In light of the current conversation regarding the finding of semen on J.B. Beasley's clothing, I'm hoping my own post from May 30, 2014, may be helpful:
"A few days ago I read the
Christie Lynn Mullins thread which links to the
article written by Websleuths user Nycsleuth that has recently brought about some astonishing developments in that case.
As it turns out, the incredibly well-researched and -written article happens to contain information that sheds some light on one of the key questions we've asked when looking at the Beasley-Hawlett case.
From page 30 of the Mullins article:
There was precious little forensics evidence introduced: no fingerprints, no blood typing, no hair or fiber analysis. Either it didn't exist, was never collected, or could not reliably be tested.
Dr. Nobuhisa Baba, the deputy coroner, testified that Christie was not raped (she was still a virgin) and that there was no evidence of semen to be found anywhere. A police chemist, however, testified that there appeared to be semen on the bathing suit bottom she was wearing beneath her blue jeans. That seemed inexplicable, given that the jeans, though unzipped, were not pulled down, and her swimsuit bottom was undisturbed.
Another possibility is that whatever semen was there came from the boyfriend of some other girl. Christie and other girls in the neighborhood frequently borrowed bathing suits from one another, and Christie's sister Melony believes that Christie was wearing a borrowed suit the day she was killed. (A day or so before the murder, Christie had borrowed a suit from an older, sexually active girl, which she never returned.)
Christie did not go in the water the day of the murder, and even if the borrowed suit had been recently washed, that would not necessarily have eliminated all traces of semen. According to one scholarly article, washing semen-stained fabrics with detergent fails to remove the stains 25% of the time.
To the best of our knowledge, the discovery of semen on the clothes of J.B. Beasley about 70 days after the murders changed the investigation entirely, as suspects have since been ruled out through DNA comparison made possible by that discovery.
We have often wondered about the possibility that the semen originated from a previous (consensual) sexual encounter unrelated to the murders, thus throwing the investigation, as it has seemingly hinged upon DNA evidence, entirely off-track. Now we have a source that indicates this could very well be what happened. To say nothing of the possibility that the clothes J.B. was wearing that night were unwashed."
Also, it is important to note that media reports were inconsistent regarding where the semen was found: While it was often reported that traces were discovered on J.B. Beasley's underclothes, her dress is also named by at least one source, and, most importantly, not all reports mention the skin as being a site of discovery. Though frustrating, these inconsistencies do leave open the possibility that semen was only found on the clothing, perhaps increasing the chances that this potential evidence is actually linked with a previous, consensual encounter and thus unrelated to the murders.
[Thanks to Nycsleuth for permission to quote his article on the Christie Mullins case.]