December 3, 2024 • 25 mins
Three women vanished from Springfield, Missouri, on June 7, 1992, and the case remains unsolved even after 30 years. Host Allison DuBois delves into the chilling details surrounding the disappearance of Susie Streeter, Stacy McCall, and Cheryl Levitt, exploring the timeline of events that led to their fateful night. With a unique psychic perspective, DuBois highlights the complexities of the investigation, emphasizing the critical importance of evidence collection. As she navigates through the emotions of the families and the unsettling possibilities surrounding the case, she shares her insights on the potential motives behind the abduction. Join Allison as she seeks to unravel the mystery and urges anyone with information to come forward, reminding listeners that even the coldest cases can still hold the key to resolution.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:05):
Welcome to the Dead Life.
Here's world renowned mediumAllison Dubois.
Today on the Dead Life, I'mtaking you back to June 7, 1992.
Three women disappeared inSpringfield, Missouri and after 30
years, the case is still cold.
Cheryl Levitt watched herdaughter Susie graduate from high
(00:27):
school.
This is a happy occasion formost parents watching their children
grow up and succeed.
But for Sheryl Levitt, thathappy occasion turned into what I
could only imagine was aterrifying abduction and triple murder.
To book a reading with me,email us@bookinglisondubois.com you
(00:48):
can follow me on Instagram atMedium Allison or you can Watch me
on YouTube to see new and pastepisodes of the Dead Life.
Don't forget to pick up abottle of my divination 22 money
potion, vodka or love potionat one handsome bastard in Old Town
Scottsdale.
Give them as a gift and be themost popular person at the party
(01:08):
this holiday season.
My process when I do a writeup on a case is to write down the
impressions that come to meand write them down.
I then pass my write up ontolaw enforcement for them to follow
up on any leads it may give them.
With the Springfield 3, thatwas the process I followed.
(01:29):
This case is the hardest kindof case for me to work because the
bodies were never recovered.
When a body has been found,law enforcement has a greater likelihood
of discovering evidence leftbehind through DNA or clues through
manner of death.
Those clues give me psychicbreadcrumbs to follow into the nothingness
(01:49):
around a murder that needs answering.
For any of you who are tryingto exercise your investigator sixth
sense, please remember to doyour write up first.
Without knowing any detailsaround a case, just look at a picture
of the victim or the missing person.
Write their first name at thetop of your file and begin writing
(02:10):
down the impressions that youpull from the energy of the crime.
I do not collaborate withother psychics.
It can muddy the waters and ifone of you is inaccurate, then the
inaccurate details just tookyou in the wrong direction and you
don't want to risk that.
So keep it clean.
This case has a lot of problems.
(02:34):
Let me set the scene for you.
Susie Streeter and StacyMcCall attended their high school
graduation ceremony on June 6, 1992.
Their very proud parentswatched their daughters achieve one
of many milestones in a youngperson's life.
On June 7, Susie and Stacydecided to go out and celebrate by
(02:59):
grad party hopping.
Some reports said they weresupposed to spend the night at their
friend Janelle Kirby's house,but Stacy decided to stay at Susie's
house instead.
According to Janelle Kirby andMike Henson, both friends of Susie
and Stacy, the last time theysaw Susie and Stacy, the girls had
(03:20):
left Janelle's house, whichwas around the corner from the party
they were at.
And this was at around 2am onthe 7th.
So if they graduated in theformal ceremony on the 6th, then
they went out the night of the6th, but were last seen in the early
mornings of the 7th of June.
(03:41):
So at around 2am they left andeach girl left driving her own car.
Stacy and Susie said they wereheaded to Susie's house to sleep
and told Janelle to call themin the morning to go to Whitewater,
which is a water park.
That was the last time anyonesaw or spoke to Susie Streeter or
(04:02):
Stacy McCall.
As far as we know, the thirdmissing person is Cheryl Lovett,
Susie's mother.
The last time anyone heardfrom Cheryl was around 11pm on the
night of the 6th when she wason the phone with a friend.
Mrs.
McCall, Stacy's mother saidshe saw Cheryl Levitt at the graduation
(04:24):
ceremony on the 6th at around6pm So 11pm is around the last time
anyone talked to Cheryl andknew she was okay.
Now let's look at the police report.
Janelle Kirby started callingSusie's house around 7:30am Several
hours after last seeing herdrive away.
(04:45):
She called her several timesthat morning with no answer, just
the answering machine.
Janelle and Mike went toSusie's house again at 12:30 in the
afternoon.
They stated that Susie andStacy's cars were there as well as
the mother, Cheryl's.
This is a lot of reports, sobear with me.
(05:08):
So Cheryl's car was in the carport.
Janella.
Mike said the door was closed,but unlocked.
They rang the doorbell, theyknocked and then announced themselves
as they entered the premises.
They said the front porch likeglobe was broken, but on they went
into Susie's room and the TVwas on.
(05:29):
They said all three women'spurses were in Susie's room.
I found that to be strange.
Why would her mom, Cheryl'spurse be in her daughter's room?
Unless the person who broke inled them to think it was a robbery.
The purses need to be run forfingerprints and DNA.
(05:52):
If they were well preserved bylaw enforcement, that could be done
now.
So I found the purses to beimportant, especially the mother's
purse.
If they wanted to, if theabductors wanted to go through some
sort of a ruse, that they werejust there for money and we're just
(06:12):
gonna, you know, take you outand Leave you on the side of the
road to give us time to get away.
You know, that could besomething that the women might have
thought, you know, that theywould be okay if that were the case.
Now I know from working in lawenforcement and with law enforcement
for so long, you never allowsomebody to remove you from where
(06:33):
you're being abducted from.
But I know that a lot ofpeople would want to see if maybe
they could get someone'sattention if they're out of the house,
maybe they could get help.
So I could see how peoplepanic and move in that direction
as well.
Janelle and Mike left and cameback later around 7:30pm and said
(06:56):
that everything looked the same.
So they originally startedcalling at 7:30am, kept getting the
answering machine, stopped byaround 12:30 in the afternoon, let
themselves in, walked aroundthe house, looked into Susie's room,
saw the television set on and left.
(07:17):
I don't know if they wentahead and went to the water park
thinking somehow the girls gotpicked up and would be there, and
then came back later around7:30pm so that that space of time
I have no answer for becausethere was no follow up report on
this case.
Mrs.
McCall, Stacy's mother and herhusband arrived at Susie's house
(07:38):
around 9pm and Mrs.
McCall called the police.
When the police showed up totake a report, they stated that there
were several people already atthe house.
All those present were friendsof Susie and Stacy, along with their
parents.
Prior to the officer'sarrival, Janelle's boyfriend had
(08:00):
cleaned up the broken glassfrom the porch light.
So this is unfortunate becausethe only clue that they had that
anything was a miss was thebroken glass globe that fits around
a light bulb on a porch light.
And apparently Michael cleanedit up.
(08:22):
So did the police retrievethat broken glass?
You know, how did, how didthat break?
Because if somebody wasbreaking it to get rid of the light
so that they can be undetectedby neighbors, I would think that
it wouldn't be on.
So the light bulb still seemedto be on and that seemed to be obvious.
(08:49):
So I thought the broken glasswas strange because it really wouldn't
have achieved anything as itpertains to giving them darkness
as a cloak to be obscure andnot be seen by the neighbors.
Or did one of the girls or themother break it on the way out, trying
to get away?
(09:10):
You know, we don't have those answers.
So Mrs.
McCall told the officers thatStacy's swimsuit, her clothes, as
well as the clothes she waswearing that night were still in
Susie's room.
Officer Galt advised Mrs.
McCall that he found jewelrywhich Mrs.
(09:31):
McCall stated that Stacy hadbeen holding in her shorts pocket.
So the jewelry was Stacy's.
Clearly because her motheridentified it and had known it to
be in the pocket.
But it didn't say where thepolice officer found the jewelry.
Did he look in the pocket?
Was it on the floor?
Was she thinking it was arobbery and trying to pull out jewelry
(09:53):
to maybe satiate theperpetrators and say, take this,
take this.
Maybe she didn't have money.
So we don't know the answer tothat either.
Mrs.
McCall said that her daughterStacy would never leave without her
purse.
Her medication for headachesand depression and her makeup.
(10:16):
Anyone who's had a teenagegirl knows this is true, especially
back in the 90s.
So the offer officersinterviewed the neighbors and the
next door neighbor wasn't home.
There was no follow up on that.
If they were able to talk tothat neighbor later and the other
neighbors didn't see or hearanything suspicious.
The officers then secured theresidence, which by then was a contaminated
(10:41):
crime scene.
All of those people going backand forth, you know, meaning well,
to see, you know, to wait it out.
Hopefully the girls come homeand Cheryl comes home.
They were contaminating thecrime scene of any evidence that
may have been there at the time.
So that wasn't good.
(11:02):
The lot.
They then the police officerslogged the house keys into property
and that was the end of thepolice report.
I found the police report tobe very short.
I was limited in givingimpressions since I didn't have access
to the crime scene or crimescene photos.
(11:22):
I don't live near Springfield, Missouri.
I also don't have pictures ofthe remains to pull impressions off
of.
So here's what I could getbased on an online picture of the
women on the police site andtheir first names.
Again, I never have worked acase with this little access, but
(11:43):
I'll give it a shot.
Okay.
Some of what I sensed when Idid my write up earlier.
One of the first things I got,I kept getting a dog barking.
I didn't know if asking theneighbors specifically about hearing
a dog barking could establisha timeline for the disruption in
(12:03):
the house.
I picked up on cigarette buttsin the yard that belonged to the
assailants.
The DNA would be veryimportant in this case.
Did the police collectcigarette butts from the front yard?
The purses in Susie's roomsurprised me because I didn't get
(12:25):
robbery as a motive.
I sensed that it was sexually motivated.
The assailants could have ledthem to Believe that all they wanted
was money.
But it wasn't.
I sensed a young man who wasfixated on Stacy specifically.
The two men felt linked to me,meaning maybe they're related.
(12:50):
They felt very close.
Susie's window also feltimportant to me and that there would
be evidence around the window sill.
I kept seeing a man crouchdown trying to peer through Susie's
window from the outside.
I also got two assailants.
This doesn't feel like one person.
(13:10):
It felt like two.
The mother, Cheryl, wasn't necessary.
She didn't feel like the focusof this crime.
But she woke up after hearinga commotion coming from Susie's room.
So maybe she heard a dog barking.
Maybe she heard voices.
My sense is that the guys wentthere hoping to spend time with Susie
(13:34):
and Stacy, but the girlsweren't interested.
They were actually both veryannoyed and scared.
The girls recognized one ofthe guys.
So to me, this is somebody whoknew them, had seen them.
One knew them, one had justseen them.
(13:54):
This wasn't totally planned out.
It felt messy to me.
The assailants were improvising.
They didn't know what to do.
I had some energy on whoeverlives three houses down.
I'm not sure what theirconnection is, but I kept seeing
three houses down as being important.
(14:16):
Sometimes that can be thatevidence is thrown in the yard there.
Sometimes the person thatcommits a crime is connected to someone
in the house or could besomeone in the house, so I'm not
sure.
Again, I didn't have anyphotographs of areas to go by.
The TV felt important to me,as though the perpetrator had touched
(14:40):
the volume setting.
So I don't know if they turnedit down or torn or turned it up.
But I felt like the volumesetting had been touched.
So I'm hoping they still havethat in evidence.
A friend of mine who's apsychic medium gave a description
of a perp years ago on a casethat pointed the finger at an innocent
(15:01):
man because they had the same name.
For that reason, I'm leavingmy in depth description of the perps
out of this podcast episode.
Some of my other impressionswere of one of the men threatening
the women with hurting theothers if they didn't cooperate.
So I feel like they were usingeach of the victims as leverage to
(15:24):
keep the other women under control.
This is not an ex boyfriend.
The pers came in contact withthe girls at one of the parties.
There was pizza served at this party.
I know that sounds random forme to get, but I just kept seeing
pizza connection to this.
(15:44):
Maybe it Helps decipher, like,which party they were at.
Maybe one of the people workedfor a pizza company in town.
I just know pizza is connected.
They decided to go to Susie's house.
They knew the girls would be there.
They waited just down thestreet in their car.
(16:05):
This is sort of where it feelslike smoking cigarettes, waiting
it out.
So if all the purses belongingto the victims, that's all three
purses of the women were inSusie's room, it was to try and give
them a false sense ofsecurity, that it was simply a robbery
(16:26):
until they could subdue themor remove the women from the house,
telling them they'd let themgo unharmed later.
The perps really didn't knowwhat they were going to do with these
women.
Again, I didn't get robbery asthe motive.
I got it being sexually motivated.
Maybe they told him they'd tiethe girls to the tree.
To a tree in order to give theassailants themselves a head start
(16:50):
to get out of town.
I don't know what they told them.
I just know that when thewomen left, they thought they were
going to be okay.
So at least one of theassailants also thought they were
going to be okay.
He didn't intend to hurt them permanently.
(17:10):
The other man knew the womencould identify them, and he wasn't
going to let that happen.
So after the night that theydisappeared, I got the men moving
after that night.
So it'd be interesting to knowwhich of the people connected to
them packed up their truck andtheir car and took off.
(17:32):
I also kept seeing a 313 sign.
I looked it up and it's afreeway that leads to Michigan.
I don't know where those signsbegin in reference to the town the
victims are from.
I just kept seeing the 313 sign.
Maybe it's the road the guystook to get out of town.
Maybe they moved to Michigan.
(17:52):
Maybe they're originally from there.
I just saw the Michiganconnection to the assailants.
I also kept seeing the woods,and the assailants hunt.
They own guns and knives, theyfish in camp, and they go to bonfires
in this area.
And there was also a barn likestructure nearby, possibly abandoned.
(18:15):
In 1992, DNA was still in itsinfancy, and many police officers
weren't trained to deal withproper crime scene procedures.
From what I can tell, therewere many mistakes made with securing
the crime scene and preserving evidence.
Evidence that science wouldone day be able to help produce clues
to what happened on themorning of June 7, 1992.
(18:40):
Cases like the SpringfieldThree are the most difficult to solve.
Thirty years have passed, sotime isn't on our side.
Evidence doesn't seem to havebeen preserved very well.
But I again, I have verylittle information on the evidence
that was taken into custody.
The crime scene wascontaminated by all of the well intending
(19:03):
friends and family.
That's not optimal.
So it seems to me that Stacyand Susie's friends, Janelle Kirby
and Mike Henson Are the bestwitnesses to anything helpful.
They were the last ones to seethe girls, and they were in and out
of the crime scene during theday of the abduction.
(19:24):
Has hypnosis been used toextract clues from the day the girls
disappeared?
Did Mike and Janelle seeheadlights follow the girls out down
the road after they leftJanelle's house?
Did Mike spend the night at Janelle's?
Does he have a solid alibi tobe able to exclude him?
(19:46):
I know that the girls knew oneof the perps.
So eliminating suspects is keyin getting to the right people.
My sense is that multiplepeople know or suspect who committed
this crime, and they just wantto leave it in the past and not get
involved.
So this case, again, worstcase scenario, because you're not
(20:11):
dealing with somebody directlytied to the victims as far as being
family or a husband.
Also, the crime scene was contaminated.
There's very little information.
It seemed to me that thepolice, as well as the friends of
Susie and Stacy and Cheryl,Almost seemed like they were just
(20:35):
waiting for them to come homeand didn't want to bother the police,
which was a mistake.
If earlier in the day whenJanelle and Mike.
And again, I'm armchair, youknow, quarterbacking this, and I
understand that.
So I mean no disrespect toJanelle and Mike, and they were young,
(20:56):
and young people don't want todeal with law enforcement.
They don't want to dosomething that'll get them in trouble
or that people will, you know,think that they're.
They're causing some sort of adust up over nothing.
So I understand why theydidn't call.
But if Janelle and Michael hadcalled the.
(21:18):
At least the mother of Stacyearlier in the day and then called
the police at 12:30, thatwould be seven hours before all of
this happened.
Maybe the glass wouldn't havebeen cleaned up off the porch by
Mike, Perhaps they would havebeen able to establish clues and
(21:41):
rope off the house and makesure that it wasn't a contaminated
scene.
Even back in the 1950s, 60s,70s, the police, the detectives,
the great detectives were theones that knew that science would
catch up.
One day to the killer.
And they would carefullypreserve fibers and blood and body
(22:07):
fluids, a feather, a penny,like anything that was at the crime
scene that could be pertinentlater in the future when we were
going to be able to use it assome sort of evidence and we'd have
the scientific methods to, toextract clues from.
And it just doesn't seem inthis case as though that was done.
(22:28):
I would like to hear moreabout that.
It would be great if thepolice that, that handled this case
would bring forth a lot ofwhat they do have and the people
that they have been able toeliminate who have alibis so that,
you know, this can be lookedat in its totality.
(22:50):
Removing some of these, wedon't know, scenarios of what happened.
Were there crime scene photos taken?
Are the purses preserved towhere they could be tested?
Now?
Was the TV kept to be run for fingerprints?
(23:10):
Did they do that back then?
I just don't know what was done.
So I will say that the greatdetectives of the past were very
good at securing everythingfor the future.
I hope that was done in thiscase so that we could have some answers
as to what happened to Susie,to Stacy and to Cheryl.
(23:34):
It just.
A case should not go this longwithout being solved.
And in this day and time,because we have DNA and forensics,
it's more likely to be solvedthan not, in my, my view.
The way I see things, ifthings are properly collected, there's
almost always going to besomething that the perpetrator left
(23:57):
behind that can tie them tothe crime.
So it.
I found this incredibly frustrating.
I did my best in pulling the impressions.
I will say, even though I'mnot going to give the profiles of
the two men because I don'twant a finger being pointed to the
wrong townie or person in townthat was there at the time.
(24:18):
I will say one thing that keptstanding out to me connected to one
of the perpetrators was agreen army jacket.
I just kept seeing him in thisgreen army jacket as though it was
his favorite.
So maybe there's somebody backthere in Springfield, Missouri who
(24:39):
will think back to 1992 and ifthere was a young guy who wore a
green army jacket regularly, Idon't know if he was discharged from
the military or if it's hisdad's and it's sentimental to him.
But I did just keep feelingthat there are family members that
know what went on and thereare friends, other people that know,
(25:06):
but nobody wants to address it.
They want to put it behindthem and move on as though it was
some sort of an accident.
At least I believe that's whatthe killers would say.
So let me know what you think.
Tune in next week for a freshepisode of the Dead Life.
(25:27):
I'm Alison Dubois.
This is the Dead Life.
And all of my believers outthere don't stop believing.
Join us next week on the Deadlight.
And don't forget to subscribenow to get notified of every new
episode.
Welcome to the Dead Life.
Here's world renowned mediumAllison Dubois.
Today on the Dead Life, I'mtaking you back to June 7, 1992.
Three women disappeared inSpringfield, Missouri and after 30
years, the case is still cold.
Cheryl Levitt watched herdaughter Susie graduate from high
(00:27):
school.
This is a happy occasion formost parents watching their children
grow up and succeed.
But for Sheryl Levitt, thathappy occasion turned into what I
could only imagine was aterrifying abduction and triple murder.
To book a reading with me,email us@bookinglisondubois.com you
(00:48):
can follow me on Instagram atMedium Allison or you can Watch me
on YouTube to see new and pastepisodes of the Dead Life.
Don't forget to pick up abottle of my divination 22 money
potion, vodka or love potionat one handsome bastard in Old Town
Scottsdale.
Give them as a gift and be themost popular person at the party
(01:08):
this holiday season.
My process when I do a writeup on a case is to write down the
impressions that come to meand write them down.
I then pass my write up ontolaw enforcement for them to follow
up on any leads it may give them.
With the Springfield 3, thatwas the process I followed.
(01:29):
This case is the hardest kindof case for me to work because the
bodies were never recovered.
When a body has been found,law enforcement has a greater likelihood
of discovering evidence leftbehind through DNA or clues through
manner of death.
Those clues give me psychicbreadcrumbs to follow into the nothingness
(01:49):
around a murder that needs answering.
For any of you who are tryingto exercise your investigator sixth
sense, please remember to doyour write up first.
Without knowing any detailsaround a case, just look at a picture
of the victim or the missing person.
Write their first name at thetop of your file and begin writing
(02:10):
down the impressions that youpull from the energy of the crime.
I do not collaborate withother psychics.
It can muddy the waters and ifone of you is inaccurate, then the
inaccurate details just tookyou in the wrong direction and you
don't want to risk that.
So keep it clean.
This case has a lot of problems.
(02:34):
Let me set the scene for you.
Susie Streeter and StacyMcCall attended their high school
graduation ceremony on June 6, 1992.
Their very proud parentswatched their daughters achieve one
of many milestones in a youngperson's life.
On June 7, Susie and Stacydecided to go out and celebrate by
(02:59):
grad party hopping.
Some reports said they weresupposed to spend the night at their
friend Janelle Kirby's house,but Stacy decided to stay at Susie's
house instead.
According to Janelle Kirby andMike Henson, both friends of Susie
and Stacy, the last time theysaw Susie and Stacy, the girls had
(03:20):
left Janelle's house, whichwas around the corner from the party
they were at.
And this was at around 2am onthe 7th.
So if they graduated in theformal ceremony on the 6th, then
they went out the night of the6th, but were last seen in the early
mornings of the 7th of June.
(03:41):
So at around 2am they left andeach girl left driving her own car.
Stacy and Susie said they wereheaded to Susie's house to sleep
and told Janelle to call themin the morning to go to Whitewater,
which is a water park.
That was the last time anyonesaw or spoke to Susie Streeter or
(04:02):
Stacy McCall.
As far as we know, the thirdmissing person is Cheryl Lovett,
Susie's mother.
The last time anyone heardfrom Cheryl was around 11pm on the
night of the 6th when she wason the phone with a friend.
Mrs.
McCall, Stacy's mother saidshe saw Cheryl Levitt at the graduation
(04:24):
ceremony on the 6th at around6pm So 11pm is around the last time
anyone talked to Cheryl andknew she was okay.
Now let's look at the police report.
Janelle Kirby started callingSusie's house around 7:30am Several
hours after last seeing herdrive away.
(04:45):
She called her several timesthat morning with no answer, just
the answering machine.
Janelle and Mike went toSusie's house again at 12:30 in the
afternoon.
They stated that Susie andStacy's cars were there as well as
the mother, Cheryl's.
This is a lot of reports, sobear with me.
(05:08):
So Cheryl's car was in the carport.
Janella.
Mike said the door was closed,but unlocked.
They rang the doorbell, theyknocked and then announced themselves
as they entered the premises.
They said the front porch likeglobe was broken, but on they went
into Susie's room and the TVwas on.
(05:29):
They said all three women'spurses were in Susie's room.
I found that to be strange.
Why would her mom, Cheryl'spurse be in her daughter's room?
Unless the person who broke inled them to think it was a robbery.
The purses need to be run forfingerprints and DNA.
(05:52):
If they were well preserved bylaw enforcement, that could be done
now.
So I found the purses to beimportant, especially the mother's
purse.
If they wanted to, if theabductors wanted to go through some
sort of a ruse, that they werejust there for money and we're just
(06:12):
gonna, you know, take you outand Leave you on the side of the
road to give us time to get away.
You know, that could besomething that the women might have
thought, you know, that theywould be okay if that were the case.
Now I know from working in lawenforcement and with law enforcement
for so long, you never allowsomebody to remove you from where
(06:33):
you're being abducted from.
But I know that a lot ofpeople would want to see if maybe
they could get someone'sattention if they're out of the house,
maybe they could get help.
So I could see how peoplepanic and move in that direction
as well.
Janelle and Mike left and cameback later around 7:30pm and said
(06:56):
that everything looked the same.
So they originally startedcalling at 7:30am, kept getting the
answering machine, stopped byaround 12:30 in the afternoon, let
themselves in, walked aroundthe house, looked into Susie's room,
saw the television set on and left.
(07:17):
I don't know if they wentahead and went to the water park
thinking somehow the girls gotpicked up and would be there, and
then came back later around7:30pm so that that space of time
I have no answer for becausethere was no follow up report on
this case.
Mrs.
McCall, Stacy's mother and herhusband arrived at Susie's house
(07:38):
around 9pm and Mrs.
McCall called the police.
When the police showed up totake a report, they stated that there
were several people already atthe house.
All those present were friendsof Susie and Stacy, along with their
parents.
Prior to the officer'sarrival, Janelle's boyfriend had
(08:00):
cleaned up the broken glassfrom the porch light.
So this is unfortunate becausethe only clue that they had that
anything was a miss was thebroken glass globe that fits around
a light bulb on a porch light.
And apparently Michael cleanedit up.
(08:22):
So did the police retrievethat broken glass?
You know, how did, how didthat break?
Because if somebody wasbreaking it to get rid of the light
so that they can be undetectedby neighbors, I would think that
it wouldn't be on.
So the light bulb still seemedto be on and that seemed to be obvious.
(08:49):
So I thought the broken glasswas strange because it really wouldn't
have achieved anything as itpertains to giving them darkness
as a cloak to be obscure andnot be seen by the neighbors.
Or did one of the girls or themother break it on the way out, trying
to get away?
(09:10):
You know, we don't have those answers.
So Mrs.
McCall told the officers thatStacy's swimsuit, her clothes, as
well as the clothes she waswearing that night were still in
Susie's room.
Officer Galt advised Mrs.
McCall that he found jewelrywhich Mrs.
(09:31):
McCall stated that Stacy hadbeen holding in her shorts pocket.
So the jewelry was Stacy's.
Clearly because her motheridentified it and had known it to
be in the pocket.
But it didn't say where thepolice officer found the jewelry.
Did he look in the pocket?
Was it on the floor?
Was she thinking it was arobbery and trying to pull out jewelry
(09:53):
to maybe satiate theperpetrators and say, take this,
take this.
Maybe she didn't have money.
So we don't know the answer tothat either.
Mrs.
McCall said that her daughterStacy would never leave without her
purse.
Her medication for headachesand depression and her makeup.
(10:16):
Anyone who's had a teenagegirl knows this is true, especially
back in the 90s.
So the offer officersinterviewed the neighbors and the
next door neighbor wasn't home.
There was no follow up on that.
If they were able to talk tothat neighbor later and the other
neighbors didn't see or hearanything suspicious.
The officers then secured theresidence, which by then was a contaminated
(10:41):
crime scene.
All of those people going backand forth, you know, meaning well,
to see, you know, to wait it out.
Hopefully the girls come homeand Cheryl comes home.
They were contaminating thecrime scene of any evidence that
may have been there at the time.
So that wasn't good.
(11:02):
The lot.
They then the police officerslogged the house keys into property
and that was the end of thepolice report.
I found the police report tobe very short.
I was limited in givingimpressions since I didn't have access
to the crime scene or crimescene photos.
(11:22):
I don't live near Springfield, Missouri.
I also don't have pictures ofthe remains to pull impressions off
of.
So here's what I could getbased on an online picture of the
women on the police site andtheir first names.
Again, I never have worked acase with this little access, but
(11:43):
I'll give it a shot.
Okay.
Some of what I sensed when Idid my write up earlier.
One of the first things I got,I kept getting a dog barking.
I didn't know if asking theneighbors specifically about hearing
a dog barking could establisha timeline for the disruption in
(12:03):
the house.
I picked up on cigarette buttsin the yard that belonged to the
assailants.
The DNA would be veryimportant in this case.
Did the police collectcigarette butts from the front yard?
The purses in Susie's roomsurprised me because I didn't get
(12:25):
robbery as a motive.
I sensed that it was sexually motivated.
The assailants could have ledthem to Believe that all they wanted
was money.
But it wasn't.
I sensed a young man who wasfixated on Stacy specifically.
The two men felt linked to me,meaning maybe they're related.
(12:50):
They felt very close.
Susie's window also feltimportant to me and that there would
be evidence around the window sill.
I kept seeing a man crouchdown trying to peer through Susie's
window from the outside.
I also got two assailants.
This doesn't feel like one person.
(13:10):
It felt like two.
The mother, Cheryl, wasn't necessary.
She didn't feel like the focusof this crime.
But she woke up after hearinga commotion coming from Susie's room.
So maybe she heard a dog barking.
Maybe she heard voices.
My sense is that the guys wentthere hoping to spend time with Susie
(13:34):
and Stacy, but the girlsweren't interested.
They were actually both veryannoyed and scared.
The girls recognized one ofthe guys.
So to me, this is somebody whoknew them, had seen them.
One knew them, one had justseen them.
(13:54):
This wasn't totally planned out.
It felt messy to me.
The assailants were improvising.
They didn't know what to do.
I had some energy on whoeverlives three houses down.
I'm not sure what theirconnection is, but I kept seeing
three houses down as being important.
(14:16):
Sometimes that can be thatevidence is thrown in the yard there.
Sometimes the person thatcommits a crime is connected to someone
in the house or could besomeone in the house, so I'm not
sure.
Again, I didn't have anyphotographs of areas to go by.
The TV felt important to me,as though the perpetrator had touched
(14:40):
the volume setting.
So I don't know if they turnedit down or torn or turned it up.
But I felt like the volumesetting had been touched.
So I'm hoping they still havethat in evidence.
A friend of mine who's apsychic medium gave a description
of a perp years ago on a casethat pointed the finger at an innocent
(15:01):
man because they had the same name.
For that reason, I'm leavingmy in depth description of the perps
out of this podcast episode.
Some of my other impressionswere of one of the men threatening
the women with hurting theothers if they didn't cooperate.
So I feel like they were usingeach of the victims as leverage to
(15:24):
keep the other women under control.
This is not an ex boyfriend.
The pers came in contact withthe girls at one of the parties.
There was pizza served at this party.
I know that sounds random forme to get, but I just kept seeing
pizza connection to this.
(15:44):
Maybe it Helps decipher, like,which party they were at.
Maybe one of the people workedfor a pizza company in town.
I just know pizza is connected.
They decided to go to Susie's house.
They knew the girls would be there.
They waited just down thestreet in their car.
(16:05):
This is sort of where it feelslike smoking cigarettes, waiting
it out.
So if all the purses belongingto the victims, that's all three
purses of the women were inSusie's room, it was to try and give
them a false sense ofsecurity, that it was simply a robbery
(16:26):
until they could subdue themor remove the women from the house,
telling them they'd let themgo unharmed later.
The perps really didn't knowwhat they were going to do with these
women.
Again, I didn't get robbery asthe motive.
I got it being sexually motivated.
Maybe they told him they'd tiethe girls to the tree.
To a tree in order to give theassailants themselves a head start
(16:50):
to get out of town.
I don't know what they told them.
I just know that when thewomen left, they thought they were
going to be okay.
So at least one of theassailants also thought they were
going to be okay.
He didn't intend to hurt them permanently.
(17:10):
The other man knew the womencould identify them, and he wasn't
going to let that happen.
So after the night that theydisappeared, I got the men moving
after that night.
So it'd be interesting to knowwhich of the people connected to
them packed up their truck andtheir car and took off.
(17:32):
I also kept seeing a 313 sign.
I looked it up and it's afreeway that leads to Michigan.
I don't know where those signsbegin in reference to the town the
victims are from.
I just kept seeing the 313 sign.
Maybe it's the road the guystook to get out of town.
Maybe they moved to Michigan.
(17:52):
Maybe they're originally from there.
I just saw the Michiganconnection to the assailants.
I also kept seeing the woods,and the assailants hunt.
They own guns and knives, theyfish in camp, and they go to bonfires
in this area.
And there was also a barn likestructure nearby, possibly abandoned.
(18:15):
In 1992, DNA was still in itsinfancy, and many police officers
weren't trained to deal withproper crime scene procedures.
From what I can tell, therewere many mistakes made with securing
the crime scene and preserving evidence.
Evidence that science wouldone day be able to help produce clues
to what happened on themorning of June 7, 1992.
(18:40):
Cases like the SpringfieldThree are the most difficult to solve.
Thirty years have passed, sotime isn't on our side.
Evidence doesn't seem to havebeen preserved very well.
But I again, I have verylittle information on the evidence
that was taken into custody.
The crime scene wascontaminated by all of the well intending
(19:03):
friends and family.
That's not optimal.
So it seems to me that Stacyand Susie's friends, Janelle Kirby
and Mike Henson Are the bestwitnesses to anything helpful.
They were the last ones to seethe girls, and they were in and out
of the crime scene during theday of the abduction.
(19:24):
Has hypnosis been used toextract clues from the day the girls
disappeared?
Did Mike and Janelle seeheadlights follow the girls out down
the road after they leftJanelle's house?
Did Mike spend the night at Janelle's?
Does he have a solid alibi tobe able to exclude him?
(19:46):
I know that the girls knew oneof the perps.
So eliminating suspects is keyin getting to the right people.
My sense is that multiplepeople know or suspect who committed
this crime, and they just wantto leave it in the past and not get
involved.
So this case, again, worstcase scenario, because you're not
(20:11):
dealing with somebody directlytied to the victims as far as being
family or a husband.
Also, the crime scene was contaminated.
There's very little information.
It seemed to me that thepolice, as well as the friends of
Susie and Stacy and Cheryl,Almost seemed like they were just
(20:35):
waiting for them to come homeand didn't want to bother the police,
which was a mistake.
If earlier in the day whenJanelle and Mike.
And again, I'm armchair, youknow, quarterbacking this, and I
understand that.
So I mean no disrespect toJanelle and Mike, and they were young,
(20:56):
and young people don't want todeal with law enforcement.
They don't want to dosomething that'll get them in trouble
or that people will, you know,think that they're.
They're causing some sort of adust up over nothing.
So I understand why theydidn't call.
But if Janelle and Michael hadcalled the.
(21:18):
At least the mother of Stacyearlier in the day and then called
the police at 12:30, thatwould be seven hours before all of
this happened.
Maybe the glass wouldn't havebeen cleaned up off the porch by
Mike, Perhaps they would havebeen able to establish clues and
(21:41):
rope off the house and makesure that it wasn't a contaminated
scene.
Even back in the 1950s, 60s,70s, the police, the detectives,
the great detectives were theones that knew that science would
catch up.
One day to the killer.
And they would carefullypreserve fibers and blood and body
(22:07):
fluids, a feather, a penny,like anything that was at the crime
scene that could be pertinentlater in the future when we were
going to be able to use it assome sort of evidence and we'd have
the scientific methods to, toextract clues from.
And it just doesn't seem inthis case as though that was done.
(22:28):
I would like to hear moreabout that.
It would be great if thepolice that, that handled this case
would bring forth a lot ofwhat they do have and the people
that they have been able toeliminate who have alibis so that,
you know, this can be lookedat in its totality.
(22:50):
Removing some of these, wedon't know, scenarios of what happened.
Were there crime scene photos taken?
Are the purses preserved towhere they could be tested?
Now?
Was the TV kept to be run for fingerprints?
(23:10):
Did they do that back then?
I just don't know what was done.
So I will say that the greatdetectives of the past were very
good at securing everythingfor the future.
I hope that was done in thiscase so that we could have some answers
as to what happened to Susie,to Stacy and to Cheryl.
(23:34):
It just.
A case should not go this longwithout being solved.
And in this day and time,because we have DNA and forensics,
it's more likely to be solvedthan not, in my, my view.
The way I see things, ifthings are properly collected, there's
almost always going to besomething that the perpetrator left
(23:57):
behind that can tie them tothe crime.
So it.
I found this incredibly frustrating.
I did my best in pulling the impressions.
I will say, even though I'mnot going to give the profiles of
the two men because I don'twant a finger being pointed to the
wrong townie or person in townthat was there at the time.
(24:18):
I will say one thing that keptstanding out to me connected to one
of the perpetrators was agreen army jacket.
I just kept seeing him in thisgreen army jacket as though it was
his favorite.
So maybe there's somebody backthere in Springfield, Missouri who
(24:39):
will think back to 1992 and ifthere was a young guy who wore a
green army jacket regularly, Idon't know if he was discharged from
the military or if it's hisdad's and it's sentimental to him.
But I did just keep feelingthat there are family members that
know what went on and thereare friends, other people that know,
(25:06):
but nobody wants to address it.
They want to put it behindthem and move on as though it was
some sort of an accident.
At least I believe that's whatthe killers would say.
So let me know what you think.
Tune in next week for a freshepisode of the Dead Life.
(25:27):
I'm Alison Dubois.
This is the Dead Life.
And all of my believers outthere don't stop believing.
Join us next week on the Deadlight.
And don't forget to subscribenow to get notified of every new
episode.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com