GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - # 6

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
sunflowerchick said:
This last line of discussion has me thinking... CL willingly talked to the police several times and willingly gave them her phone and password? Either she is really dumb, really innocent, or really psychotic to the point of believing she would never get caught.

Nojustice or Butler, did either of you ever discuss with CL what the LE questioning was about? If you can't say, I understand.
Click to expand...


Yes she told me what the LE questioning was about.
 
sunflowerchick said:
This last line of discussion has me thinking... CL willingly talked to the police several times and willingly gave them her phone and password? Either she is really dumb, really innocent, or really psychotic to the point of believing she would never get caught.

Nojustice or Butler, did either of you ever discuss with CL what the LE questioning was about? If you can't say, I understand.
Click to expand...

I wonder if she deleted everything from her phone thinking that would be it and nothing could be found by LE. Many criminals have done that.
 
I don't know what LE asked her. NJ could you elaborate? We don't know FOR SURE that it was evidence from the phone that linked crystal to the crime. We have assumed that.... But don't know for sure. I can't believe she didn't lawyer up when she was arrested the first time for the phone. I can guarantee you that if a missing/dead woman's phone was found in my house weather I was innocent or guilty (especially if I was innocent) I'd be demanding a lawyer.
 
Butler321 said:
I don't know what LE asked her. NJ could you elaborate? We don't know FOR SURE that it was evidence from the phone that linked crystal to the crime. We have assumed that.... But don't know for sure. I can't believe she didn't lawyer up when she was arrested the first time for the phone. I can guarantee you that if a missing/dead woman's phone was found in my house weather I was innocent or guilty (especially if I was innocent) I'd be demanding a lawyer.
Click to expand...

Me too and I dont judge their guilt or innocence because they lawyered up. It just seems like the smart thing to do.
 
Butler321 said:
I don't know what LE asked her. NJ could you elaborate? We don't know FOR SURE that it was evidence from the phone that linked crystal to the crime. We have assumed that.... But don't know for sure. I can't believe she didn't lawyer up when she was arrested the first time for the phone. I can guarantee you that if a missing/dead woman's phone was found in my house weather I was innocent or guilty (especially if I was innocent) I'd be demanding a lawyer.
Click to expand...


She did get a lawyer after she was charged with theft by receiving. I agree I would have got one that night before answering questions. I guess she thought she had nothing to hide so she trusted talking to LE would be enough. I know she went back to LE on her own freely without them asking her to come several times trying to get her phone back and make sure she had cooperated fully. Obviously that was not enough.
 
nojusticenusa said:
She did get a lawyer after she was charged with theft by receiving. I agree I would have got one that night before answering questions. I guess she thought she had nothing to hide so she trusted talking to LE would be enough. I know she went back to LE on her own freely without them asking her to come several times trying to get her phone back and make sure she had cooperated fully. Obviously that was not enough.
Click to expand...
She got a lawyer after the fact. But it is my understanding that she spoke with LE all day Monday without an attorney present.
 
nojusticenusa said:
She did get a lawyer after she was charged with theft by receiving. I agree I would have got one that night before answering questions. I guess she thought she had nothing to hide so she trusted talking to LE would be enough. I know she went back to LE on her own freely without them asking her to come several times trying to get her phone back and make sure she had cooperated fully. Obviously that was not enough.
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "obviously that was not enough." ??
 
nojusticenusa said:
Yes she told me what the LE questioning was about.
Click to expand...

If you believe she was truthful with you about that and you still support her innocence to any extent, then I may lean that direction as well. It follows the same thing we discuss here on other threads. I have frequently seen it said when people "lawyer up" that they must have something to hide. But when people don't, we are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, it seems that CL was cooperating with LE. She doesn't seem to me to be a stupid person and I think if she felt she had something to hide, she would have "lawyered up". Didn't she have a lawyer she was working with anyway? I don't know what to think.
 
sunflowerchick said:
If you believe she was truthful with you about that and you still support her innocence to any extent, then I may lean that direction as well. It follows the same thing we discuss here on other threads. I have frequently seen it said when people "lawyer up" that they must have something to hide. But when people don't, we are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, it seems that CL was cooperating with LE. She doesn't seem to me to be a stupid person and I think if she felt she had something to hide, she would have "lawyered up". Didn't she have a lawyer she was working with anyway? I don't know what to think.
Click to expand...

They told her they knew she was at clinicals when kidnapping happened because they checked her phone pings. They asked for the phone and password and she gave it. They took AL's phone but he refused to give them the password. She cooperated with them on timeline of where she was all weekend. I don't know everything they asked her but that was the bulk of what she told me.
 
NJ the only reason they charged her with theft by receiving was so they could have some leverage over her. Has nothing to do with her cooperating or not.

I would LOVE for her to be innocent of all charges. I would love nothing more than for her to be the absolute best mother in the world for her children.... But what I want vs being realistic about the situation is two different things.
 
Butler321 said:
NJ the only reason they charged her with theft by receiving was so they could have some leverage over her. Has nothing to do with her cooperating or not.

I would LOVE for her to be innocent of all charges. I would love nothing more than for her to be the absolute best mother in the world for her children.... But what I want vs being realistic about the situation is two different things.
Click to expand...

They told her they charged her so they could have leverage over her and that they would be dropping those charges later. They also told her they were going to get her charged. She didn't believe them because she knew she was not involved. Yet they did end up charging her.

Being realistic she could end up beating this or she could end up with life in prison or worse yet death row. We don't know yet because nobody has released any evidence to say what they have accused her with.
 
Is it possible to arrest and charge someone while still gathering evidence? Or do you need to show all the evidence to get them charged? I don't know how it all works.
 
Yes the LE make mistakes. Yes innocent people have been convicted of crimes.... These things happen. But I just have a hard time believing that LE would charge her with capital murder without some strong evidence.
 
sunflowerchick said:
If you believe she was truthful with you about that and you still support her innocence to any extent, then I may lean that direction as well. It follows the same thing we discuss here on other threads. I have frequently seen it said when people "lawyer up" that they must have something to hide. But when people don't, we are more likely to give them the benefit of the doubt.

In this case, it seems that CL was cooperating with LE. She doesn't seem to me to be a stupid person and I think if she felt she had something to hide, she would have "lawyered up". Didn't she have a lawyer she was working with anyway? I don't know what to think.
Click to expand...

It really irks me when people assume that somebody is guilty or that they have something to hide if they lawyer up. There's plenty of good reasons for having a lawyer present when speaking to police, even when you have nothing to hide.

There's a ton of guilty people that have spoken to the police without a lawyer present, but do we assume they're innocent and have nothing to hide because they didn't ask for a lawyer? Of course not!

This was not directed towards anybody in this thread, just me ranting about the subject.
 
sunflowerchick said:
Is it possible to arrest and charge someone while still gathering evidence? Or do you need to show all the evidence to get them charged? I don't know how it all works.
Click to expand...


I'm sure they had to give some sort of evidence to the judge to get him to sign an arrest warrant, especially for a charge of this magnitude.
 
Butler321 said:
Yes the LE make mistakes. Yes innocent people have been convicted of crimes.... These things happen. But I just have a hard time believing that LE would charge her with capital murder without some strong evidence.
Click to expand...

I agree it's hard to believe. It's also hard for me to believe how many people spend many years in jail or on death row only to be found totally innocent later. It can happen. Until we see the evidence of what they say CL has done we are all just "pissing in the wind".
 
They have evidence or they wouldnt have put these charges on her. If they thought they didnt have enough to convict they would have charged her with lesser charges. Granted some of the evidence may be explained away. But if its something like her prints on the duct tape there is no way to explain that away.
 
concernedmother said:
They have evidence or they wouldnt have put these charges on her. If they thought they didnt have enough to convict they would have charged her with lesser charges. Granted some of the evidence may be explained away. But if its something like her prints on the duct tape there is no way to explain that away.
Click to expand...


I've always heard that LE will overcharge hoping to get guilty to a lesser charge. I do agree if there is prints on duct tape then that can't be explained away. At that point I would have to ask myself who am I supporting here. Doesn't mean I would stop being her friend but my support would certainly change from being outspoken in her defense to just being a friend to someone who made a terrible choice and deserves to be punished.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 126 more.
Total: 3,339 (members: 127, guests: 3,212)

Online statistics

Members online
127
Guests online
3,212
Total visitors
3,339
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,201
Messages
18,168,907
Members
232,130
Latest member
Michelle90
Back
Top