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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mine is there is more to the story than we have been told over the years.
 
actually my guess is if you were living in a small town like Ozark the night of the cities most notorious murder, you probably would have an idea what you were doing.

Maybe back then, but not today.
 
Did he say that CM and JB and Tracie knew one another?

I find it interesting that they (wife, lawyer) will not say where CM was on July 31, 1999.
deleted
 
Last edited:
DNA does NOT prove 2 people knew each other. It proves two people came into contact with each other.

If you are killed by a stranger and they leave their DNA on you, does that mean they “knew you”?? Certainly not.

It’s a ridiculous statement.
 
DNA does NOT prove 2 people knew each other. It proves two people came into contact with each other.

If you are killed by a stranger and they leave their DNA on you, does that mean they “knew you”?? Certainly not.

It’s a ridiculous statement.
You clearly don’t understand the statement then. They obviously had some kind of a relationship. It will all come out soon enough.
 
You clearly don’t understand the statement then. They obviously had some kind of a relationship. It will all come out soon enough.

I understand very clearly....I have 2 degrees.

The simple fact of DNA being on someone else does not prove a relationship. Again it only proves someone came in contact with an object or person.

Another example ....we don’t know each other.... if I physically bump into you at a store and a strand of my hair falls onto your clothes, do I know you?? Again, No. My hair, which contains DNA, simply fell on your clothes.
 
DNA does NOT prove 2 people knew each other. It proves two people came into contact with each other.

If you are killed by a stranger and they leave their DNA on you, does that mean they “knew you”?? Certainly not.

It’s a ridiculous statement.

Of course it is. The defense can't say that. Their job is to provide plausible reasons that don't involve rape or murder for DNA being found on a dead girl. That press conference with his lawyers and wife made me think he was guilty.
 
I understand very clearly....I have 2 degrees.

The simple fact of DNA being on someone else does not prove a relationship. Again it only proves someone came in contact with an object or person.

Another example ....we don’t know each other.... if I physically bump into you at a store and a strand of my hair falls onto your clothes, do I know you?? Again, No. My hair, which contains DNA, simply fell on your clothes.

The only thing it really proves is that his DNA was on JB and/or her clothes on the night she was murdered. It doesn't prove they knew each. It doesn't even really prove they came into contact with each other, and it certainly, by itself anyway, doesn't prove he murdered her.

He will need to explain how his DNA ended up on her and a jury will have to decide what it all means.

DNA doesn't lie because DNA doesn't talk. You need corroborating evidence.
 
It could be that CM knew J.B.’s legal guardian/dance instructor. That would be a very plausible way of them knowing each other.

Did he say that CM and JB and Tracie knew one another?

I find it interesting that they (wife, lawyer) will not say where CM was on July 31, 1999.
 
You clearly don’t understand the statement then. They obviously had some kind of a relationship. It will all come out soon enough.
According to his lawyer which I take with a huge grain of salt. It's far from obvious that this is a fact. How convenient that we just now find out they were secret lovers which just happens to provide him with an excuse for his DNA being all over the victim.

IMO it's defense lawyer poppycock and I hate that the victims' families are subjected to pure innuendo
 
According to his lawyer which I take with a huge grain of salt. It's far from obvious that this is a fact. How convenient that we just now find out they were secret lovers which just happens to provide him with an excuse for his DNA being all over the victim.

IMO it's defense lawyer poppycock and I hate that the victims' families are subjected to pure innuendo

Is it just me or does anyone else just dislike that lawyer? It's not because of this case there is something about him that comes off as untrustworthy. I don't know if he seems to aggressive trying to drill it in that his client is innocent.
 
Is it just me or does anyone else just dislike that lawyer? It's not because of this case there is something about him that comes off as untrustworthy. I don't know if he seems to aggressive trying to drill it in that his client is innocent.
This lawyer has had a few issues of his own.... google him. :p
 
He set up that ministry in 2013.

IMO, he is hiding behind the very same God he claims to serve.

If he truly had an religious experince, he would have turned himself in a long time ago.

Ticks me off when ppl do this.
 
He set up that ministry in 2013.

IMO, he is hiding behind the very same God he claims to serve.

If he truly had an religious experince, he would have turned himself in a long time ago.

Ticks me off when ppl do this.

Did you notice the wife wasn't quite clear on if he was a preacher currently. She seemed annoyed when asked about his ministry, but she had no problem saying he was praying. Or mentioning how godly and religious he is - gag! The wife insisting he's praying for everyone was just like stfu.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
3,317
Total visitors
3,493

Forum statistics

Threads
591,818
Messages
17,959,579
Members
228,620
Latest member
ohbeehaave
Back
Top