AL AL - J.B. Beasley, 17, & Tracie Hawlett, 17, Ozark, 31 July 1999 #4 *ARREST*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Both, knees down with an emphasis on Hawlett's "week old $95 new balance trainers " I chuckled because they listed the price as if someone going out dressed causally nice wouldn't wear new trainers because of them getting dirty at a field party. A pointless addition
 
Achilles81, your points are obviously the same the defense will try but that doesn't mean they are truly viable. Semen evidence on a victim's shirt, inside the underwear and inside the victim will not be successfully argued away by "maybe it was on his fingers and they were just having a good old time before somebody else murdered her and her friend and stuffed them in the trunk of a car". My opinion only
 
That will depend on if it can be proven the sexual activity was done that night. It very well could have been done sometime prior. A case can be made, good investigation can show it's a coincidence. Good science can show that based on everything I've mentioned.

Will that be enough to convince a jury if nothing much comes to light? Probably not.

The DNA match can draw a conclusion that maybe just maybe, them ending up in Ozark was to see him. If so I dont envision a scenario where they are "having a good ole time" before being murdered that night instead it was some macabre and insidious.

Sure that sounds like a far fetched situation but again, just because the girls are painted in a light that shows that are wholesome and moral (outside of Beasley's domestic situation) they may have lived a little more of a rebellious life. Same goes for McCraney. But really it's no more unbelievable than after 20 year's some random guy not on any of the authorities radar is now the suspect because of this DNA. One has to keep in mind, semen was swabbed by forensics and initially reported within a couple of months. Semen being viable in the vaginal cavity gives you a potential 5-7 day window of promiscuous activity.

I dont know. There are many potential situations that could be played out in my mind based on the DNA evidence, winding up in Ozark (coincidentally, right) and it being a double murder by some random person (someone other than McCraney or someone he knew or they knew) within the proposed time frame of death.
 
Achilles81 said:
That will depend on if it can be proven the sexual activity was done that night. It very well could have been done sometime prior. A case can be made, good investigation can show it's a coincidence. Good science can show that based on everything I've mentioned.

Will that be enough to convince a jury if nothing much comes to light? Probably not.

The DNA match can draw a conclusion that maybe just maybe, them ending up in Ozark was to see him. If so I dont envision a scenario where they are "having a good ole time" before being murdered that night instead it was some macabre and insidious.

Sure that sounds like a far fetched situation but again, just because the girls are painted in a light that shows that are wholesome and moral (outside of Beasley's domestic situation) they may have lived a little more of a rebellious life. Same goes for McCraney. But really it's no more unbelievable than after 20 year's some random guy not on any of the authorities radar is now the suspect because of this DNA. One has to keep in mind, semen was swabbed by forensics and initially reported within a couple of months. Semen being viable in the vaginal cavity gives you a potential 5-7 day window of promiscuous activity.

I dont know. There are many potential situations that could be played out in my mind based on the DNA evidence, winding up in Ozark (coincidentally, right) and it being a double murder by some random person (someone other than McCraney or someone he knew or they knew) within the proposed time frame of death.
Click to expand...

BBM...That will depend on if it can be proven the sexual activity was done that night. It very well could have been done sometime prior. A case can be made, good investigation can show it's a coincidence. Oh really? That may be difficult to do since he didn't know her (his words-not mine).

There are many potential situations that could be played out in my mind based on the DNA evidence, winding up in Ozark (coincidentally, right) and it being a double murder by some random person (someone other than McCraney or someone he knew or they knew) within the proposed time frame of death.[/QUOTE] Many potential situations-but only one person's semen ended up on and in Beasley. As you stated, "Coincidentally-right"?!? But remember...(according to CM, he didn't know her)!

winding up in Ozark (coincidentally,right)...No coincidence. They left a field party in Skippersville only a few minutes before stopping at the Big/Little Store in or just outside of Ozark to make the phone call. That was probably the nearest pay phone.
 
Last edited:
Achilles81 said:
That will depend on if it can be proven the sexual activity was done that night. It very well could have been done sometime prior. A case can be made, good investigation can show it's a coincidence. Good science can show that based on everything I've mentioned.

Will that be enough to convince a jury if nothing much comes to light? Probably not.

The DNA match can draw a conclusion that maybe just maybe, them ending up in Ozark was to see him. If so I dont envision a scenario where they are "having a good ole time" before being murdered that night instead it was some macabre and insidious.

Sure that sounds like a far fetched situation but again, just because the girls are painted in a light that shows that are wholesome and moral (outside of Beasley's domestic situation) they may have lived a little more of a rebellious life. Same goes for McCraney. But really it's no more unbelievable than after 20 year's some random guy not on any of the authorities radar is now the suspect because of this DNA. One has to keep in mind, semen was swabbed by forensics and initially reported within a couple of months. Semen being viable in the vaginal cavity gives you a potential 5-7 day window of promiscuous activity.

I dont know. There are many potential situations that could be played out in my mind based on the DNA evidence, winding up in Ozark (coincidentally, right) and it being a double murder by some random person (someone other than McCraney or someone he knew or they knew) within the proposed time frame of death.
Click to expand...

I think here we are rapidly leaving the realm of reasonable doubt and entering the realm of hypothetical doubt in which any scenario, no matter how unlikely can be brought to bare and it becomes impossible to prove a suspect guilty of anything.
 
Of course he will deny knowing and interacting with her especially with what has come to light and it's going to be extremely difficult to prove when the encounter occurred.

My coincidence statement about arriving in Pzark was sarcastic because I don't believe they were lost and happen to make it to Ozark, that store, just because it was the nearest phone but likely to meet with him, making the phone call to her mother first to reassure her and buy a little more time to be out and about.

Does it not seem odd they followed Merritt, turned right onto Broad street headed toward town and 231 yet "headlights disappeared " before making the first red light (which has a strip mall to the left, a Methodist church on the right). Now mid way down broad street, one can take a left and land at his residence during that time or take a right going down the short path to Depot lane where you'll find the old train depot, Gulf Ice coming to a stop sign. Take a left at the stop sign you'll head towards what then was Stegall park, keep straight takes you along the railroad track and seconds from the store. At that stop sign, take a right and you're back on broad street, left takes to past Carroll High school and back to 105 and towards Skipperville. In other words, you're not going to get lost if they happen to have turned down depot lane as if you take a left, it takes you to a dead end or back to broad street too if I recall correctly. I will have to go drive thru there later. But either way you can see the railroad tracks, essentially following. So if you take a right on depot pass the 2 buildings mentioned and come to the stop sign, go straight just a bit, u turn your head to the right and easily visibly see the store and know where you were.

Oh also I remember someone somewhere mentioned the lake, that would be Dale county lake. Going past Stegall park will lead you to a 4 way stop, take a left then a fork in the road veer right and takes you to the lake, which would be closed with a lock and gate. I mentioned that only in the event anyone believes that's reason for the pants being wet, muddy shoes etc although I believe most believe the murders took place at the barn that was tucked away off 123 I believe (which I believe was the case given the ladies delayed witness to screams and gunshots, the bullet, tire tread and whatever else it was they found)
 
ddav said:
I think here we are rapidly leaving the realm of reasonable doubt and entering the realm of hypothetical doubt in which any scenario, no matter how unlikely can be brought to bare and it becomes impossible to prove a suspect guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

Sure some of it is hypothetical but how else does someone explain how the semen got there? It wasn't planted? He just so happens to run into them in close proximity to his house off of broad street, ready to ambush some complete strangers? Sitting on his porch just minding his own business reading his bible........with the train of thought, "surely tonight is the night some young girls come close so I can attack them?"

You take evidence and have to recreate the scenario, with limited knowledge you must think hypothetically. As some have mentioned in thread 3, got to think outside of the box. With your thought process, McCraney is automatically guilty simply based on the DNA sample, where reasonable doubt can be made.
 
Here is an example of where evidence would be damning if not looked into correctly.

Person gets into a motor vehicle accident and kills a family in the other car. Toxicology reports on the person shows Opioids, Benzodiazepines in their system. Charges brought forward that person got into the MVA because they were under the influence, polypharamcy.

Now just because they showed up in a urine drug screen or even in a blood analysis, that simply shows the person took said medications. Further probing shows the person has an RX for both substances, has taken them for years and was due for their RX to be refilled that day or in a day or so. Considering the consistency in which that person takes their meds and based on the half life of the drugs (ER opioids, Xanax, other benzodiazepines) have long half lifes. So they could take the meds the night before, have not taken anything prior to the MVA and show the presence of taking them BUT wasn't actually intoxicated or under the influence. Of course you can do further more in depth testing for the actual levels, do they register over the cut off level, even then that does not prove without any doubt because of peak times of the drugs, individual tolerances to substances etc. Someone can take 10-20mg of Lortab, take a drug screen with in 4-6 hrs and register over the cut off yet be able to function without any signs of intoxication. It could be at or above the cutoff simply for taking the drug daily for years which would ultimately end up with a person being functional and no limitations.

So in this case, he very well could know Beasley, slept with her days prior to the murders and not actually have committed the crimes because of the residual semen and subsequent samples. So its reasonable to think they, at least Beasley had reason to be in Ozark on a Saturday night (Hawlett just tagging along), leaving a potential killer still free, and potentially falsely placing a man on to life in prison or to death.

I can describe scenarios where semen was on a person's clothing or skin, underwear in child abuse cases and people are falsely accused and tried simply based on the presence of semen on the adults clothes or sheets and were washed with the child's. Transferring onto the child's clothes.

I digress and I'm getting sidetracked
 
Achilles81 said:
Sure some of it is hypothetical but how else does someone explain how the semen got there? It wasn't planted? He just so happens to run into them in close proximity to his house off of broad street, ready to ambush some complete strangers? Sitting on his porch just minding his own business reading his bible........with the train of thought, "surely tonight is the night some young girls come close so I can attack them?"

You take evidence and have to recreate the scenario, with limited knowledge you must think hypothetically. As some have mentioned in thread 3, got to think outside of the box. With your thought process, McCraney is automatically guilty simply based on the DNA sample, where reasonable doubt can be made.
Click to expand...

It may come as a shock, but there are people who do ambush and kill complete strangers- it happens every day.
 
Achilles81 said:
Here is an example of where evidence would be damning if not looked into correctly.

Person gets into a motor vehicle accident and kills a family in the other car. Toxicology reports on the person shows Opioids, Benzodiazepines in their system. Charges brought forward that person got into the MVA because they were under the influence, polypharamcy.

Now just because they showed up in a urine drug screen or even in a blood analysis, that simply shows the person took said medications. Further probing shows the person has an RX for both substances, has taken them for years and was due for their RX to be refilled that day or in a day or so. Considering the consistency in which that person takes their meds and based on the half life of the drugs (ER opioids, Xanax, other benzodiazepines) have long half lifes. So they could take the meds the night before, have not taken anything prior to the MVA and show the presence of taking them BUT wasn't actually intoxicated or under the influence. Of course you can do further more in depth testing for the actual levels, do they register over the cut off level, even then that does not prove without any doubt because of peak times of the drugs, individual tolerances to substances etc. Someone can take 10-20mg of Lortab, take a drug screen with in 4-6 hrs and register over the cut off yet be able to function without any signs of intoxication. It could be at or above the cutoff simply for taking the drug daily for years which would ultimately end up with a person being functional and no limitations.

So in this case, he very well could know Beasley, slept with her days prior to the murders and not actually have committed the crimes because of the residual semen and subsequent samples. So its reasonable to think they, at least Beasley had reason to be in Ozark on a Saturday night (Hawlett just tagging along), leaving a potential killer still free, and potentially falsely placing a man on to life in prison or to death.

I can describe scenarios where semen was on a person's clothing or skin, underwear in child abuse cases and people are falsely accused and tried simply based on the presence of semen on the adults clothes or sheets and were washed with the child's. Transferring onto the child's clothes.

I digress and I'm getting sidetracked
Click to expand...

BBM...slept with her days prior...Wouldn't he have to know her to have slept with her? He still is denying he knew her.

Transfer...Did it transfer into her vagina as well?
 
Last edited:
Achilles81 said:
Sure some of it is hypothetical but how else does someone explain how the semen got there? It wasn't planted? He just so happens to run into them in close proximity to his house off of broad street, ready to ambush some complete strangers? Sitting on his porch just minding his own business reading his bible........with the train of thought, "surely tonight is the night some young girls come close so I can attack them?"

You take evidence and have to recreate the scenario, with limited knowledge you must think hypothetically. As some have mentioned in thread 3, got to think outside of the box. With your thought process, McCraney is automatically guilty simply based on the DNA sample, where reasonable doubt can be made.
Click to expand...

BBM...Ever heard of Ted Bundy? Or perhaps Gary Ridgeway? How about Pee Wee Gaskins? Zodiac Killer? David Berowitz? Granted, most victims are killed by people they know. But, serial killers and psychopaths kill complete strangers.
 
killarney rose said:
I think that we all need to remember that this is a victim friendly forum and that the families do read here.
Click to expand...
killarney rose said:
I think that we all need to remember that this is a victim friendly forum and that the families do read here.
Click to expand...
I don't buy some theories that are being outlined above, and I doubt the jury would either IMO.
 
Andreee said:
I don't buy some theories that are being outlined above, and I doubt the jury would either IMO.
Click to expand...

Because their completely illogical, right? But let be known I'm not stating them as fact, I hope that doesn't have to be throughly explained.

Hopefully we'll get some more statements from everyone involved with case and hopefully we can find out some info on the McDaniels character mentioned. The one Harrison said the gun "belonged too"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 2,053 (members: 179, guests: 1,874)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
1,874
Total visitors
2,053
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,129
Messages
18,118,969
Members
230,995
Latest member
truelove
Back
Top