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

[CoolJ]

Looking at the video again, he seems to mumble something about not remembering anything about ..... something unintelligible (at least to me)
Anybody make out what he says?

 

[TooCurious]

I think the two shirtless guys, whether it happened or not, is irrelevant. That supposedly happened around the Headland area I think. Two shirtless guys chasing down a car of cute girls is not an oddity out in the country in 90's. Now if they smiled at the girls and weren't missing teeth I would be suspicious because that wouldn't be quite right! Seriously though, they weren't followed to the Citgo and they weren't followed to the store in Ozark. In those two places they would have been able to tell if they were followed.

 

[Bulldog23]

It is about 3:55-4:05 in video, and yes, it is hard to understand him but I think he says "I don't know anything...I don't remember anything about them saying (not sure here, black..maybe) guys with their shirts off..but hey it was so long ago....."

I'm guessing that Mr. Forrest made the video after seeing Jacqui's video where she mentioned the shirtless guys following the girls. I think that is probably why he mentions it.. because Jacqui first did in her video. That means someone told Jacqui that Bookey said this back in 1999. However, like I said before, It seems like if this is a story he remembers and tells all the time, he would remember that super important detail...if it were true, and he told investigators that back in 99.

Cool J, if you're not convinced of what he said, try watching Jacqui's video and Bookey's video back to back. I think his video is probably a response to her video.

 

[Bulldog23]

I think the two shirtless guys, whether it happened or not, is irrelevant. That supposedly happened around the Headland area I think. Two shirtless guys chasing down a car of cute girls is not an oddity out in the country in 90's. Now if they smiled at the girls and weren't missing teeth I would be suspicious because that wouldn't be quite right! Seriously though, they weren't followed to the Citgo and they weren't followed to the store in Ozark. In those two places they would have been able to tell if they were followed.

My point is that if Bookie didn't say it- perhaps it was another witness like Mrs. Merrit, and it happened later in the night. I want to know where the information about the 2 shirtless dudes originally came from. I don't know if the shirtless dudes have anything to do with the murder, but like I said, it is a heck of a coincidence for them to be followed and blocked in a way that was perceived as threatening on the same night they were murdered.

 

[jburgoon]

The two shirtless dudes...In his video, Bookey mentioned that he did not remember anything about that. Now I know it was a long time ago, but he seems like an intelligent person who remembered a lot of other details (the map, JB's phone conversation, the directions he gave the girls to Midland City...) It seems like a detail (the girls feeling threatened the night they were murdered) that one would not forget.

Jacqui, do you remember who told you that Bookey said that? If it was the police, then it seems that they and Bookey are in disagreement about that detail (Could be he just forgot- but that seems really odd to me given the circumstances.) It just seems too coincidental that the girls were followed, pinned in, and felt threatened on the same night they were murdered.

When driving through headland they took a wrong turn and when they pulled into the area they were to turn around a truck with two guys showed up and they had their shirts off. They got out of the truck and I guess that frightened JB and she drove off & that's when they went to the citgo. I did find it coincidental too that, that happened.

 

[December]

Okay this is just a random thought that I have mulled over in the past. I've dated enough women in been married long enough before to know that bras aren't necessarily washed is often as other items. Therefore the DNA on the bra could have been from a week prior? Any of the females agree with this possibility? Or at the very latest it could have been from the previous day. This might help explain while there was no evidence of sexual activity to correspond with the DNA.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

I know what you mean. But, that gives J.B. the chance to be back home looking at her clothes. She would have seen that and washed it, herself, any other applicable clothing.

Another thing about any consensual encounter any time near to the murder, what kind of guy is going to have sex with a girl then let his DNA be used to clear her murderer? Especially a guy you can imagine J.B. liking. This guy would have gone to the police by now if he existed. Even if he wasn't madly in love with her, he wouldn't want her murderer to go free.

The only way I can see the guy not doing this is if he died before the DNA was discovered. But, even then, he would have known he was one of the last people to see her alive.

My friend was murdered. Guys did go to the police to try to help find her murderer. (He's in prison now.) So, I think the same would happen with J.B.

I don't think J.B. was alive when that happened.

 

[December]

When driving through headland they took a wrong turn and when they pulled into the area they were to turn around a truck with two guys showed up and they had their shirts off. They got out of the truck and I guess that frightened JB and she drove off & that's when they went to the citgo. I did find it coincidental too that, that happened.

Hmmm.. This plays into something Bookey said, "a wrong turn really can be a wrong turn".

There is a movie called One Wrong Turn where people go down a disused road that used to connect two highways and encounter murderers. The overall movie is not anything like what happened to J.B. and Tracie, to be clear about that.

 

[Goldfinch]

Well it was found much later but it is suppose to be legit. I am not convinced it was related yet.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Early on in the investigation, I believe the OPD made a statement that the semen was thought to have been from the perpetrator. I believe they felt he may have a "sexual performance dysfunction", maybe exposing himself. I started following this story after seeing it on AMW. I then followed it on Wiregrass.com/Ozark Chat. I'm pretty sure I read this in the Cronology of Events on that board. It has been a while since I've read through the cronology. Also, since the license on the dashboard was misrepresented, how was the owner of the white truck located, early on that was an important point of interest. They traced it to Delaware without a license plate or clear photo, seems to be quickly dismissed & put on a shelf, missing 9mm shell, soil samples...The investigation needs to go back to square one.

 

[December]

Goldfinch, I agree.

A different agency has the case now, so I would imagine that they are taking it back to the beginning as much as they can, all things considered.

I am really wondering if the DNA is:
1. Imaginary.
2. Got on J.B. after death due to cross contamination or some other way. Either way, has nothing to do with her or this case.

Therefore, get a real detective to go grill the one that scampered off to Michigan.

Find those two who scared J.B.

Check out this truck parked at a gas pump at a closed gas station. Get a real detective to do it. If the owner/official driver isn't viable as a suspect, find out who else may have been driving this truck. That truck being where it is WHEN it is would be suspicious even if it wasn't connected to a murder case.

Get a real detective to reinterview everyone who is still alive, including people who are not suspects.

Grill EVERYONE seen playing with the car because that is not normal behavior.

 

[easongt]

Barrentine's wife would be high on my list of interviews

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

 

[TooCurious]

Has the family seen the under garments? Has there been a positive identification that ththe under garments they are saying are hers, are actually hers? I think a NEW full forensic examination of the clothing should be done.

 

[December]

Barrentine's wife would be high on my list of interviews

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Definitely. They should have ten interviews with her by now, easily.

I don't think Barrentine was the murderer, but he knew something. I know he made up stories, but still. There has to be a way to interview such people.

Since he's dead, they should at least do statement analysis on the interviews they did. And talk to his wife.

 

[December]

Has the family seen the under garments? Has there been a positive identification that ththe under garments they are saying are hers, are actually hers?

You know, good point.

 

[December]

Actually, I just had a horrible thought...

What if it's the report on the DNA that got mixed up? I mean, I had another person's medical records in my medical records. And at an entirely different doctor in a different state, my father went to see the doctor and the doctor had been given the records of a man who had died. My father didn't see the records in his case, but in my case, the woman's name wasn't similar to mine.

So, if mix ups can happen with living people.... Why not in this case?

As to why there hasn't been a hit on the DNA from the other hypothetical case, maybe THAT woman had consensual sex? She might not even have been the victim of a crime. There are other types of deaths that get investigated....

 

[TedMac]

Barrentine's wife would be high on my list of interviews

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk

Agreed. I really wished LE had went back to JWB and discussed everything with them in a nonaccusatory manner and asked JWB something like "We are not here to interrogate you as a defendant. We are trying to solve a double homicide. Please tell us exactly what you did see." Also, ask the wife something like "How did he really act that night when he came home?"

It is too late to talk with JWB, but his widow could still be interviewed.

 

[TedMac]

Actually, I just had a horrible thought...

What if it's the report on the DNA that got mixed up? I mean, I had another person's medical records in my medical records. And at an entirely different doctor in a different state, my father went to see the doctor and the doctor had been given the records of a man who had died. My father didn't see the records in his case, but in my case, the woman's name wasn't similar to mine.

So, if mix ups can happen with living people.... Why not in this case?

As to why there hasn't been a hit on the DNA from the other hypothetical case, maybe THAT woman had consensual sex? She might not even have been the victim of a crime. There are other types of deaths that get investigated....

While it is possible, it isn't likely. All states have very strict "chain of custody" rules they must follow when submitting any type of evidence to a State or Federal lab for testing. There are also equally strict rules the labs must follow. The submitting agency must bag and seal with evidence tape and initial or sign the tape. Once received at the lab, the lab worker performing the test opens the bag, performs the test, re-seals the bag again with evidence tape, initial or signs the tape and ships it back to the submitting LE agency.

Very little chance for error.

 

[TooCurious]

While it is possible, it isn't likely. All states have very strict "chain of custody" rules they must follow when submitting any type of evidence to a State or Federal lab for testing. There are also equally strict rules the labs must follow. The submitting agency must bag and seal with evidence tape and initial or sign the tape. Once received at the lab, the lab worker performing the test opens the bag, performs the test, re-seals the bag again with evidence tape, initial or signs the tape and ships it back to the submitting LE agency.

Very little chance for error.

I am remembering a casing that was lost......

 

[TooCurious]

IMO, in this case nothing should be taken for granted. That is including chain of custody. From start to finish everything in this case should be re-examined and picked through with a fine tooth comb, all forensic evidence especially. The DNA, the location of the DNA, the amount of DNA, along with a good explanation of why it took two months to discover/disclose the finding of semen. (especially on her skin) Something is not right about this, sexual predators don't just stop unless they are caught or dead. So I see three scenarios here, 1) The DNA was not associated with the the murder making it NOT a sex crime 2) the offender is dead or living overseas 3) the offender has continued to be a sexual predator but has remained elusive for the last 16 years, covering his crimes and never being arrested.

 

[December]

Her skin... Two months later... Wasn't she buried about a week after she died?

 

[TooCurious]

Her skin... Two months later... Wasn't she buried about a week after she died?

Yes, that is my point. They should have known way before that there was semen present.