I've wondered the same thing whether it might have turned into a sexual assault case although the originating action was something else. That's a valid point although the article I quoted from an earlier poster does not lend itself to that interpretation. The article itself leaves no wiggle room so far as I can tell. It didn't say that the ultimate motive was sexual assault only that it was sexual assault. So one is left to wonder.
Well whatever reasoning behind the sexual assault motive I believe came from the investigation itself. They looked into the lives of the women and found little or no evidence to support drugs. This was documented. So if you take away the drug activity with the three what is left?
Let us stipulate that it played out as you posit. What does one make of the three week surveillance on the home? Would that be for the mere intention of burglarizing the home? Certainly that would be taking extreme measures to ensure a successful entry into the home, would it not?
One point I think should be made is this information came after a recanvassing of the neighborhood more than 2 months after the crime. It also stated that the white van CRUISED the neighborhood. SURVEILLANCE is not the right word. Is it reliable? I am not sure. I can tell you that working in a neighborhood for a long period of time is not unusual, I know this through my own work. If there were painters, roofers, construction workers doing a job in the area they could very well have been seen often driving by the house. With that said, they could have observed the two women coming and going and knew that there was no man at the residence. This activity could have started an obsession with one of the women? To take that further it would be possible that an encounter with the women could have taken place that no one knew about. There was some speculation that stalking could have played a part in the crime. During the AMW show the police revealed this.
"Investigators also have considered that stalking led to the women' disappearences, a theory revealed during friday's broadcast." NL March 6, 1993
I've heard two versions of the alleged confession to the location of the bodies. One comes from a much earlier poster who, as I said, appears almost certainly to have been involved in the search. He claims that NOTHING (presumably) Garrison provided regarding anything proved to have value. His credibility dropped to zero. That is, of course if this poster, was indeed who he implied he was. One would have to go back to Thread #1 to read his post. I believe he has made numerous posts here about this case and others. I attempted to make contact with him but it was not successful.
The other version I have heard is that a certain police officer, now retired, personally handled Garrison and somehow dropped the ball or didn't handle him skillfully. That implies that Garrison did have credibility.
I need to review this particular part of the crime, I know there was a split in credibility of the information by the police. Now as far as the officer I have heard this also. I have heard Garrison "lawyered up", but I can find nothing that leads me to believe this to be the case. Does he tell the truth or is he leading the police estray? I personally think that it does not benefit him to lead them estray. He inserted himself into this case for what? He is now a suspect. He also was much more specific than Cox was.
" His status as a missing women suspect began in mid-1993, about a year after the vanishings, as he sat in Greene County jail, charged with a weapons offense." NL June 7, 1997
This to me does not make sense. If he was not a suspect before he has nothing to gain if he is lying.
Another interesting bit of information is the Webster county search was not the only place he revealed.
"Garrison, 38, told reporters in the past that he knew where the women were taken, how they died, and where they were buried. His tale included an alleged trip to Lake Springfield, and burial sites in Webster county and between here and Kansas City." NL June 7, 1997
The other factor we have to deal with is with Cox. Leaving aside Cox's credibility for a moment, is the very real effort that went into attempting to coax out of Cox the location of the remains. As I recall the officers (one now a major with the SPD) may have made up to two trips to visit with Cox in Texas but he wouldn't budge off his non-denial denial. What we are left to ponder are two letters to the N/L and a taped interview on KY3 with Cox (which I have not viewed) which strongly imply he was the best suspect they had. So far as I know, Cox has been stated to be the number #1 suspect in the case. His history is all too sordid to repeat here again but there is no good reason to summarily discount him since he "beat the rap" in Florida and walked off death row and alleged to have had had contact with Ted Bundy, the master serial murderer on death row, who, if memory serves me correctly, gave advice to the effect never to allow the bodies to be found. And when Cox was finally brought to justice he had a "kill kit" in his vehicle which implies he had evil intentions. We may never know what he has done unless at some point he decides to come clean. There is no indication he will do that.
Cox is just an unknown in my book, I do not believe he had ties to Garrison. I see his vague non-denial denying as a red herring to the game he is playing.
So we are left with Cox and Garrison; known predators, and we have a news report from 1995 which clearly states this was a case of sexual assault and not drug related. In view of what we believe we know to be the likely circumstances of the exit out of town, we can probably extrapolate that there was a connection with Rogersville and meth has been brought up time and time again although not proven, and even discounted, by the news article, which as I said, leaves no wiggle room.
I have heard some of theories about Rogersville and think that some of the research is flawed and some of the information is hearsay. I do not believe there is a drug connection directly attached to the women.
Having said all of this, it does make eminent good sense that the abductions were carried out to prevent Suzie's testimony which may have brought bigger fish into the case. Whoever they may have been would have had ample motive to prevent her testimony. If, as someone believe, this was because of a drug connection then the news article or the information provided to the news media was fabricated in order to throw off the perpetrators. That cannot be ruled out. Since none of us, to my knowledge, has seen the actual police file, we don't know where the truth lies.
In my opinion if Suzie's testimony was that troublesome, they would not have had to go to this length to keep her quiet. It would be just as easy to inrimidate her and not risk the death penalty.
If a gun were held to my head to come up with one correct answer, I would say that Cox and Garrison are somehow connected and this was indeed sexual assault which comports with the news article. That being the case, there is no police conspiracy to cover up the truth. They just can't bring the case to trial not having the physical evidence to get a conviction. Since the prosecutors in this area have been burned badly by two very high profile cases we can assume they are exercising extreme caution having only one bite at the apple.
I have one final point which I have raised previously. Where is it written that we must somehow ASSUME that either Suzie or Sherrill was or were the intended targets? Why is the assumption written in granite that Stacy was not the intended target? Certainly that does not rule out the sexual assault motive. We know very little of Stacy when all is said and done.[/quote]
I think it is entirely possible that Stacy could be the target. This could go along with the stalker theory.
