd, employees have told police since the investigators learned of the possible sighting a week ago.
The waitress said that Levitt and Streeter had been there before, but not at least for a couple months. Customers and at least one other employee agreed." NL June 24,1992


This sounds like they were covering the same ground we are right now.


"We have had sightings (at an Apco station and George's Steak house), It is absolutely critical to the investigation that we validate these sightings, and that is difficult to do. You don't have cash reciepts, a credit card that shows some convenient time and place. In that sense there is a questioning. We look at the credibility-- not that people are giving us bogus information, but we must establish credibility, so that information means something to us." Police Chief Terry Knowles NL June 26, 1992

This sounds to me like the waitress and the sighting and possible date might be in error.

"Springfield Police say a man who was thought to have talked to three women at a restaurant early on the morning they disappeared was not there that morning and does not know the women" NL July 1, 1992

 

[Indianagirl]

This bugs the heck out of me. What "facts" are not consistent? If the sighting could have been as long as until 4 PM, that doesn't rule it out. As far as the clothes go, it seems that a change of clothing might have occurred prior to them going there.

The NL says between 1 and 3 AM. Yet the other article from the the K.C. Star says could have been as late as 4 AM. The reporting is inconsistent; not the facts in my view. From the K.C. Star:

"The waitress identified Levitt and Streeter as regular customers. She said the two were at the restaurant sometime between 1 a.m. and 3 a.m., and possibly as late as 4 a.m. on June 7."

However, the NL article is dated July 6, 1992 and the K.C. Star report was dated June 24, 1992. So on the surface, it would appear the NL report was or should have been more accurate than the earlier K.C. Star report. I'm not sure why there are two separate versions of this but it would have been helpful if the NL simply had stated that an earlier report the women were there until as late as 4 AM was not accurate as stated by the police. This is absolutely critical to understanding the timeline of the case. I don't consider the clothing as particularly important; however I view the timeline as ultra critical.

I have to believe, or would like to believe, that someone in the SPD reads these threads from time to time and could take the time to simply clear these kinds of inconsistencies up. What possible harm could there be? This is not information known only to the perps but should be public information. I just find it very frustrating to sort through these kinds of fuzzy "facts." My $0.02.

I think the clothing is a big issue. I don't see why Stacy would change clothes, go to George's, then come back to Delmar and put the shirt she was wearing at the parties back on? As we know the shirt Stacy was wearing at the parties disappeared with her. When she got ready for bed, it appears she was still wearing the same shorts from the parties because her jewelry was placed in the pockets of those shorts.

 

[Missouri Mule]

Well here are some more reasons I have never taken the tip very serious.

This sounds a little less than regular customers........

"The steak house was filled with the bar crowd, employees have told police since the investigators learned of the possible sighting a week ago.
The waitress said that Levitt and Streeter had been there before, but not at least for a couple months. Customers and at least one other employee agreed." NL June 24,1992


This sounds like they were covering the same ground we are right now.


"We have had sightings (at an Apco station and George's Steak house), It is absolutely critical to the investigation that we validate these sightings, and that is difficult to do. You don't have cash reciepts, a credit card that shows some convenient time and place. In that sense there is a questioning. We look at the credibility-- not that people are giving us bogus information, but we must establish credibility, so that information means something to us." Police Chief Terry Knowles NL June 26, 1992

This sounds to me like the waitress and the sighting and possible date might be in error.

"Springfield Police say a man who was thought to have talked to three women at a restaurant early on the morning they disappeared was not there that morning and does not know the women" NL July 1, 1992

Well, I would agree. That makes it must less likely.

Sometimes I really could kick myself for sending all of those N/L articles I had amassed over the months and years onto a national syndicated writer back in the 1990s when I believed I had exhausted every idea I could come up with. I would have been able to have found this quote you have furnished. My thanks for clearing that up. In view of this I agree the waitress did not know the women as well as the "48 hour" piece suggested if she hadn't seen them in two months.

I was thinking of this yesterday and it occurred to me although I ate at a local restaurant yesterday I couldn't tell anyone who was sitting at the next table if asked. My thinking was that if he waitress was quite familiar with the women and especially Sherrill she could hardly have errored in identifying someone she saw every day for example. I am a creature of habit and when I go into this restaurant they know automatically what I am going to order and set the drinks on the table before I have even sat down. Somehow in my mind I thought the waitress was as familiar with Sherrill as is the local diner who serves me. Obviously my thinking was wrong.

Sooooo,,,,, Where are we now? Back to square one so far as I can see. What we don't know and will never know short of having an inside into the investigation who can furnish the names of those 12 suspects we are reduced to a guessing game. One thing I am about as certain as I can be is that two of the original suspects were still believed to be prime candidates by two experienced officers. That information came to me via an impeccable source. The problem with it is that it makes little sense but if they had reason to believe it then they would have be considered among the 12 suspects. I believe that Hurricane has stated that two of the 12 are now deceased. I don't know who they are. Does anyone care to volunteer who they might be? (I don't think a dead person can sue for liable.) What I believe absolutely is that if we knew who the remaining 10 suspects were we could be process of elimination, motive and opportunity pare it down to who had an interest in abducting the women. Without those names we are at an impasse in my opinion because we will never know what the police know.

 

[monkeymann]

I have always wondered if there was anything to the "Date" the 3MW disappeared. On graduation night. I wonder if this had any segnificance? Or weather it was mearly a coincidence.
I still think that it makes sense that someone from the last party might have followed them home. Course, there are a lot of other things that make sense as well. It just seems to be a closer fit. I mean, we know for a fact that the girls were at a graduation party. It was the last place we know for a fact they were at other then the house, before they disappeared. I've always thought that it was probably someone who knew them. It would make more sense.

 

[Missouri Mule]

I think the clothing is a big issue. I don't see why Stacy would change clothes, go to George's, then come back to Delmar and put the shirt she was wearing at the parties back on? As we know the shirt Stacy was wearing at the parties disappeared with her. When she got ready for bed, it appears she was still wearing the same shorts from the parties because her jewelry was placed in the pockets of those shorts.

Not necessarily. She may have changed into some clothing she had in her overnight case but intended to wear the shorts to the park the next day in a more informal setting. It would only have taken a matter of a few minutes to change out of her shorts into something a little more suitable for the restaurant. She merely placed the items she intended to take with her back into the shorts for the next day. I do this, for example, when I take items out of my shorts (which I wear most of the time in Texas) into long pants when I go to Sunday church gatherings. The same things I need with me in the shorts I also need in the slacks such as my comb, cell phone, keys and the like. It only takes a minute anyway.

The clothing that the girls wore to the nightly celebrations were probably covered with smoke residue and possibly beer and other things one might engage in during a night of partying and she simply freshened up for the restaurant but wanted the more informal clothing the next day when people wear their "grubbies" (is that the word?) to places where they are going to get wet and the like. After the day at White Water she would likely want to put on the much cleaner clothing for the trip back to Springfield. It would only have been worn but for a short time had they gone to George's.