FSC: The Springfield Three: The Disappearance of Sherrill Levitt, Suzie Streeter, & Stacy McCall; ; June 7, 1992

The Springfield Three Missing Persons Case

Abduction:  47 Y/0 Sherrill Levitt; 19 y/o (daughter of Levitt) Suzie Streeter; 18 y/o (friend of Streeter) Stacy McCall

Crime scene contaminated by friends and family

No suspects

Multiple persons of interests

Date of Abduction: June 7, 1992

Location: 1717 E. Delmar Street, Springfield, MO

Time of Abductions: 300am-800AM

Sunrise: 553AM

Possible timeline 300am-600AM

Personal belongings of victims left in home; No signs of Struggle; Family pet (Yorkie) Left in Home; glass globe covering outside light on porch broken (but swept up by friend may have contained clues unknown where light broke if on porch or off porch)

Victim Levitt lived in the home from April 1992 until abduction; unknown if she were renting or buying.

Levitt was a cosmetologist and worked at a salon in Springfield. She was well-respected and had several clients.

Streeter, 19 y/o daughter graduated the night before, was not set to go to college but to go to school to become a cosmetologist. Had been in a relationship with a young man who broke into cemetery and vandalized it, and Streeter had cooperated with LE informing LE of her knowledge of the vandalism.

McCall graduated the night before also and had been with Streeter partying with friends and by happenstance ended up at Streeter’s house the morning they were abducted. McCall was preparing to start college in the fall after graduation.

Variable Timeline:

On June 6th after graduation, Streeter and McCall stayed out with friends in the Springfield, Missouri area celebrating their graduation.  The original plan was for the two girls and others to travel south to Branson, rent a hotel room, party, and then the next morning go to a nearby water park. These plans changed, most likely from having had too much to drink and they decided to stay in Springfield and go to Branson the next morning.

In the meantime, Levitt was at home and had contacted a friend around 11PM and informed the friend that she was painting an armoire.

Sometime around 2-230AM Streeter and McCall decided to leave the friend’s house because the home was crowded and there was no place for them to sleep and they decided to drive back in separate cars back to Streeter’s home on Delmar.  It is assumed they arrived sometime around 230-3am.

At around 8AM June 7th, friends of Streeter and McCall attempted to contact the two to meet up and travel to Branson, but were unable to reach them. The two friends then drove to the home and noticed nothing out of place besides a glass globe covering the outside patio light had been broken.

Streeter’s and McCall’s vehicles were both parked in the circular driveway and Levitt’s car parked beneath a carport.

The door to the house was unlocked and the friends entered but all three women were not in the house.  It was noted by one of the friends that all the victim’s purses were in the house, including cigarettes smoked by Levitt and Streeter.  It also appeared that Levitt’s bed had been slept in and that Streeter and McCall may have possibly gone to bed, because their makeup and jewelry had been removed.  It was also noted that the family dog appeared anxious and nervous.

While in the home, the phone rang, and the friend answered and stated that the caller made obscene comments and she hung up.  After hanging up, immediately after the phone rang again and it was assumedly the same person making the same lewd type of comments and the friend hung up again.

Later that afternoon, McCall’s mother arrived at the home looking for her daughter at the house on Delmar and also felt something was amiss, but again there was no evidence of a struggle having taken place in the home.  McCall’s mother reviewed a voice message left on Levitt’s answering machine and listened to a male caller who had left a “strange” message on the phone (police have gone on to state they do not believe the message left on the machine was linked to the two obscene calls made when the friend was in the home) however, McCall’s mother accidentally erased the message and it has never been heard by LE.

Another thing noted was that the television had been turned on, but was not on any channel, just a “fuzzy screen.”

Soon after McCall’s mother contacted Springfield Police, but she was informed to contact them the next morning. 

Once LE began their investigation there were tips, but nothing substantial. LE questioned several people of interest but to no avail. 

27 years later there is still no information on the whereabouts of Levitt, Streeter, and McCall, no suspects, and the case has gone cold.

There have been some intriguing developments (information that the three women may have been murdered and buried in concrete at a local hospital, but this information has been ruled out because records indicate the hospital parking lot where the information states the women to be buried began construction after the disappearance of the three women.)

Robert Craig Cox, a convicted Kidnapper and a suspect in a murder in Florida lived in Springfield during the time the three women were abducted.  His alibi proved to be falsified, but although he is imprisoned in TX and has made claims he may have knowledge of the case and possible involvement, he has not been connected to the abduction and refuses to cooperate with LE.

Another interesting side note is that the son of Levitt and the brother of Streeter has been recently arrested on suspicion of false imprisonment of a 15 year old girl. 

The brother at the time of the abduction of the three women in Springfield was no longer welcome at the house on Delmar because of his abusive, argumentative behavior and his heavy drinking.  Although, he has cooperated with LE, given an alibi and passed a lie detector, it is unclear if he is still a person of interest or has been ruled out as a suspect. 

Utilizing the MSCTEM to Examine the Case:

The absence of evidence is overwhelming, but the lack of evidence is not the absence of evidence altogether and it may be possible to not only rule out certain scenarios, it may help in creating a profile of the possible suspect(s) and the motivation behind the crime.

For example, it seems highly unlikely that the three women left the house on Delmar of their own volition.  All three of their vehicles, the family pet, and their personal items are left at the residence. 

1717 E Delmar St

Although there have been cases where families have disappeared and left their homes under “mysterious circumstances”, this particular case doesn’t seem to fit.  

To move this forward, the hypothesis that the three women left of their own volition will be ruled out.

In this particular case, one has to surmise that the three women were abducted while they slept in their home by an intruder and the motivation for doing so is also unknown. (See Graph)

The graph above represents that in these types of cases there are two types of suspects, Domestic, and Unknown. Commonly those labeled as Domestic, are individuals who know the victim such as a family member, a spouse, a relative, a boyfriend, girlfriend, prior, or current.

An unknown suspect has two sub-categories: Random and Outlier.  A random suspect would be someone who is opportunistic, and could be organized or disorganized, but prior to encountering the victim had either limited knowledge of the victim or no knowledge of the victim until the opportunity presented itself and the suspect seizes the moment to attack.

An outlier suspect is someone who may have had limited interaction with the victim to even a friendly business or social relationship with the victim prior to the crime, and may often be overlooked by investigators because the person is on the periphery of an investigation. 

To give an example of an outlier, it could be a person who has been in the home prior for business related reasons, or perhaps invited by a friend by a friend, a landlord, or a past or current client. 

In this particular case one could postulate that the suspect was organized, the crime was premeditated and this is why the crime scene contains little or no evidence linking back to the suspect.

Nevertheless, one cannot rule out the crime may seem organized, but that may not necessarily be the case and the crime was improvised and happened so quickly that the suspect by happenstance left little evidence behind giving it the appearance of being organized and premeditated.

However, we can move forward with three hypotheses:

  1. Victims abducted by Random/Opportunistic Suspect
  2. Victims abducted by Outlier/Non-Opportunistic Suspect
  3. Victims abducted by known/Non-Opportunistic Suspect

One of the key differentiating factors is the abduction of the three victims.  This factor could help understand the motivation of the suspect(s).

Abduction: Scenario 1 and Scenario 2:

Why would the suspect(s) abduct the victims if the suspect has already established control over the victims inside the home is relevant when it seems the suspect is taking a higher risk by abducting three victims, removing them from the home, then transporting them to another location? 

One could posit that the abductions were premeditated or argue that the abductions were improvised.

In scenario 1, if the abductions were in fact premeditated prior to the suspect entering the home, one could then hypothesize that the suspect also had prepared a location to take the victims afterwards.

In scenario 2, if the abductions were improvised the suspect may have also improvised the location as to where the victims would be taken. 

Neither scenario rules out hypothesis A, B and C, because the aforementioned scenarios could fit all three types of suspects.

However, by examining the two scenarios it could help in understanding the motivations of the suspect, and enable one to establish a profile of the suspect. 

Scenario 1 does pose an even greater challenge because if in fact the suspect(s) premeditated the abductions, was organized, and had a predetermined location to take the victims after abducting them this reduces the chances LE has in ever locating the victims or the suspect(s).

One could theorize that Scenario 1 fits best because of the lack of evidence and the fact that the victims have been missing for 27 years support this scenario as being most likely. 

Even so, Scenario 2 should not be ruled out because of the absence of evidence over the last 27 years, because even if the abductions were improvised and the location the victims were taken subsequently improvised, it does not mean that the suspect did not go to great lengths afterwards to cover up the crime, it only means that the location has been overlooked or never searched. 

Still, one could opine that both scenarios fit the actions of one suspect versus two or more suspects. 

The rationale behind this is that one suspect could in fact been able to enter the home on Delmar, control the victims, abduct them under scenario 1 or 2, but because the suspect acted alone and if the suspect remains quiet about the crime, the one suspect never has to worry about the accomplice breaking his or her silence to LE or to others. 

Although it cannot be ruled out that one or more suspects were responsible for the abductions of Levitt, Streeter, and McCall, this report is going to operate under the premise that the crime was carried out by one suspect. 

The rationale behind making this judgment is based on the fact that the lack of evidence supports one suspect, where if the crime were committed with two or more suspects they may have acted in two different pursuits and there’d be evidence suggesting that one suspect behaved differently than the other.

It would seem that the suspect’s motivation, operating under the theory of only one, was not robbery.  It is not uncommon for someone to break into a residential home while someone is in the home for the purpose of burglary, but in this particular case it seems more likely that the suspect entered into the home because the suspect targeted the victims and not the home.

This would fit scenario 2 if in fact the suspect targeted the home and in the act of committing the burglary was interrupted by the victims the crime shifted from burglary to kidnapping.  The problem with this scenario is that the suspect could have ran when confronted or could have murdered the victims or subdued the victims leaving them alive inside the home and then continued to burglarize the home afterwards as opposed to abducting them. 

However, for the purpose of this report, robbery will be ruled out as a motivating factor.

This report will instead operate under the presumption that the suspect targeted the victims prior to entering the home with the intent to abduct the women, or the suspect targeted the victims prior to entering the home and perhaps it wasn’t until after inside the home that the suspect decided to abduct the victims.

The Evidence; Timeline:

Because of the lack of evidence it is best to examine this case by looking at the evidence and examining the timeline of events leading up to the abductions.

For example, if it is presumed that the suspect targeted the victims but only Levitt and Streeter who occupied the house on Delmar, the suspect would not be expecting to enter the house and find McCall at the home. 

On the other hand, if the suspect targeted Levitt only, it’s possible that the suspect had already entered the home prior to Streeter and McCall’s arrival and was interrupted in the process of committing a crime. 

Even still, if the suspect targeted only Streeter, Streeter was not supposed to even be at the residence on Delmar that night. 

One could postulate that on the morning of the abductions the suspect had targeted the victims but arrived after Streeter and McCall and was unaware that Streeter and McCall had not been at the home earlier in the evening. 

It could also be argued that the suspect after encountering Streeter and McCall arrived at the home on Delmar after following the two women and had no knowledge that Levitt was in the home.   

Examining the Broken Globe:

It is unknown if the porch light was turned off or on at the time the suspect entered the home. 

If the light was on, one could argue that the suspect purposefully took the globe off to access the bulb to unscrew it disconnecting the light and hiding him from neighbors or people passing by the home. 

However, if the light were not on, there’d be no reason for the suspect to remove the globe and disconnect the bulb. 

This leads to different scenarios. If the light was on and the suspect purposefully removed the globe to access the bulb the suspect accidently dropped the glass globe and broke it or the suspect after taking off the globe set it on the porch and in the process of abducting the women in the dark someone accidentally broke the globe.

The other scenario is if the light were off and the globe were not removed, it is quite possible that while taking the women from inside the house, there may have been an attempt by one to escape and as the suspect and victim struggled the light was inadvertently broken by the suspect or the victim. 

The broken globe was swept up the next day allegedly as an innocuous good will gesture to clean up the broken glass by one of Streeter’s and McCall’s friends who came to the house looking for the two women. 

Even so, the person who cleaned the glass should have been able to inform LE as to where the glass was, whether it was on the porch below the light fixture or off the porch on the ground or steps.

The reason this information as to where the broken glass was found is important is that it might help investigators understand where the globe may have been when it was broken.

If the globe had been broken as a result of a victim struggling to escape and the suspect while trying to maintain their hold on the victim swung back with their arm and struck the globe with their elbow, it might give a clue as to the height of the suspect. 

Another reason to understand the relevance of this evidence is to show if the suspect removed the globe purposefully prior to entering the house to access the bulb to disconnect the light and prevent the suspect from being seen from neighbors or people passing by. 

Examining the globe and the style and how it was fixed to the fixture, might also determine how organized the suspect was before entering the house. If the fixture needed to be removed by some type of tool, it’s possible the suspect had the right type of tool on his person to remove the globe. 

This type of evidence when there is a lack of evidence becomes important in understanding because it might help investigators in theorizing the steps the suspect took prior to, during, or after the crime.

The Family Dog:

Although at first glance understanding the relevance of the family dog may seem unimportant, it is possible to suggest that the dog may have alerted the victims in the home of the presence of an intruder.  If the dog had started barking, this may have spooked the suspect and caught him off guard.  If the dog did not bark and the suspect went undetected it might suggest that the dog knew the suspect and it did not bark because the dog did not perceive the suspect as a threat. 

If for example the suspect targeted Streeter and McCall, entered the house after following them, approached their room and the family dog began barking the dog may have awakened Levitt causing her to get out of bed and encountering the suspect.  The suspect may have had no intention to harm anyone up until the point the dog began barking and woke up Levitt.  Once the dog barked and alerted Levitt, the suspect could have ran or if he hesitated and was seen by Levitt and recognized, the crime of breaking and entering for the purpose of possibly assaulting Streeter or McCall, may have escalated to abduction.

On the other hand, it’s possible the family dog was not overly protective and not prone to barking at noises at night and the dog may have slept through the entire abduction. 

Again, like the broken glass, the dog may have been inadvertently involved in effecting how the suspect behaved once inside the home and this information could prove vital in understanding the suspect and the suspect’s motivations. 

The Timeline:

Examining the timeline along with the lack of evidence is important because if the suspect were targeting only the occupants of the house, Levitt and Streeter, McCall was only abducted as a result of coincidence. At the same time, if Streeter and McCall had stuck to their plans to stay elsewhere other than returning to the house on Delmar, would the suspect passed on the home or attacked Levitt only?

The premise behind this is to understand if the suspect targeting the home on Delmar was dependent upon Levitt and Streeter only, and if Streeter had not been home would the suspect have moved on?

The issue with this is that Streeter and McCall did not arrive at the house on Delmar until after 230AM and it was a last minute decision.    When Levitt went to bed, one would assume she was not expecting for her daughter to come back to the house. 

It is also unknown that when Streeter and McCall left the home they had planned on staying how intoxicated they were and how far they would have to drive to arrive at the house on Delmar.

One would assume that if Streeter and McCall were intoxicated those in the home they had intended to stay would be reluctant to allow the two teenagers to leave the home unattended. Even so, it’s possible that Streeter and McCall were not inebriated and there was no conceived concern for their safety that would cause someone to be reluctant to allow them to leave. 

The rationale behind this is to examine whether it is possible that if Streeter and McCall felt compelled to leave the house they had planned on staying due to overcrowding, did anyone else make the same decision and leave the house at the same time or soon after Streeter or McCall decided to leave?

It could be speculated that each individual staying at the home Streeter and McCall left have been approached by LE and questioned.  If this is the case then, one would have to speculate that Streeter and McCall left the house, drove directly from that home to Delmar and made no stops on the way or were followed by someone at the house they left. 

This would lead to two scenarios: the abductor may have been in the home at the time Streeter and McCall arrived, or only after Streeter and McCall arrived at the house on Delmar the suspect arrived unaware that Streeter or McCall were not there earlier. 

It is important to note that the suspect had to have a vehicle.  The question is did the suspect come prepared to abduct the three women, targeted only Levitt and was surprised when Streeter and McCall arrived, the suspect had no intention to abduct anyone but something changed that escalated the crime from breaking and entering to abduction? 

Organized or Disorganized:

All signs point to the suspect being organized.  Whether the suspect premeditated the crimes for a lengthy period of time or acted spontaneously once he selected his target, the suspect’s motive may have not originated as a plan to abduct but was prepared to abduct. 


When examining this case we know that Levitt and Streeter, mother and daughter, lived in the house on Delmar alone.  Levitt was divorced, was working as a cosmetologist and had lived in the home since April 1992. 

Levitt did not date according to most facts, but was having issues with attempting to attain some support from her ex-husband. Levitt seemed to be well liked and had several clients at the salon she worked. 

Nevertheless, Levitt had a falling out with her son, due to his alcoholism and had cut ties with him prior to her abduction. 

Streeter had at one time moved out of the home with her mother and moved in with her older brother, and their relationship soon soured also because of the brother’s alcoholism and she soon moved back in with her mother on Delmar.

Streeter had also been involved in a relationship with a young man who had been recently charged with vandalism at a local cemetery and Streeter worked with LE essentially cooperating as a witness against her boyfriend and another young man who had vandalized the cemetery. 

At this time, the brother and the two men have not necessarily been ruled out as suspects, but they have cooperated with police in the aftermath of the abductions. 

Another factor to note is that Levitt and Streeter lived alone in the home on Delmar, and this could have contributed to them being targeted making them a high risk for abduction.

It is assumed that McCall may not have been targeted by the suspect but was by happenstance at the home on Delmar on the morning they were abducted, unless the suspect targeted Streeter and McCall and followed them back to the house on Delmar. 

Operational Theories:

In this particular case there are three operational theories.

Operational Theory 1: A suspect targeted Streeter and McCall the night of the abduction and followed them back to the house on Delmar

Operational Theory 2: A suspect targeted Levitt and Streeter between April 1992 and June 1992 and arrived after Streeter and McCall entered the house on Delmar.

Operational Theory 3: A suspect targeted Levitt and Streeter who was angry with them and wanted to punish them.

Operational Theory 1 suggests that on the night of graduation sometime soon after Streeter and McCall left the home they had intended to stay, the suspect left also and followed Streeter and McCall to the house on Delmar. 

Operational Theory 2 suggests that at some point between April 1992 and June 1992 someone targeted Levitt and Streeter. This could be anyone from someone Levitt and Streeter knew well, to someone who had met them possibly at the home and then contemplated abducting them. 

Operational Theory 3: suggests that the suspect had been angered by Levitt and Streeter and wants to punish them. 

Victims’ Purses & Porch Light

Examining Operational Theory 1:

On June 6th 1992, while out celebrating their graduation and partying with friends someone followed Streeter and McCall to the home on Delmar after they decided to leave because the house was overcrowded.  The suspect would have left under the same excuse or offered another excuse for leaving the home.  The suspect followed Streeter and McCall to the home on Delmar and most likely parked outside the home and waited for the lights to go off inside the home. 

The suspect may have been drinking also.  It is unknown if the suspect knocked and then was allowed entry into the home or perhaps broke into the house under the pretense as a voyeur.  It’s possible the suspect may have walked around the house peeping into the windows prior to going into the home contemplating whether or not he should leave or stay or making excuses to knock on the door to be allowed entry. 

It’s possible this suspect had a crush on either Streeter or McCall but he was rebuffed by them.  Under the influence of alcohol he now has the nerve to attempt to confront them.

This suspect has most likely never killed before and once inside the home under whatever pretense (voyeurism or knocked on the door under some false pretense that his vehicle broke down and needed to use the phone) the suspect is either caught inside the home when Levitt wakes up after the family dog begins barking or once he is asked to leave refuses and he becomes angry and lashes out. 

The suspect overpowers one of the women with some type of weapon and binds them and contemplates what to do moving forward, but also realizes he cannot leave them alive because they know his identity. 

Because the suspect has never murdered anyone but cannot leave them alive he decides to abduct them and take them out of the home to a secluded location where the suspect can make up his mind as to what to do next. 

After he has the women in his vehicle and drives further away from Delmar, his aggression towards the women intensifies, and he realizes he is in total control.  The suspect takes the women some place secluded within a ten to twenty mile radius of the home.  It is also possible that the suspect informs the victims that if they remain calm once he takes them to the isolated location he will set them free and then drive away.  After arriving at the location the suspect realizes he cannot leave them alive and yet at the same time is hesitant and only wants to undo what he has done. 

After murdering the three women, the suspect drives back towards the home on Delmar and perhaps notices that the friends have arrived so he stops at a payphone nearby and contacts the home disguising his voice and basically making a scripted call to the home.  The suspect does this to distance himself from the crime and act out the part of someone who would commit such a heinous act.  At this point he psychologically disassociates himself from the crime. 

The suspect will be between the ages of 18-27 years of age.  Perhaps he is also a recent graduate and is getting ready to leave Springfield for college or the military and is able to distance himself from the crimes by moving away or could possibly be in college and on summer break and leaves soon after to return to college.

Examining Operational Theory 2:

Assuming that the suspect is a male and examining the lack of evidence found at the home on Delmar, one could postulate that the suspect was organized, orderly, and methodical who enjoys the hunt and taunting the victims.  It seems the only misstep was removing the globe to switch off the light and leaving the globe in the path to be knocked over and broken upon entering and exiting the home.  The suspect’s motive is one of being in total control, and sexual sadism.

It would seem that the suspect lived nearby or was visiting nearby and more likely that the suspect had targeted the victims prior to June 7, 1992.

The suspect was prepared and brought his own weapons and tools utilized to enter into the home, subdue the victims, abduct them, leading them to his vehicle and taking them to a location he was familiar with.  

Also, it would seem the suspect has been in the home prior to the attack, knew the phone number, and may have broken into the home prior to the attack, knew the victims personally, or operating as a professional (e.g. service technician) entered the house and targeted it after. 

According to this theory the suspect is a professional type, technician, organized, methodical, and lives within the area.  The suspect wants total control and within the home is unable to do so. At the same time the suspect is aware of his physical presence and the evidence he sets out to maintain control of the crime scene by leaving no evidence behind.

This is someone who wants complete control. There is an underlying anger and the suspect is often able to suppress it, but when he commits to this crime, it’s about control, methodology, and organization. 

The location of the house on Delmar worked because it was not visible to nosy neighbors, and he may have picked the house with a mother and a daughter purposefully because of his own issues with interpersonal relationships.

He is a hunter, an outdoorsman and has a prime spot he hunts and knows the area well, using it to get away from problems at home by going hunting where he isolates himself but he bores easily from hunting game and it no longer satisfies him. He may have a cabin or land that he owns or has access to property that gives him privacy.

The suspect will between the ages of 24-35 at the time of the killings.  This suspect is most likely a sexual sadist.  The suspect may be respected in the community. He most likely owns his home or sizeable amount of land.  The suspect will have access to several vehicles and most likely a company vehicle and lives within 10-20 miles from the victims. 

Examining Operational Theory 3:

This theory operates under the assumption that someone targeted Levitt and Streeter out of anger and wanted to punish the women.  This suspect came prepared to abduct the women because the suspect knew they would be the first to be questioned about the crimes. 

This suspect has anger issues and most likely has been arrested prior to June 7th and after June 7th

This suspect will have gone out of his way to dispose of the bodies and is able to play the victim to dissociate himself from being capable of ever committing such a crime. 

Victims’ Bedrooms

Analysis of all Three Operational Theories:

In all three operational theories, the suspect is someone who knew the victims and is not considered to be a random/opportunistic suspect who targeted the home or targeted the victims by happenstance the day of the abductions. The suspect knew pertinent information about the victims.

Although Operational Theory 2 and 3 are plausible, the lack of rage or lack of evidence seems indicative of a suspect who was conflicted about what to do as the crime unfolded.

It’s as if the suspect had not committed to abduction or murder but was acting impulsively and had followed Streeter and McCall to the home on Delmar and then hesitated for a while before committing to entering the home. 

However, after the suspect was confronted by someone in the home and recognized only then did the crime escalate from what may have been a breaking and entering or voyeurism charge to one of self preservation and he felt as if he had no choice but to silence the victims. 

For example, once the suspect was encountered in the home and recognized he had two choices: run or commit to silencing the women his first choice was to bind the victims and leave the house. Once the suspect leaves the house and goes back to his vehicle he decides to take the women as opposed to killing them because even at this time the suspect is not committed to murder but is slowly realizing that murder may be the only solution.  Abducting the women buys the suspect more time to consider his options. 

This time the suspect pulls into the driveway and goes back inside the home and abducts the women. The suspect wants to get away from the home and the further he drives away and the more isolated of a location he finds the further he can psychologically dissociate himself from the crime he is committing. 

Perhaps even once the suspect finds an isolated location he is still hesitant on committing murder, but by this time the crime has escalated from breaking and entering to kidnapping and now the suspect sees no other recourse but to silence the ones who know the truth. 

Operational theories 2 and 3 are problematic because if the suspect had been targeting only Levitt and Streeter, Streeter was not home and not expected to be home that night.  Although it may appear the crime was premeditated and carefully planned, the suspect may have been apprehensive about approaching the home when he noticed an unfamiliar third car in the driveway.

Theory 3 also seems problematic because if the suspect were angry with the women in the home and acting impulsively out of anger, there is nothing about the crime scene that suggests any signs of struggle.

Therefore, moving forward, Operational Theory 1 will be examined as the most plausible theory because it answers more questions than it asks.

Victims’ Vehicles

Operational Theory 1: Suspect Targeted Streeter and McCall:

The most plausible theory is that the only thing different about June 6th-7th is that the two women had graduated and were out of the house celebrating with friends.  One has to argue that if a suspect had previously targeted Levitt and Streeter, this suspect could have acted anytime before June 7th, but on this particular night Streeter was not at home and not expected to be home. 

Something significant happened that set these events into motion.  This theory operates under the premise that the catalyst was the graduation.  The suspect was with the group after graduation having also just graduated, a friend of a friend of someone who graduated, or a person who had graduated and was already in college or military and had returned home for the graduation. 

It is this event that set all other events into motion.  Once Streeter and McCall changed plans to leave the overcrowded home and go back to the house on Delmar, the suspect also made an excuse to leave. 

The suspect is between the ages of 18-27.  He is likeable, a former Boy Scout maybe, who has issues with girls his age and is seen as a friend by the girls he knows and not datable.  It’s possible he is a virgin and was raised in a strict religious home and has been bullied by some at school.  He comes from a lower to middle class family.  Internally he struggles with this nice guy image. 

It is possible that this suspect worked mowing yards while in school to make extra money and had been employed by Levitt because the suspect was a friend of Streeter’s.  He possibly drives a van or a dual cab pickup truck. 

This suspect is on the periphery of the investigation because he is an outlier who like many other people knew Streeter and McCall, but does not fit the profile of someone who could commit such a heinous act. 

Once he left the place he buried the victims he disassociated himself from the crimes altogether as if it never happened.  If he has returned to the place he buried the victims it was only to ensure their graves have gone untouched, but it’s quite possible he has never been back and is at this time not concerned with anyone finding the victims because he believes any evidence concerning his involvement has over the passage of time been washed away. 

Re-opening the Investigation:

It is highly recommended that Springfield police along with the State Police and FBI re-open the investigation and proceed to re-interview all people from the home Streeter and McCall had been at the night of graduation.  It would also be recommended to investigate any person from the landlord who Levitt rented or bought the house from to anyone who may have worked at the home such as a landscaper who may have also been friends with Streeter from school. 

Information about previous search areas should be provided to allow volunteers to either search those locations again, and new locations established within a 10-20 mile radius from the home on Delmar.

The rationale behind the victims being east of Springfield is that the house on Delmar was right of center of the heart of the city and the closest rural area from Delmar would be to head east. 

It is also possible that by re-opening the investigation into the matter and re-interviewing those who knew the victims might rattle the suspect.  It’s possible that the suspect has been charged with crimes since 1992. 

It has to be a strong investigation one involving several agencies and possibly reexamining the home on Delmar and attempting to reenact the crime using different scenarios. 

These reenactments should be publicized to the local media. 

If the suspect has disassociated himself from the crime the only way perhaps to unnerve him would be to come at the case with every investigative tool Law Enforcement can bring by calling in volunteers to search new areas, to using drones to fly over locations looking for evidence, to increasing the reward.

If the operating theory is this crime was not random and the victims were targeted by someone they knew, the most difficult obstacle would be is if the victims were taken to private property where in order to search LE would need a warrant to do so.

Nevertheless, it must be noted that there may be less than 5 potential people of interest and some may be ruled out rather quickly and the ones that remain LE maybe able to provide PC to execute a search warrant. 

Conclusion of Report:

The most plausible operating theory is that the catalyst that set the events into motion the morning of June 7th 1992 and resulted in the abductions and possible murders of Sherrill Levitt, Suzie Streeter, and Stacey McCall was the high school graduation Saturday June 6th and the celebratory parties that followed. 

It is believed that the suspect was with the groups as an invited guest to the celebratory parties. The suspect is a white male between the ages of 18-27. He may have graduated also, or is a friend of someone who had graduated, or was a former student who has returned to visit with friends from the school and this person had a crush on Streeter or McCall. 

Around 230AM Streeter and McCall decide to leave the house they were staying because it was overcrowded and there was no place for them to sleep.  It is believed that the suspect also was in the house and soon after Streeter and McCall left the home, the suspect left also under a similar excuse.  However, the suspect follows Streeter and McCall back to the house on Delmar. 

The suspect has most likely been drinking, and parks his vehicle on the street and fantasizes about being with the girls in the home.  He may even exit his vehicle and walk around the property peering into windows which further excites him. 

After the lights go out in the house, the suspect takes a screwdriver or buck knife, something with a straight edge to use to wedge between the door and the lock to break in. It is also possible that the suspect decides to remove the globe using the knife to unbolt the screws holding the globe in place sets the globe on the porch and then disconnects the bulb preventing anyone who passes by from seeing him enter the home.

Once he does this he proceeds to break into the home, but finds the door unlocked.  The suspect enters the home and there maybe some light inside allowing him to find his way around and he looks for the room Streeter and McCall are in. 

It is possible that at some point he goes to Levitt’s room, or while roaming through the home the family dog begins barking and wakes up Levitt. Levitt leaves the room and finds the man in the home and confronts him. In doing so, he panics, and Streeter and McCall are also awakened and they all recognize the man. 

He reacts by taking the knife and taking Levitt hostage and threatening to kill if the women do not obey his instructions.  The suspect forces Streeter and McCall to turn over on their stomachs and hide their faces and the suspect proceeds to bind Levitt with items in the house most likely using clothing items from Streeter’s room.  With Levitt tied, the suspect proceeds to tie up Streeter and McCall. 

The suspect checks and double checks the knots he has used to bind the women and believing they are secure he exits the home and returns to his vehicle. 

Once in his vehicle he hesitates, a part of him wanting to drive away, but he knows that he cannot leave because the women recognize him.  He is still not committed to murdering them, so he drives to the house and backs into the driveway. 

Back inside the home, he begins taking the women out to his vehicle. During one of these trips he or one of the victims run into the globe the suspect had removed earlier and sat on the porch, and the globe breaks.  It is possible this happens after he is leaving with the last victim, because there is no blood indicating that the barefoot women stepped on the broken glass.

With the victims in his vehicle the suspect drives east to 65B then turns right or left, and proceeds north or south till he comes to the closest intersection that will take him east and out of the city into a rural area. 

After the suspect finds a suitable secluded location he stops and contemplates his next move.  Although he may still be hesitant to kill, he realizes there is no other alternative.  The suspect removes the victims one by one and murders them.  The suspect either has tools on hand to cover up the bodies or the suspect is forced to leave the area, go find the tools necessary and then return to the area. 

The suspect is able to leave the area after sunrise, perhaps some time around 840AM and drives back towards the house on Delmar.  However, once he arrives he recognizes that friends of Streeter and McCall are at the home. 

The suspect concocts a scripted call, and drives to a nearby payphone and calls the house.  The suspect disguises his voice and makes obscene statements purposefully in an attempt to psychologically disassociate himself from the crime by attempting to confuse the friends and make it sound as if Streeter and Levitt were being stalked.  He goes on to leave a voice mail but it is accidently erased. 

The suspect returns home, cleans up, and possibly even attends church with family thereby having an alibi for his whereabouts on the day of the abductions.

It is possible the suspect left Springfield in the next few days to return back to college, start college, or joined the military. 

The suspect is possibly a former Boy Scout, knows how to tie knots and is a hunter.  He is friendly, and a hard worker, liked by others, but is seen as a nice guy which he resents because he sees the boys with bad reputations get the girls he likes.  He comes from a lower class-middle class family, strict religious background, attends church regularly and is a decent student with average grades.  He has a job, probably outdoors work, and has access to a vehicle to carry his tools needed to perform his duties. 

He is most likely happily married with children and still attends church regularly and is considered an upstanding citizen who doesn’t fit the profile of someone who could commit such a heinous act. 

This suspect would be considered an outlier, someone who knew the girls from school or through other friends and acted impulsively, possibly also under the influence of alcohol on June 7th 1992.

The victims are most likely buried within ten to twenty miles from the house on Delmar just outside of Springfield, Missouri in a rural area.

All theories on this page are of my own and I do not represent Law Enforcement. If you have any information about the disappearance of the Springfield Three, please contact the Springfield Police Department: (417)-864-1810  

Published by Chad Ard

Author, Editor

Leave a comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: