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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
How often is DNA ran through a database... Curious about the frequency of the checks for a match. Is it one single national database that is linked?
 
My guess would be every time new DNA is entered into the database it's cross-referenced with any cases or maybe even unsolved cases. I would like to think it's an automatic process but I could be so far off base on this. In other words if someone's DNA were put into the system this week upon arrest comma I would like to think it automatically searches that sequence stored in the database

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
Thank You ... Just curious how it works, in my mind if i had an unsolved murder in my small town would be checking it weekly ... If not daily ... Never hurts to double check
 
folieadeuxnola said:
Thank You ... Just curious how it works, in my mind if i had an unsolved murder in my small town would be checking it weekly ... If not daily ... Never hurts to double check
Click to expand...
Keep in mind I'm not certain about my response LOL

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
killarney rose said:
What about a very simple explaination. They took a wrong turn when they were in Headland. It put them on 27 and took them to Ozark. They accidentally ended up there. No slipping around to meet some guys, just a simple wrong turn.the phone call and asking directions at the Big/Little cooberrates this. Sometimes the simplest theory is the correct one.
Click to expand...

I absolutely think this is possible/likely. In fact...I tend to think that it doesn't matter. I think they could have been flat out lost and ended up in Ozark by mistake, I think they could have been just sort of disoriented - not really lost but not sure exactly what roads/direction they should be taking, or they could have been not lost but just in Ozark sort of half-heartedly, either vaguely looking for something or just killing time driving around.

I don't think why they are in Ozark is relevant at all to who killed them. Teenagers don't need much explanation for why they're anywhere when they get out driving around at night.

I think that they either ran into a random killer in Ozark, or if it's someone who knew them or targeted them, they followed them or just by mostly luck found them.

The plan of "lure them to Ozark so you can flag them down on the road and kill them" is just too shaky of a plan.
 
folieadeuxnola said:
Looks as though prior to 2010, dnA was only collected for rape cases, glad the state now includes all felons

http://www.adfs.alabama.gov/dna.aspx

The key to ever solving this case is the DNA ...
Click to expand...
DNA would be important but not necessarily the key to closing the case. My point being simply that if it were from a previous consensual act the day before or earlier in the day it could be irrelevant. I personally am not convinced sex was any part of the motive.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
I'm working every theory. This case is that weird.

Fitting that with being lured? It wasn't a random person she wanted to stop and speak to and that person either was also being watched by the killer (why? IDK. Why weren't they killed too? IDK, maybe they got theirs later) or somehow brought the killer into everything m
 
Several reasonable theories have been put forth. I still keep going back to the simplest. They got lost and it was a crime of opportunity. I think it's likely they stopped again after getting directions and that is where the killer got control of them.
 
I strongly believe the girls, Or at least J.B had no intentions of being home by 11:30pm on the night of J.B's birthday. A summer Saturday night at that. I believe that call was to let Tracie's mother fall asleep peacefully. I believe they had another visit to make. JMO
 
easongt said:
DNA would be important but not necessarily the key to closing the case. My point being simply that if it were from a previous consensual act the day before or earlier in the day it could be irrelevant. I personally am not convinced sex was any part of the motive.
Click to expand...

With you 100% about the DNA. Given no other signs of sexual molestation, I don't think it should be exclusionary at all.

I can't understand why the police seem to be using it as such, unless...

a. They're acting as if it's exclusionary to lull the possible killer into a false sense of security and not flush him out of town
b. They're "holding back" something from the public, and that something makes the it much more clear that there was sexual contact around the murder

I'm not sure sexual motivations weren't part of the impetus for the crime, but I don't think the girls were murdered so the killer could dump his DNA on her bra. I don't think it's a sexual killing in the sense we think of many serial killers.

However, I won't totally discount them being stalked by someone who knew one of them and was fixated with them. And I think it's plausible that they were pulled over by one of these pervs that buys a blue light and a gun and likes to play cop and pull over pretty women and often harass them (which is incredibly common as I documented pages ago). I could see a scenario like that, where something breaks very bad, and the girls end up dead. If it's something like that, you might be able to say that there was a sexual element to the motive.

But in the sense that the girls were murdered for the sexual release of the killer, in such a way that he would leave his DNA...yeah, I think that's far from sure thing.
 
December said:
I'm working every theory. This case is that weird.

Fitting that with being lured? It wasn't a random person she wanted to stop and speak to and that person either was also being watched by the killer (why? IDK. Why weren't they killed too? IDK, maybe they got theirs later) or somehow brought the killer into everything m
Click to expand...

Yep, agreed. Possible the killer was incidental to the reason they were there, but the fact they were there enabled their murder. Meaning, the killer wasn't the one that "lured them" or planned it out that way, but the opportunity arose.

Thinking something like:

Cute Boys: "Hey come see us."

JB&T: "Hey guys we're here."

Creepy Dad of Cute Boys: "Hey you two are purty."

JB&T: ""Ok, it's been real...got to get home"

Cute boys: ""OK Bye :-("

Creepy Dad (30 seconds later): "I got to go get some smokes boys, see you in a bit."

That would explain them fulfilling the meeting, making the call and honestly announcing their intentions to come home, and yet being intercepted. Not totally random, and the trip to Ozark certainly was the cause of their murder. But they weren't specifically lured there BY their murderer. Still a crime of opportunity.

Of course, that doesn't explain why the innocent boys wouldn't come forward to say they saw the girls alive and well, unless they got incriminated after the fact.
 
killarney rose said:
Several reasonable theories have been put forth. I still keep going back to the simplest. They got lost and it was a crime of opportunity. I think it's likely they stopped again after getting directions and that is where the killer got control of them.
Click to expand...

Lost or not, I don't see anything that strongly points away from this. I like running other scenarios, but there's just nothing I'm aware of that makes this not the most likely scenario.

Easongt's has changed his/her theory from that random act to them being specifically targeted for execution. He could probably flesh out more the case against crime of opportunity and the reason for the change of heart.

It is important to note that "crime of opportunity" doesn't mean that the killer was necessarilly a stranger to the girls, or that he isn't local.
 
Another thing that bothers me and leads me to believe they werent planning on going home at 11:30 is the report that this so called field party was being held in honour of J.B's birthday.
 
easongt said:
DNA would be important but not necessarily the key to closing the case. My point being simply that if it were from a previous consensual act the day before or earlier in the day it could be irrelevant. I personally am not convinced sex was any part of the motive.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agree... I dont believe that sex was the motive.. The dna is a very important key element to the case.

Appreciate your comments and thoughts on the matter thou... Its so frustating that this case is has been unsolved for so many years.
 
lciaccia said:
Lost or not, I don't see anything that strongly points away from this. I like running other scenarios, but there's just nothing I'm aware of that makes this not the most likely scenario.

Easongt's has changed his/her theory from that random act to them being specifically targeted for execution. He could probably flesh out more the case against crime of opportunity and the reason for the change of heart.

It is important to note that "crime of opportunity" doesn't mean that the killer was necessarilly a stranger to the girls, or that he isn't local.
Click to expand...
It's very difficult for me to lay everything out. But in a nutshell, the only motive that I can find would be to keep something from coming out.

It is documented there was going to be a hearing involving people being under oath. That hearing never took place. Those are not theories. those are facts.

That's all I feel I can say for now. When I find an opportunity I'm going to attempt to do a little more research. After talking about this case with several others, I feel the list of suspects is not as long as you may think.

Sent from my SM-G900V using Tapatalk
 
I don't think they were "lured then flagged down". I used to think maybe they were flagged down, but now I think that is unlikely.

But, think of this.

They see house/ of boy they know. They stop to chit chat with him. Maybe, turns out, he isn't home/in car. That's weird .. He said he'd be there (murderer knew/heard). They decide to leave a note or whatever and get out of car. Murderer is waiting. Murderer springs!

Now, what can this boy tell police?

Just a fast idea. IF this was premeditated, this would all be done with intent. Maybe less of an intent on part of the guy. But, then murderer hold the threat of being shot over his head. IF this was random, it provides a way for the murderer to get control of them without doing anything that would attract attention.

I know about an actual murder where a real cop car was used (it wasn't being used by a cop). People saw and reported it being in the wrong county and trying to pull people over. Being this was something like 1981, the people that did, had to drive to a phone to do it. (This guy is now in prison and has been since then.) He was able to murder using this method, but it was not stealthy at all. People saw and reported this car.
 
I don't think they were "flagged down" either. That would imply they were kidnapped at gunpoint. We have evidence that they likely fled through brush and water. I don't see them running with a gun pointed at them.
I see it more as them being at some sort of social gathering and either being warned that they could be in danger or they themselves surmising that they could be in danger. If they ran, they were not yet at gunpoint. JMO
 
CoolJ said:
I don't think they were "flagged down" either. That would imply they were kidnapped at gunpoint. We have evidence that they likely fled through brush and water. I don't see them running with a gun pointed at them.
I see it more as them being at some sort of social gathering and either being warned that they could be in danger or they themselves surmising that they could be in danger. If they ran, they were not yet at gunpoint. JMO
Click to expand...

Yeah that's what I am thinking...

I did read somewhere about a person living in the same area who says kids walk up to their house pretty often asking about field parties. They thought it was kind of crazy because their house is not near the road... There's a long driveway.

Now, these people are more just, "no children, there is no party here." But, then, they're not doing anything illegal at their house either.

But, apparently, this kind of behavior takes place. Kids feel comfortable doing it and it never occurs to them that while most people are nice and the worst thing that they'll is say there is no party here; there are some people who do not want anyone around, ever. And some of these "some people" are criminals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 95 more.
Total: 341 (members: 96, guests: 245)

Online statistics

Members online
96
Guests online
245
Total visitors
341
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
608,714
Messages
18,244,481
Members
234,435
Latest member
ProfKim
Back
Top