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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
nojusticenusa said:
Now AL and CL will be able to see what the evidence is against them whereas before they and their attorneys were unable to see it because they were not officially charged or at least that was my basic understanding of how it works.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. In the Heather Elvis case, the defendants attorneys have filed motions to turn over evidence. There are gag orders in that case, so I don't know all the details. I read on this thread there are gag orders on this case, so it may work out very similar.

They were arrested at the end of February and as of October, were still asking for evidence.
 
beaglebrd said:
There's nothing much new in the report from the Democrat-Gazette Arkansas' statewide newspaper. They did say they used BC's phone and AL's phone tracking to find her body, but said they don't want to give details on how they did that. And they stated that the family of BC "knows everything" about the case. The rest they want to keep to themselves to not taint the jury pool. It's copyrighted and only available by subscription so I don't know if it's okay to share the story here. That's just the couple of things I took from it.
Click to expand...

From talks with a family member last week, I can confirm that. However, no details were shared with me except to say that the cheer place has no connection with what happened. Again, that was direct info from the family.
 
imamaze said:
Hi ConnectZDots!

Public records are off limits as far as friends and family are concerned. Anything in main stream media and from law enforcement can be discussed about all of them, but on in the context of what has been reported. BC, AL, and CL can be sleuthed and discussed. You must provide links to back up what you are saying about all of them. If it can't be linked to it can't be discussed.

Hope this helps, if you do have any other questions you can always pm me.

Ima
Click to expand...

Thanks, imamaze. That does help. I'm sure I will have more questions but that's a good start! We see friends and family discussed quite a bit ...so I guess there's a fine line between a mention with conjecture and a full on sleuthing. ;)
 
murrikan said:
From talks with a family member last week, I can confirm that. However, no details were shared with me except to say that the cheer place has no connection with what happened. Again, that was direct info from the family.
Click to expand...

It doesn't seem right to come here and claim to talk to the family and say that the cheer place has no connection without something to back that up. So then, what is the connection? I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but you could be the cheer place owner trying to look better. I can't tell you about something someone sleuthed regarding the landlord for CL because that's off limits. Why would the family only share that one piece of information with you?
 
If the rule is that there must be links to back up what is being said about BC, AL or CL then how it is people who say they know BC or CL are allowed to come on and post whatever they like as fact without any links to back up their claims? I am confused by this and mean no disrespect to those speaking truthfully about their interactions with said people, but for me those posts still fall under speculation or heresay as we have no way of confirming what is said as fact.

Mods?
 
Trying to still figure out a motive and we know this was premeditated. We know they took her phone. Assuming it was an iphone which arent cheap. Has anyone even heard any rumors if her wedding ring or any jewelry was taken? Its just hard to believe robbery was the motive but its the only thing we have heard close enough to go on. And for what? An iphone? It seems so senseless but people do stupid things. I had a cousin murdered years ago. It was a for hire and the payoff was each of the 2 guys got a motorcycle.
 
Killed in the act of kidnapping or upon fleeing from it?

Is that what it said?
 
I still believe she was taken to their house. Its jmo but I think that is where she was being held against her will and I think that is where CL enters the picture.
 
concernedmother said:
Oh this is good. Hugs to you for finding this. Look at felony count 2. There is our motive. They HELD her for ransom or reward. Bingo.
Click to expand...

I always assumed this to be the case. I still think someone may have contracted them to do this, but as they are the only two who have been charged, it seems LE believes it was just the two of them.

Greed is a very ugly thing. You have to be entirely lacking in integrity and have a broken moral compass to do such a thing.
 
Just thinking here. We dont know if Carters were contacted about Beverly and that may be why LE operated under the assumption that Beverly Carter was being held somewhere. That could be why they were asking people the evening before she was found to look in sheds, anywhere someone could be held. It wouldnt surprise me that they were contacted. This is making more sense now.
 
concernedmother said:
Just thinking here. We dont know if Carters were contacted about Beverly and that may be why LE operated under the assumption that Beverly Carter was being held somewhere. That could be why they were asking people the evening before she was found to look in sheds, anywhere someone could be held. It wouldnt surprise me that they were contacted. This is making more sense now.
Click to expand...

Bingo. I couldn't agree more.
 
I would not be surprised to find Beverly was killed on Sunday night or early Monday morning when AL started freaking out and driving recklessly etc after realizing he just murdered someone. That would fall into his statement "I havent seen her for 2 days."
 
And if CL helped him hold Beverly against her will she would be charged with kidnapping. And if a murder resulted as part of a felony crime she would be charged with that murder too. jmo
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 146 more.
Total: 3,333 (members: 147, guests: 3,186)

Online statistics

Members online
147
Guests online
3,186
Total visitors
3,333
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,612
Messages
17,971,794
Members
228,844
Latest member
SoCal Greg
Back
Top