AL AL - J.B. Beasley, 17, & Tracie Hawlett, 17, Ozark, 31 July 1999 #2

[TooCurious]

Would someone like to put forth a theory of why they didn't search the other purse and get Tracie's id out and photograph it? If the reason is they pulled JB's out and photographed is plausible, then shouldn't that same reasoning be applied to Tracie's id?

 

[CoolJ]

So, with this new information.... How do we even know who was driving?

 

[TooCurious]

I don't see an issue with them removing the license either.
My issue is that it was implied for 15 years that the killer(s) left it there. And then out of the blue, seemingly coinciding with public accusations against corrupt LE, J.B's sister is told something different.

Truth is, it never made much sense to me this idea that she placed her license on the dash after being pulled over by LE. It wouldn't have stayed on the dash after driving, especially if it was a full gas tank worth of distance. jmo

What do officers do with your id when they ask for it? They take it right? It would be no good to have a deceased girl's id in your possession. So naturally after everything has been wiped down and the car is dropped off the id could have been an after thought and returned to vehicle. We are doing a lot of talking about the id and you guys are correct, it wouldn't last on a slick dash for too long. Then again, at what angle would you be photographing the id on the dash? Pull the id out and place on dash then step out of car and take photo through windshield of car of Id? Or are we saying they just pulled it out to check id and threw it haphazardly on dash without returning to original location?

*** So the pic should have been taken on the seat, hood, or console. If it (the pic) is on the dash then I think there is a huge problem with the idea that they pulled it out and left it there.

 

[easongt]

I'm not trying to play devil's advocate. There are many plausible theories that could be a reality. You could also just as easily argue that why would a police officer be so foolish is to leave signs that he pulled them over.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[LR1]

Maybe they looked at the DL for ID purposes before the trunk was opened and just laid it on the dash and when the bodies were discovered there the DL set when CID arrived and started taking photo's. I never thought it told us much anyway unless it was laying in a manner that wouldn't stay in place during the last ride.

 

[easongt]

I don't discount that it is plausible that a law enforcement officer could have done this. But any scenario that has been brought forth relating to the driver's license or the window being down can just as easily fit into a non law enforcement scenario. That is of course just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[easongt]

And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the police did not make an effort to correct the media about some inaccurate facts. Police often refrain from sharing everything with the public to help differentiate between actual confessions and false confessions. Again all this is just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[LR1]

What bothers me is that in Spivey's retirement interview he did with rs, he says he's still not sure what the motive was. I took that to mean he's not sure the dna found on the victim is related. Is there another way to read this?

They discovered the dna 2-3 months after the fact. From what I understand the car was long out of their possession at that time. Now they no doubt would've dusted for prints and one can only hope looked for any fibers, hair or other possible stains or sources of dna that might have been present. Present day they would have swabbed the whole inside of the car for touch dna. The steering wheel, ignition switch, console, seat etc. I Think if it happened now as opposed to back then they would have found a profile from whoever drove the car. If it matched the profile on the victim you could say with some certainty that the dna is related.

The other option of course would be to determine with a high level of certainty that she didn't have a consensual encounter very shortly (within a day or so) before the murders. I don't know if they were able to do that. My feeling is that it has got to be related, especially if it was found in multiple locations which we've read that it was.

If sex wasn't the motive then you would be dealing with a Pandora's box as far as motive. Could be many things. Seems like it would be easier if sex was the motive, you'd know you were looking for a homicidal sex fiend. Shouldn't have been many of them in this rather small town that night.

 

[TooCurious]

What bothers me is that in Spivey's retirement interview he did with rs, he says he's still not sure what the motive was. I took that to mean he's not sure the dna found on the victim is related. Is there another way to read this?

They discovered the dna 2-3 months after the fact. From what I understand the car was long out of their possession at that time. Now they no doubt would've dusted for prints and one can only hope looked for any fibers, hair or other possible stains or sources of dna that might have been present. Present day they would have swabbed the whole inside of the car for touch dna. The steering wheel, ignition switch, console, seat etc. I Think if it happened now as opposed to back then they would have found a profile from whoever drove the car. If it matched the profile on the victim you could say with some certainty that the dna is related.

The other option of course would be to determine with a high level of certainty that she didn't have a consensual encounter very shortly (within a day or so) before the murders. I don't know if they were able to do that. My feeling is that it has got to be related, especially if it was found in multiple locations which we've read that it was.

If sex wasn't the motive then you would be dealing with a Pandora's box as far as motive. Could be many things. Seems like it would be easier if sex was the motive, you'd know you were looking for a homicidal sex fiend. Shouldn't have been many of them in this rather small town that night.

The only problem with that is he would be a repeat offender and once caught, identified. Not being caught would have emboldened him. I think this is a good reason to suggest it was not sex driven. Of course, he could be active and still at large but the unsolved murder count would be enormous by now.

 

[December]

Would someone like to put forth a theory of why they didn't search the other purse and get Tracie's id out and photograph it? If the reason is they pulled JB's out and photographed is plausible, then shouldn't that same reasoning be applied to Tracie's id?

Thank you! This is why it makes no sense. Why only J.B.'s? Tracie's purse was there as well.

J.B.'s driver's license doesn't prove she owned any car. It proved she could drive. Her vehicle registration proved she owned the car. But, the license plate on the car is also on the registration. These and the VIN prove this is J.B. Beasley's car not just a car that looks similar.

I don't really have an issue with them taking a photo of the driver's license. What I have an issue with is the false narrative that J.B. took that license out and laid it on the dash! The idea that the car was found like that when it wasn't has led us all down the garden path of what does this mean to the crime when it means nothing! (Edit: this paragraph isn't directed to anyone in particular.)

 

[December]

And it is not beyond the realm of possibility that the police did not make an effort to correct the media about some inaccurate facts. Police often refrain from sharing everything with the public to help differentiate between actual confessions and false confessions. Again all this is just my opinion.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

But when they saw the confusion this was causing they could have at least said, "That wasn't where we found it." That weeds out false confessions since false confessors might not guess it was in her purse and it prevents the false narrative that has arisen from this.

 

[easongt]

Those who have a strong belief that the police committed this crime will always be able to find a reason to say that it was the police. If everything pointed to a serial killer, it would be easy to say that the police framed them to hide their own guilt. I personally don't believe the police committed the crime although I would never rule out any scenario without more evidence.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[December]

So, with this new information.... How do we even know who was driving?

Well, Bookie saw her driving and I think the woman from Big Little. Other than that, we don't.

 

[December]

Those who have a strong belief that the police committed this crime will always be able to find a reason to say that it was the police. If everything pointed to a serial killer, it would be easy to say that the police framed them to hide their own guilt. I personally don't believe the police committed the crime although I would never rule out any scenario without more evidence.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Well, the driver's license being a non-issue takes away the police angle because she doesn't need to have stopped and whipped out her license.

Of course, some won't believe that...

But, I think mostly what the police did is initially treat this like nothing more than a random car they found for hours. I think they thought the girls had been at one of the 5,000 parties the night before and were going to show up on their own.

 

[December]

O.k., I don't remember... Were J.B.'s fingerprints still on the steering wheel or was the wheel wiped clean?

And does anyone know what became of the car? I have heard of evidence found on older cars than this one. And this includes cars that had been used, changed hands, etc.

 

[TooCurious]

Those who have a strong belief that the police committed this crime will always be able to find a reason to say that it was the police. If everything pointed to a serial killer, it would be easy to say that the police framed them to hide their own guilt. I personally don't believe the police committed the crime although I would never rule out any scenario without more evidence.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Those that have a strong belief that police were not involved will always be able to find a reason that it was not the police. If a convicted rogue police officer committed the crime there would be some that said it was just a random act of violence and the officer was just a patsy. See how that works both ways?
There is more evidence suggesting police involvement than any other logical hypothesis. Think about that for a moment. What evidence is there that excludes police involvement? There is none. The only thing that keeps people from considering police involvement is their own perception of what a policeman is and what they stand for. Take a look around the country and see the crimes that police are being convicted of, thefts, rapes, drugs, murder, and the list goes on.
The license is a big issue and no doubt it does throw suspicion on the police or police impersonator. For investigators to wait 16 years before they correct the narrative of where the license is a bit far fetched. The public has to have trust in the police and as such this would have been a small detail for them to correct in the very beginning. It would take some suspicion off of them and renew the communities belief in them. On the other hand, some will say they left the detail intentionally to catch false confessors. Ok, if that was their intent then what did JWB say when they asked him about the license? Surely it came up since it was intentionally left uncorrected to catch a false confessor. I say it again, if they pulled JB's license out and photographed it, why didn't they do the same with Tracie's? The photo of JB's license was taken where? Has anyone actually seen the original photo?

 

[easongt]

Again, I don't discount police involvement. But there is more evidence indicating they goofed up the investigation then participated in any crime. I have not seen one single fact that indicates a law enforcement officer committed this murder vs A construction worker or a mechanic or a cook at a local diner.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[jburgoon]

Those that have a strong belief that police were not involved will always be able to find a reason that it was not the police. If a convicted rogue police officer committed the crime there would be some that said it was just a random act of violence and the officer was just a patsy. See how that works both ways?
There is more evidence suggesting police involvement than any other logical hypothesis. Think about that for a moment. What evidence is there that excludes police involvement? There is none. The only thing that keeps people from considering police involvement is their own perception of what a policeman is and what they stand for. Take a look around the country and see the crimes that police are being convicted of, thefts, rapes, drugs, murder, and the list goes on.
The license is a big issue and no doubt it does throw suspicion on the police or police impersonator. For investigators to wait 16 years before they correct the narrative of where the license is a bit far fetched. The public has to have trust in the police and as such this would have been a small detail for them to correct in the very beginning. It would take some suspicion off of them and renew the communities belief in them. On the other hand, some will say they left the detail intentionally to catch false confessors. Ok, if that was their intent then what did JWB say when they asked him about the license? Surely it came up since it was intentionally left uncorrected to catch a false confessor. I say it again, if they pulled JB's license out and photographed it, why didn't they do the same with Tracie's? The photo of JB's license was taken where? Has anyone actually seen the original photo?

The girls license were both in their purses when the car was found. They were pulled out to be photographed for whatever reason. Why Tracie's photo wasn't leaked I do not know, but that doesn't mean it was never photographed along with JB's.

Some of the police have been very tight lipped when talking about this case and others have been the opposite. I understand why they keep some things confidential but at least to the family we should know more details than the public.
So for fact- J.B. was the driver and their license were not left on the dash.

 

[TooCurious]

The girls license were both in their purses when the car was found. They were pulled out to be photographed for whatever reason. Why Tracie's photo wasn't leaked I do not know, but that doesn't mean it was never photographed along with JB's.

Some of the police have been very tight lipped when talking about this case and others have been the opposite. I understand why they keep some things confidential but at least to the family we should know more details than the public.
So for fact- J.B. was the driver and their license were not left on the dash.

Thank you for sharing. Honestly I am about 50/50 with the police being involved. 100% they have made some big mistakes. Have you ever heard or been updated on the soil samples and the 9mm casing they found and sent off to lab?

 

[CoolJ]

I just want to point out that a cover-up (which has been my theory since very early on) does not necessarily mean a LEO was responsible for the murders. Crimes get covered up for many different reasons. JMO