GUILTY AR - Beverly Carter, 49, Little Rock, 25 Sep 2014 - # 9

[NWLady]

IMO, I still find it very difficult to believe that CL was at "clinicals" the night Beverly was kidnapped. Why do I have such a hard time believing this? Well, because she is charged with the same charges that AL is - Capital Murder and Kidnapping. She is not charged with any lesser charges that might (IMO) show/insinuate that she only participated before and/or after but rather DURING the kidnapping and murder. PLUS, she is the one charged with theft by receiving (believed to be because of having Beverly's phone), but yet AL is not charged with anything directly related to the phone (at least not to our knowledge). But then again, I guess/think it may be possible that a person can be charged with Capital Murder and Kidnapping because (for example only) she is the one that made the call to arrange the appointment to view the house. Is that a possibility? I don't know? Thoughts anyone?

But then again, I think to myself, if she wasn't at "clinicals" the night Beverly was kidnapped, wouldn't someone have shouted from the rooftops - Hey! She was not at clinicals - she is lying, I know because I am in same clinicals as her, and yada yada yada. Or maybe there are other students and/or instructors/teachers that know she wasn't but they do not want to come forward and say so as it's possible they have been instructed by LE not to and/or they are fearful (which is understandable too). Anyone?

 

[Coquette]

But I have made my own mind up to one thing and that being, I would not want to be involved in helping someone in any way, shape or form who has been charged with a crime as serious as Capital Murder and Kidnapping with a time line or anything else related to those charges, as interestingly enough, from what I understand from reading, accessory after the fact is not a charge to take lightly either! JMO, MOO, etc

Indeed. One wonders what an eager DA might make of a *possible* accessory after the fact who *may* have helped to *potentially* fabricate a timeline and create an *alleged* alibi and was very, very public about it. I'd suspect a subpoena to testify might be in order. That is, of course, *if* something like this ever took place. MOO.

 

[Tallula.Belle]

Has it ever been said if BC car keys were found? I just know from defense classes they tell you to keep your keys in hand and press the panic button. I wonder if she had been able to do that if it could have helped in any way.

 

[arkansasmimi]

IMO, I still find it very difficult to believe that CL was at "clinicals" the night Beverly was kidnapped. Why do I have such a hard time believing this? Well, because she is charged with the same charges that AL is - Capital Murder and Kidnapping. She is not charged with any lesser charges that might (IMO) show/insinuate that she only participated before and/or after but rather DURING the kidnapping and murder. PLUS, she is the one charged with theft by receiving (believed to be because of having Beverly's phone), but yet AL is not charged with anything directly related to the phone (at least not to our knowledge). But then again, I guess/think it may be possible that a person can be charged with Capital Murder and Kidnapping because (for example only) she is the one that made the call to arrange the appointment to view the house. Is that a possibility? I don't know? Thoughts anyone?

But then again, I think to myself, if she wasn't at "clinicals" the night Beverly was kidnapped, wouldn't someone have shouted from the rooftops - Hey! She was not at clinicals - she is lying, I know because I am in same clinicals as her, and yada yada yada. Or maybe there are other students and/or instructors/teachers that know she wasn't but they do not want to come forward and say so as it's possible they have been instructed by LE not to and/or they are fearful (which is understandable too). Anyone?

Don't forget that AL was charged with Robbery too, initially and per court records it was bound over to Circuit Court. (as was CL charge of Theft by Rec)
Violations

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 1 Citation#: Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-11-102 KIDNAPPING; FY Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: FY CLASS Y FELONY
Violation Date: 29-SEP-14
Violation Time:

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 2 Citation#: 14-22015 Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-10-101 CAPITAL MURDER; FY Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: FY CLASS Y FELONY
Violation Date: 30-SEP-14
Violation Time:

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 3 Citation#: 14-22015 Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-12-102 ROBBERY; FB Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: FB CLASS B FELONY
Violation Date: 30-SEP-14
Violation Time:

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 4 Citation#: 14-22015 Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-73-103 POSSESS FIREARMS BY CERTAIN PERSONS; MA Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: MA CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
Violation Date: 30-SEP-14
Violation Time:

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 5 Citation#: 14-22015 Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-73-103 POSSESS FIREARMS BY CERTAIN PERSONS; FD Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: FD CLASS D FELONY
Violation Date: 30-SEP-14
Violation Time:

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 6 Citation#: 14-22015 Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-73-103 POSSESS FIREARMS BY CERTAIN PERSONS; FD Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: FD CLASS D FELONY
Violation Date: 30-SEP-14
Violation Time:

LEWIS, ARRON MICHAEL


Violation: 7 Citation#: 14-22015 Age at Violation: 33 Plea: 30-SEP-14 NOT GUILTY
5-73-103 POSSESS FIREARMS BY CERTAIN PERSONS; FD Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: FD CLASS D FELONY
Violation Date: 30-SEP-14
Violation Time:

*Last entry on this case in the District Court >
12/01/2014
09:00 AM REVIEW HEARING HELD
Entry: 12-1-14...FILED DIRECT

~~~~
Crystal Hope Lowery
Case ID: PCS-14-6992 - STATE V CRYSTAL HOPE LOWERY
Filing Date: Monday , September 29th, 2014
Court: 60 - PULASKI
Location: PC - PULASKI COUNTY DISTRICT COURT
Type: WO - COUNTY ARREST WARRANT
Status: HEARING - HEARING HELD

Violation: 1 Citation#: Age at Violation: 41 Plea:
5-36-106(e)(4) THEFT BY RECEIVING <= $1,000; MA Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: MA CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
Violation Date: 29-SEP-14
Violation Time:

**curious what filed direct means** So CL had a video arraignment on the TBR case on 12/1/2014 and was in court on 12/3/2014 for the formal charges, correct?

12/01/2014
08:30 AM VIDEO ARGNMT HEARING HELD
Entry: JL/12-1-14...FILED DIRECT

 

[Tallula.Belle]

I find the silence interesting after the discovery of the unmentionable website activity. There were pages and pages of protests to CL's character and now there is NOTHING. I'm curious as to VI's thoughts on this discovery - but I've heard nothing. Interesting............

The VIs left don't post that often. I do see when they are ask direct questions they reply. So you might want to direct a question to them.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Interesting article on another case here at WS. Looks like it just ended, in a Guilty verdict. Appears some of his online post came into trial


http://www.thedailystar.com/news/lo...cle_20adca6a-e892-5e8a-9503-4e9da37658e5.html
Murder trial left region shocked

&#8220;The husband always does it.&#8221;

When he typed those words the night of Feb. 23, 2013, while engaging in a flirtatious exchange of Facebook instant messages with a woman he had never met, there is no indication that Ganesh &#8220;Remy&#8221; Ramsaran, then of South New Berlin, knew they could spring back at him in a court of law in 2014.

The online conversation had taken place a little more than two months after Remy Ramsaran reported to police that his 36-year-old wife, Jennifer, had mysteriously vanished after going Christmas shopping in December 2012.

A transcript of that Facebook conversation surfaced as prosecution evidence in the Chenango County Courthouse in September. Taking the stand in his own defense, Ramsaran, by now indicted on a charge of intentional murder, was grilled by District Attorney Joseph McBride, about his insistence that he had nothing to do with the violent death of his wife, the mother of the couple&#8217;s three children. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...*Trial-con-t-9-17-14*&p=11347418#post11347418

 

[TTF14]

Just remember, we have the right as whether to give value to what a VI states. The only thing, as I understand as far as a Verified Insider, verified who they say they are. Not that what they state is factual. (IMA please correct if I misspoke). Reading back over the old threads, my take is not much first hand knowledge but what CL told someone or someone else telling VI#1. I weigh that on what has been released in legal docs and media reports. JMHO

Good post, and you verbalized what I was thinking after reading your post about whether or not CL was at clinicals that night. It is my understanding that once verified, VIs do not have to provide links. IIRC, our info. that CL was at clinicals that night was based on our VI hearing it first-hand from CL, and also from someone else who heard the same thing (or maybe saw her there??). I tend to believe that she indeed was at clinicals that night (if for no reason that others would have spoke up by now saying she was not, as you theorized). It is for this reason, and this reason only, that I expect her charges might be lessened at some point. (Please note I said lessened, not dropped....I am not defending CL).

But, back to your point. It is up to us as individuals if we want to believe a VI or not, and which ones we want to believe, and how much of what they say. Arguing, attacking, belittling, mocking VIs after they've gone through the vetting process and put themselves out there really does nobody any good. (And yes, in my opinion, this has happened on this board, not directing this comment to you directly.)

This is all my opinion and in the defense of nobody.

 

[Tallula.Belle]

CL is taken in for questioning at the ATM on Monday 9/29. *AL states this in his Fed Filing and Butler stated this.
On court docket it shows the Theft by Rec viol date is 9/29...

Violation: 1 Citation#: Age at Violation: 41 Plea:
5-36-106(e)(4) THEFT BY RECEIVING <= $1,000; MA Disp:01-DEC-14 BOUND OVER TO CIRCUIT COURT
Level: MA CLASS A MISDEMEANOR
Violation Date: 29-SEP-14

10/09/2014
09:13 AM ARREST WARRANT SERVED

10/09/2014
09:13 AM PLEA & ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULED

10/17/2014
01:13 PM ENTRY OF APPEARANCE HOLIMAN, RICHARD E

On 10/9 it shows that Plea & Arraignment was scheduled. We don't know the date that the P&A was scheduled for. We do know that per this comment from Rick Holiman, after CL was arrested "Holliman said he's been Lowery's attorney since about 10 days after Carter's body was found. Still, he called her arrest "a surprise." . That would coincide with the 10/9 date. << Date that the court docket says MISDEMEANOR warrant was served.
http://www.thv11.com/story/news/loc...-arkansas-realtor-pleads-not-guilty/18235889/

FH was all a buzz that the filing had been made, on the Theft by Receiving charge. That was posted right away.

This ArkDemGaz article states that LEO started surveillance of AL on Sunday Morning 9/28.. We don't know yet, from where they had been watching AL..."Investigators began conducting surveillance on Lewis about 7 a.m. Sept. 28, he said. As searchers continued looking for Carter that Sunday, Lewis crashed his car about 10 a.m. near 8727 Jacksonville-Cato Road in Sherwood." Wonder what happened, if anything those 3 hrs prior to AL wrecking... http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ing-realtor-3-ARREST!&p=11054346#post11054346


I know VI Butler & NJ and I respect their comments, that CL/AL home was searched on Sunday 9/28. I want to believe that they did, if nothing else to make sure BC wasn't in the house. The Kidnapping warrant for AL was signed off on abt 430pm on Sunday 9/28.

I can not find any news media saying the house was searched on Sunday(very possible I have overlooked) but the only thing I can find is on Monday, the neighbor (who only wanted to give initials to one station yet gave name to another) said the LEO took an envelope out of the trash at AL/CL home. I have seen where it was said by neighbors that CL came home to get change of clothing on Sunday.. by neighbors. Neighbors were on high alert on Sunday. If LEO had searched the home on Sunday, wouldn't that have been something for the media to report? They were trying to hurry and be the first to get out anything. Here is where I found the info about the envelope. http://www.thv11.com/story/news/loc...rter-realtor-kidnapping-arron-lewis/16449117/ This was on Monday Sept 29th.

Is it possible that LEO only took CL in on Monday 9/29 to question her and it was thought by TKL that she had been arrested? and they searched the home and found the "whatever it is" that the Theft by Receiving charge is about. Holiman didn't go on record of being CL attorney til the afternoon of 10/17. The date CL was served with the emer custody paperwork. So much happened and so quick and CL wasn't arrested for a month.. is it possible that some dates could be confused as to when home searched and CL was arrested? I mean no disrespect just trying to figure out in my head, lol if that's possible. Provided links, other than that, jmho

Why would they have handcuffed her in front of her daughter and charged her with TBR if she wasn't arrested?

 

[Tallula.Belle]

Good post, and you verbalized what I was thinking after reading your post about whether or not CL was at clinicals that night. It is my understanding that once verified, VIs do not have to provide links. IIRC, our info. that CL was at clinicals that night was based on our VI hearing it first-hand from CL, and also from someone else who heard the same thing (or maybe saw her there??). I tend to believe that she indeed was at clinicals that night (if for no reason that others would have spoke up by now saying she was not, as you theorized). It is for this reason, and this reason only, that I expect her charges might be lessened at some point. (Please note I said lessened, not dropped....I am not defending CL).

But, back to your point. It is up to us as individuals if we want to believe a VI or not, and which ones we want to believe, and how much of what they say. Arguing, attacking, belittling, mocking VIs after they've gone through the vetting process and put themselves out there really does nobody any good. (And yes, in my opinion, this has happened on this board, not directing this comment to you directly.)

This is all my opinion and in the defense of nobody.

Couldn't have said it better. Thank you.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Good post, and you verbalized what I was thinking after reading your post about whether or not CL was at clinicals that night. It is my understanding that once verified, VIs do not have to provide links. IIRC, our info. that CL was at clinicals that night was based on our VI hearing it first-hand from CL, and also from someone else who heard the same thing (or maybe saw her there??). I tend to believe that she indeed was at clinicals that night (if for no reason that others would have spoke up by now saying she was not, as you theorized). It is for this reason, and this reason only, that I expect her charges might be lessened at some point. (Please note I said lessened, not dropped....I am not defending CL).

But, back to your point. It is up to us as individuals if we want to believe a VI or not, and which ones we want to believe, and how much of what they say. Arguing, attacking, belittling, mocking VIs after they've gone through the vetting process and put themselves out there really does nobody any good. (And yes, in my opinion, this has happened on this board, not directing this comment to you directly.)

This is all my opinion and in the defense of nobody.

Respectfully, I think you have me confused with another post. NWLady was who was giving her thoughts on whether CL was in clinicals on Thurs night I did post the comment you quoted me in, that was in ref to the clinical post http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...sing-realtor-9-ARREST&p=11364564#post11364564

I respect your opinion to whether CL was at clinicals that night or not. Most likely tho, the reason we have not heard from any witness is because the case is sealed. So the fact that no one has or hasn't came forth on that, personally means nothing to me. JMHO, but personally I consider it hearsay what someone else told VI#1. Just because someone told VI#1 something does not make it true. We have seen cases already where what was told that CL supposedly said and what is in court docs to be different. Every time there is a discrepancy, its someone else fault.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Why would they have handcuffed her in front of her daughter and charged her with TBR if she wasn't arrested?

I am going by court docs. My understandings are the same as this post... As for why they handcuffed CL, or anything else did or didn't I have no idea.

11/2/2014
I get it now. I had not thought of it that way. It is just that her charge for stealing the phone was dated at the same time AL arrest warrant was. Or at least it was that day before they found her body. I wonder why they didn't use the warrant and arrest her the day (Monday) they had her in for questioning. She was not arrest for that until several days later. Just so odd. Would it really take from Thursday to Monday for them to research BC's phone pings?

I just looked and she was not arrested until 10/9/14 for that charge and the warrant was issued on 9/29/14. Strange they waited 10 days to arrest her when they had her right there for questioning. I guess they had their reasons. http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...ing-realtor-4-ARREST!&p=11158123#post11158123

 

[arkansasmimi]

Search Warrants
In order to avoid illegally searching or seizing the property of a suspect, law enforcement personnel typically obtain search warrants. To obtain a search warrant, law enforcement must show probable cause, must support the showing by oath or affirmation, and must describe in particularity the place they will search and the items they will seize. A judge can find probable cause only be examining the totality of the circumstances. Exceptions to the warrant requirement exist, however. These exceptions include searches made at or near the border; a search following a lawful arrest; a stop-and-frisk arrest; where the seized items are in plain view; where the articles are in an automobile; where the private individual makes the search; and under exigent circumstances, where the officer has probable cause for a search to find a crime or evidence relating to a crime.

Reasonable Suspicion

Reasonable suspicion is a standard used in criminal procedure. It is looser than probable cause. Reasonable suspicion is sufficient to justify brief stops and detentions, but not enough to justify a full search. When determining reasonable suspicion, courts consider the events leading up to the brief stop and a decide whether these facts, viewed from the standpoint of an objectively reasonable police officer, amount to reasonable suspicion.

Courts look at the totality of the circumstances of each case to see whether the officer has a particularized and objective basis for suspecting legal wrongdoing.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/reasonable_suspicion


JMHO, that CL was detained on Monday 9/29/2014 on Probable Suspicion... which lead to the search warrant for her home ~ its also possible she possibly gave them permission to search her home.

In Terry v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a person can be stopped and briefly detained by a police officer based on a reasonable suspicion of involvement in a punishable crime. If the officer has reasonable suspicion, the officer may perform a search of the person's outer garments for weapons. Such a detention does not violate the Fourth Amendment prohibition on unreasonable searches and seizure, though it must be brief. Reasonable suspicion does not provide grounds for arrest; however, an arrest can be made if facts discovered during the detention provide probable cause that the suspect has committed a crime.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_suspicion

Just my opinion..

 

[imamaze]

Closed for review... :sigh:

 

[imamaze]

Ok, I'm opening it back up. I'm not even going to bother saying why it was closed. You all know the rules here. Knock it off!

 

[arkansasboy]

There will most likely be a lot of things come out in future that will be shocking. Always happens in most cases.

 

[TTF14]

Respectfully, I think you have me confused with another post. NWLady was who was giving her thoughts on whether CL was in clinicals on Thurs night I did post the comment you quoted me in, that was in ref to the clinical post http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...sing-realtor-9-ARREST&p=11364564#post11364564

I respect your opinion to whether CL was at clinicals that night or not. Most likely tho, the reason we have not heard from any witness is because the case is sealed. So the fact that no one has or hasn't came forth on that, personally means nothing to me. JMHO, but personally I consider it hearsay what someone else told VI#1. Just because someone told VI#1 something does not make it true. We have seen cases already where what was told that CL supposedly said and what is in court docs to be different. Every time there is a discrepancy, its someone else fault.

I did confuse you with NWLady! Sorry .

 

[Koshka]

nevermind.

 

[concernedmother]

There will most likely be a lot of things come out in future that will be shocking. Always happens in most cases.

Ive been following these cases for several years now. I think I cant be shocked any more. Wrong. I continue to be shocked at some of the things people do. I dont think there is any way to ever understand it. I see this is your first post. Welcome !

 

[southsleuth]

There will most likely be a lot of things come out in future that will be shocking. Always happens in most cases.

If it goes to trial (no plead-out) I'll bet the same.

 

[concernedmother]

At the Feb 26th hearing I wonder if they will set a trial date or is it too soon for that? I think it will start toward the end of the year but that's jmo. I dont know for sure.