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

[iron_angel]

Thanks Easongt, I always thought they were shot through a closed trunk due to the fact that the bullet went thru one of the girl's cheek.

 

[easongt]

Alabama is notorious for red clay mud. They have even written numerous songs about it. The police were just incredibly negligent from the start. They probably remove the driver's license from her purse or wallet during the time they waited buy the vehicle before the discovery of the bodies.

I don't believe the crime was sexually motivated. Obviously at one point he had them at gunpoint and then the trunk of a vehicle. If he lived alone he could have taken them to his place and kept them for days or even longer. Just my opinion

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[lciaccia]

So the police came back at 8am and found the bodies at 2pm meaning they spent 6hrs handling items inside and checking/touching/standing beside the car etc.... A lot of ppl are wondering if the girls had been shot while being inside the trunk or not. I think the 6hrs frame might help with the answer because, if the cops were looking at the car wouldn't they be first, able to see the bullets hole and secondly knowing that it was shot from someone standing outside the car instead of gunshots coming from inside the trunk? It might not be something important but it would be interesting to know!

I just don't understand how there could be even possibly a confusion about if they were shot in the trunk or not. If they were shot in the trunk, there would be blood/matter spattered everywhere withing the trunk. If they weren't, there would just be a pooling of blood at most. I think even I would be able to take one look in the trunk and know if they were executed inside or out. Plus you could probably tell by the positioning of the bodies if they climbed in themselves or were tossed in.

It seems incomprehensible that this would even be in question. Either it's known, and just hasn't been definitively stated to the public (maybe being held back in the case of a confession), or the police are incredibly negligent.

I get it if the police are being cagey about letting the public know, but it would be a helpful piece of info.

 

[easongt]

I just don't understand how there could be even possibly a confusion about if they were shot in the trunk or not. If they were shot in the trunk, there would be blood/matter spattered everywhere withing the trunk. If they weren't, there would just be a pooling of blood at most. I think even I would be able to take one look in the trunk and know if they were executed inside or out. Plus you could probably tell by the positioning of the bodies if they climbed in themselves or were tossed in.

It seems incomprehensible that this would even be in question. Either it's known, and just hasn't been definitively stated to the public (maybe being held back in the case of a confession), or the police are incredibly negligent.

I get it if the police are being cagey about letting the public know, but it would be a helpful piece of info.

It's only a question to us most likely. We are not privy to the case files and are left to speculate what little bit we have read.

If there is indeed a hole in the bottom of the trunk carriage comma then I would say there's little doubt they were shot in the trunk. They were definitely not shot at the location the vehicle was found.

I feel like this case should have its own website where a fact page remain solid and can be referred to.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[lciaccia]

From what I have read, police first saw the car parked on Herring at 3 a.m. I don't think there was any missing person report yet. After that, they come back to it at 8 a.m. The girls were found at 2 p.m.

Sometime after that, the car was towed. About a month later, it was turned over to the insurance company and destroyed.

I wonder about the front seat position. Was it the way J.B. left it? Or did the murderer have to adjust it?

Also, I have been thinking about the valuables. What if it WAS a robbery and something (like say the police driving by) made the murderer leave those items. Maybe intending to go back and try to get them?

Or some kind of robbery gone bad? If you are not a killer, and somehow get into an escalation that ends up in the execution of two kids, it's quite possible you aren't really all that concerned at that point with rifling through their purses, and you just want to get out of there with your skin.

 

[easongt]

Or some kind of robbery gone bad? If you are not a killer, and somehow get into an escalation that ends up in the execution of two kids, it's quite possible you aren't really all that concerned at that point with rifling through their purses, and you just want to get out of there with your skin.

I truly don't believe it was a robbery. I don't think it was an attempted robbery. All theories are technically on the table , but there was too much after thawed in this case for it to be a robbery gone wrong. Plus nothing was taken. There was a motive here and we could uncover it or at least uncover several motives with the actual notice being one of them

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[easongt]

Afterthought

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[LR1]

I just don't understand how there could be even possibly a confusion about if they were shot in the trunk or not. If they were shot in the trunk, there would be blood/matter spattered everywhere withing the trunk. If they weren't, there would just be a pooling of blood at most. I think even I would be able to take one look in the trunk and know if they were executed inside or out. Plus you could probably tell by the positioning of the bodies if they climbed in themselves or were tossed in.

It seems incomprehensible that this would even be in question. Either it's known, and just hasn't been definitively stated to the public (maybe being held back in the case of a confession), or the police are incredibly negligent.

I get it if the police are being cagey about letting the public know, but it would be a helpful piece of info.

I haven't seen any confusion regarding them being shot while in the trunk. That was the early reporting from all outlets and they haven't wavered from what I've seen. One article even mentions Tracie was the first in the trunk. I agree this would have been somewhat easy to determine with close inspection.

 

[LR1]

Alabama is notorious for red clay mud. They have even written numerous songs about it. The police were just incredibly negligent from the start. They probably remove the driver's license from her purse or wallet during the time they waited buy the vehicle before the discovery of the bodies.

I don't believe the crime was sexually motivated. Obviously at one point he had them at gunpoint and then the trunk of a vehicle. If he lived alone he could have taken them to his place and kept them for days or even longer. Just my opinion

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

What might the motive be then for killing two church going teens while out for a 90 minute excursion in a town other than their own and other than the town they were supposed to be going? A town by the looks of it that nobody would have known they would be.

One theory that I cant buy is that they mistakenly pulled on to someones property and were executed for it.

For me, until there's an explanation for the DNA found in multiple places on JB the sexual motivation angle will remain the path of least resistance so to speak.

And any theory concerning someone being angry or jealous or wanting to silence one of the girls must also come up with an explanation of why we have two victims instead of just one. One would have to be boiling over with anger or jealousy or whatever to get to the point of what was shown here and it seems like this person would easily stand out. I can't make the end result make sense with any grievance anyone might have had with these particular victims.

I'm not totally discounting any theory though, all are welcomed and appreciated.

 

[TedMac]

What might the motive be then for killing two church going teens while out for a 90 minute excursion in a town other than their own and other than the town they were supposed to be going? A town by the looks of it that nobody would have known they would be.

One theory that I cant buy is that they mistakenly pulled on to someones property and were executed for it.

For me, until there's an explanation for the DNA found in multiple places on JB the sexual motivation angle will remain the path of least resistance so to speak.

And any theory concerning someone being angry or jealous or wanting to silence one of the girls must also come up with an explanation of why we have two victims instead of just one. One would have to be boiling over with anger or jealousy or whatever to get to the point of what was shown here and it seems like this person would easily stand out. I can't make the end result make sense with any grievance anyone might have had with these particular victims.

I'm not totally discounting any theory though, all are welcomed and appreciated.

BBM Like you, I too am not ruling out anything or discounting any theories. But check out easongt's post #1115. I believe he hit the nail squarely on the head as far as the motive is concerned.

As for why two were killed instead of just the one...the killer had to strike when the opportunity presented itself. I believe he had them in Ozark and they were not aware of his intentions until it was too late. He had them at his peril and there were no witnesses around. One of the girls was his target and the other was killed because she was present and he could not leave anyone around to testify against him.

I want to add that all of this is just my theory of what happened. I do not claim to be smarter than anyone else or have "inside information" from LE or anyone else. I just hope that someday this horrible case will be solved and the victims' loved ones will get the answers they deserve.

 

[lciaccia]

What might the motive be then for killing two church going teens while out for a 90 minute excursion in a town other than their own and other than the town they were supposed to be going? A town by the looks of it that nobody would have known they would be.

One theory that I cant buy is that they mistakenly pulled on to someones property and were executed for it.

For me, until there's an explanation for the DNA found in multiple places on JB the sexual motivation angle will remain the path of least resistance so to speak.

And any theory concerning someone being angry or jealous or wanting to silence one of the girls must also come up with an explanation of why we have two victims instead of just one. One would have to be boiling over with anger or jealousy or whatever to get to the point of what was shown here and it seems like this person would easily stand out. I can't make the end result make sense with any grievance anyone might have had with these particular victims.

I'm not totally discounting any theory though, all are welcomed and appreciated.

As for the DNA being found in multiple places, I just don't think that's unexplainable by a consensual encounter earlier. Without getting too graphic, I think it lines up with an earlier incident of teenage heavy petting cleaned up well enough so it wasn't obvious on first inspection, but was picked up later in the lab. Probably more so than with a perpetrator managing to leave his DNA on the girl, but just one girl, but under her clothes but over her underwear, but cleaned up enough so it's not obvious on first inspection, but not so well cleaned that it's not picked up later, and whatever was used to clean it up taken from the scene and disposed of and not leaving any other traces.

I don't know...it's not that it couldn't be the perpetrator, but it's at LEAST as explainable by an unrelated incident. Obviously, if they are using the DNA to clear people, the police don't agree. Is that because her whereabouts are totally accounted for, or because she didn't have a known boyfriend? Who knows...they may have good reason.

Some people think she had had a secret lover that got her killed...if you believe that, it's also certainly possible she had a secret boyfriend that got her dirty earlier in the day, or even theoretically on a different day depending on if she re-wore clothes. While it's certainly not impossible, the DNA is such a weird anomaly in a case in which there is no other consistency with it being primarily a sex crime.

I will admit, reading rumors on other websites, there are some that sound pretty damning but if she truly had a relationship with an adult authority figure let's say...I haven't seen anyone that claimed to be able to actually link them together. While that would certainly explain the lack of progress...so would general incompetence and/or just bad luck and/or a well executed crime.

 

[easongt]

Let me preface this by saying I am not law enforcement and I am certainly not a homicide investigator. Butt it is my understanding when conducting an investigation , you start from the inside and work your way out. It is common knowledge that spouses are often the first person looked at when a victim is found. I'm only saying this because I have done a one-eighty. I used to believe this was a stranger and a random act of being at the wrong place at the wrong time.

I am about 75% certain that the likelihood that the killer knew one or both of the victims holds true.

I am 100% certain that whoever left the vehicle and its location is from Ozark we're nose Ozark very well.

I will not name any names but I do think there are individuals that I believe possibly might have stood to lose something had the murders not occurred.
Does this mean they're responsible? Absolutely not. Again all this is just my opinion

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[lciaccia]

I am 100% certain that whoever left the vehicle and its location is from Ozark we're nose Ozark very well.

Just curious, how do you come to this conclusion? With it being left in such an open area, I have tended to believe it's not a local. I tend to think someone that knows the area well would have known a place to hide it, while someone who doesn't would be more likely to leave it where ever is most convenient rather than traveling around trying to find a good spot in an area he's totally unfamiliar with.

 

[lciaccia]

I will not name any names but I do think there are individuals that I believe possibly might have stood to lose something had the murders not occurred.

Are you thinking more along the lines of "illicit relationship" or more like "stumbled upon something they shouldn't have seen"?

 

[easongt]

Could be either but my belief is neither.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[easongt]

Just curious, how do you come to this conclusion? With it being left in such an open area, I have tended to believe it's not a local. I tend to think someone that knows the area well would have known a place to hide it, while someone who doesn't would be more likely to leave it where ever is most convenient rather than traveling around trying to find a good spot in an area he's totally unfamiliar with.

Because the area us not as easy to maneuver as you think. Lots of turns and populated heavier than you think. Someone knew that one isolated spot.

Are you thinking more along the lines of "illicit relationship" or more like "stumbled upon something they shouldn't have seen"?

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[lciaccia]

Because the area us not as easy to maneuver as you think. Lots of turns and populated heavier than you think. Someone knew that one isolated spot.

Got it. From reading, but not knowing the area, my take was the car was not hidden and was right off a road, and close to where the girls were last seen. Meaning someone wasn't familiar with the area and wasn't going to drive around looking for a better hiding spot. I would be more likely to think it was someone familiar with the area if the car was hidden where only a local was likely to know. It was left instead in an area I would more expect someone to leave it who DIDN'T know the area. I haven't gotten the impression that where the car was located was particularly isolated, considering it was discovered first thing the next morning.

 

[lciaccia]

Could be either but my belief is neither.

Do you want to share your theory, or you can't? Because I'll stop asking.

 

[easongt]

Just ask yourself simple questions. With upcoming court case...

Who stood to gain?
Who stood to lose?

Draw your own conclusions.

That's all I'm saying. It's no different than any case. Start inside and work way outward.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[easongt]

Got it. From reading, but not knowing the area, my take was the car was not hidden and was right off a road, and close to where the girls were last seen. Meaning someone wasn't familiar with the area and wasn't going to drive around looking for a better hiding spot. I would be more likely to think it was someone familiar with the area if the car was hidden where only a local was likely to know. It was left instead in an area I would more expect someone to leave it who DIDN'T know the area. I haven't gotten the impression that where the car was located was particularly isolated, considering it was discovered first thing the next morning.

That spot is just about the only "secluded" spot nestled in a populated hard to get to cluster of roads. When you drive it, you see that.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk