GUILTY AL - J.B. Beasley & Tracie Hawlett, both 17, murdered, Ozark, 31 July 1999 *ARREST in 2019* #5

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Good Sunday afternoon friends. Apparently the DA’s office works on the weekends . There were three responses to Defense motions for production filed by the State this morning.

As I understand from reading them:

1. The OPD states they never received any information from a Crime Stoppers Tip line.

2. The OPD states they never received any information in regard to this case resulting from the nationally broadcast television show, America’s Most Wanted. Please note this denial is only inclusive of the AMW series. It does not include other investigate documentaries, media or podcasts.

3. This request for production is for information and evidence from the alleged suicide of a local law enforcement officer, “Butch”Jones.
The OPD states they are in possession of a handgun which is associated with the case, but deny an autopsy or investigation was done by their agency on the death. Curious, but hopefully explainable.
(I have always difficulty in putting that case in perspective with the current case. I don’t see anything connective IMO.
Maybe I am missing pieces, but I do not think so)

In any regard, here are the filings:


Dropbox - February 6, 2022 Response to Motion America’s Most Wanted .pdf - Simplify your life


Dropbox - February 6th, 2022 Response to Motion (crime stoppers).pdf - Simplify your life


Dropbox - February 6, 2022. Response to Motion Reference Butch Jones Suicide .pdf - Simplify your life
 
Last edited:
Thanks, Blacklist, truly appreciate you keeping us apprised of the legal wranglings. Let's hope it makes for tight proceedings during the trial. Guilty judgements for death penalty cases get automatic appeal here in Alabama so crossing all the "t"s and dotting all the "i"s is especially important going in. Justice will persevere, I feel it in my heart.
 
Good afternoon.
There has been a flurry of motions and responses (14) filed this morning in reference to this case. I am at the office at the moment but I will take time to review them this evening and however long it takes to post them as well as commentary.If you remember, I predicted this was coming.
It may be a late this evening or in the morning before I can finish it.
Thank you for your patience my friends
 
Blacklist said:
Good afternoon.
There has been a flurry of motions and responses (14) filed this morning in reference to this case. I am at the office at the moment but I will take time to review them this evening and however long it takes to post them as well as commentary.If you remember, I predicted this was coming.
It may be a late this evening or in the morning before I can finish it.
Thank you for your patience my friends
Click to expand...

Thank you for your continued hard work and insight into this case.
 
Good evening friends. I think I have things sorted out now.
There were a total of 7 responses to motions for discovery filed today. 3 of these are “flagged” and therefore not visible currently. flagging is not a sealing, it is a notation placed on a file by the Clerk because of an error in form such as date, case number or particular styling or attachment to a filing. Please do not take this as something withheld or hidden.

The four remaining filings are State responses to discovery motions filed at various times by the defense counsel. Download links for these responses are below.

So as not to make this post unduly lengthy I will address rack as needed or requested. However, most of the responsive filings are self-explanatory.


Dropbox - February 8, 2022 - State response to defense request for production- interview and exhibits regarding Lanier Beasley.pdf.pdf - Simplify your life

Dropbox - February 8, 2022. State response to defense request for production of two Lorcin 9mm pistols held in possession of Ozark Police.pdf .pdf - Simplify your life


Dropbox - February 8, Erin motion.pdf.pdf - Simplify your life


Dropbox - February 8,2022 - State response to defense motion regard underwear and socks at scene.pdf.pdf - Simplify your life
 
Last edited:
In reference to post #491:

It is my belief from the best information available, that in the third motion listed, the Erin Davis referenced to, is most likely a reporter with WFSA television out of Montgomery. He has reported on this trial in the recent past.

This is curious for sure. Different possibilities of what is going on here and not enough information on my part to determine what at this time.

I will keep you posted my friends if I see anything develop further.
 
Last edited:
Just for clarification, there is a male anchor reporter at WSFA named Judd Davis as well as his wife, another reporter named Bethany Davis but no male Erin Davis (WSFA is not only local for me but also I have a brother who works there).
 
Catmommy said:
If it is the Erin Davis from WSFA she is an " Alabama political reporter" who joined in 2021. The document specifies "Mr Erin Davis". This must be someone else.
Click to expand...

Good point. I was not familiar with Ms. Davis. I took it at face value on the motion. My faux pas. I should know better considering the source. My apologies.

But It sure wouldn’t be the first stumbling on the part of the defense’s most excellent pursuit of discovery either would it? (Insert Friday night smirk here)

Thank you for the good eye and pursuit Catmommy
 
Last edited:
Good Morning everyone :)

Websleuths is fact based. Members who have read The Rules know that rumors are not allowed and that if something is stated as fact, there must be a link to MSM, LE, or another approved source to support what is being stated. If there is no link, it is considered rumor and such rumor posts get removed.

Please post in accordance with Websleuths TOS (aka The Rules) linked in my signature and found here.
 
Sillybilly said:
Good Morning everyone :)

Websleuths is fact based. Members who have read The Rules know that rumors are not allowed and that if something is stated as fact, there must be a link to MSM, LE, or another approved source to support what is being stated. If there is no link, it is considered rumor and such rumor posts get removed.

Please post in accordance with Websleuths TOS (aka The Rules) linked in my signature and found here.
Click to expand...

Thank you!
 
Blacklist said:
ok. I have listened to this. The audio is poor except for attorney Harrison’s bellowing which I recognize. Listening to what I could understand I can render the opinion that the recording is authentic as far as it being of the hearing held on 1/6/2022


Is it legal? It is fringe, but probably it is legal because the hearing was apparently open to the public even on a limited basis. It was a bit in poor taste in my opinion and hopefully was not orchestrated by any parties to the case. That could influence future hearings or worse. We will see. The gag order that Judge Filmore put into place covers the attorneys in the matter (actually all officers of the court). But he was careful to not to extend it further.

From what I heard there was nothing said that we did not already know. Judge Filmore took their oral arguments under advisement and subsequently issued the order requiring evidence to be presented to have review in chamber (but on the record always) prior to presentation in open court. I am confident he will scrutinize the witness list and latitude of questioning also.

The defense wants to introduce some unspecified hearsay evidence that they feel falls under one of the exceptions that allow it to be admissible. I expected this and am fairly confident where that is leading. Whether it gets the green flag is up in the air for the time.

Time will tell my friends. We will not be satisfied with a conviction or acquittal only, we shall require justice
Click to expand...

I always get concerned about trial by jury, especially when a person reads comments by the public underneath a hearing such as this one. There is so much bias by individuals, depending on their background and a multitude of other factors that come into play other than fairness to both sides. However, judges up here in my 'neck of the woods' in my BC region seem to be very lenient, so it is hard to determine which is better to be determined by. I think in this case the case being decided by a judge may be preferable IMO. I truly hope for justice in this case, nothing less!
 
Sillybilly said:
Good Morning everyone :)

Websleuths is fact based. Members who have read The Rules know that rumors are not allowed and that if something is stated as fact, there must be a link to MSM, LE, or another approved source to support what is being stated. If there is no link, it is considered rumor and such rumor posts get removed.

Please post in accordance with Websleuths TOS (aka The Rules) linked in my signature and found here.
Click to expand...

Thank you.
 
Andreee said:
I always get concerned about trial by jury, especially when a person reads comments by the public underneath a hearing such as this one. There is so much bias by individuals, depending on their background and a multitude of other factors that come into play other than fairness to both sides. However, judges up here in my 'neck of the woods' in my BC region seem to be very lenient, so it is hard to determine which is better to be determined by. I think in this case the case being decided by a judge may be preferable IMO. I truly hope for justice in this case, nothing less!
Click to expand...

Here is a legal factoid. Just side knowledge to think about. Prior to 2016 Florida, Delaware and Alabama were the only three states that allowed judicial override of a jury recommendation of a sentence of life without parole upward to the death penalty. After 2016, Alabama is basically the only outlier on this sentencing method. Pretty ominous yes?
The current SCOTUS has not addressed this sentencing scheme head on for years, but demurred whenever possible. The 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals gets 6th amendment appeals on the issue more than occasionally out of Alabama

Thank you for your support friend.
 
Last edited:
Blacklist said:
Here is a legal factoid. Just side knowledge to think about. Prior to 2016 Florida, Delaware and Alabama were the only three states that allowed judicial override of a jury recommendation of a sentence of life without parole upward to the death penalty. After 2016, Alabama is basically the only outlier on this sentencing method. Pretty ominous yes?
The current SCOTUS has not addressed this sentencing scheme head on for years, but demurred whenever possible. The 11th Federal Circuit Court of Appeals gets 6th amendment appeals on the issue more than occasionally out of Alabama

Thank you for your support friend.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this information. I am in Canada so we are part of the Commonwealth and thus our judicial rules basically are in sync with Britain.
 
Good Saturday evening friends. Hoping all is well.
On March 1st I received the following case file alerts on my system:
Date : 3/1/2022 8:35:59 AM
Comments : SCAN - FILED 3/1/2022 - MOTION
Date : 3/1/2022 8:37:12 AM
Comments : SCAN - FILED 3/1/2022 - EX PARTE ORDER
Date : 3/1/2022 8:37:49 AM
Comments : SCAN - FILED 3/1/2022 - SUBPOENA REQUEST

As of this writing I cannot see anything on Alacourt relating to the above filings. I refrained posting to allow for any delays with the Alacourt system.
With this in mind I can only present assumptions from experience.

It is my thought that that the motion mentioned in the first filing is a sealing request. That would explain the current the lack of visibility within the electronic records.

The second and third filings are connected as they are 1. A request to examine a person, persons, organization and/or evidence. Even if just on a pre-trial/investigative basis. 2. The Ex Parte portion indicates that the filing party desires to get this in front of the court (Judge) for review without notice or scrutiny of the particulars of the request to other parties (or public) in the case (at this point in time)

Although this may seem quite unusual and suspect, please do not take it as anything improper by the party filing these requests/ proposed orders. In fact, they can be protective in nature if unassociated parties are involved and are not pertinent to the case . If it becomes substantive to the case we will see what this is in due time. If not, the judge may leave it sealed and deny the order and subpoena.

It does sound suspenseful, but this is no “Perry Mason moment”. I could be wrong, but I suspect this is a defense filing. Anything more than that I would be less than professional if I speculated.

Of course if anything changes I will attempt to inform you in a prompt manner.
Bless you and have a great weekend
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 93 more.
Total: 3,357 (members: 94, guests: 3,263)

Online statistics

Members online
94
Guests online
3,263
Total visitors
3,357
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,664
Messages
18,144,772
Members
231,476
Latest member
ceciliaesquivel2000@yahoo
Back
Top