AL AL - J.B. Beasley, 17, & Tracie Hawlett, 17, Ozark, 31 July 1999 #3

[CoolJ]

I agree with everything you are saying and have wondered why Mr. Roberts would say that (power & money)? Who would have both of those? LE would have the power-at least initially, but not now and I don't see them having the $$ to cover anything up. It is almost like he thinks some wealthy person with power over the investigators or someone has enough $$ to buy off or derail the investigation. Maybe some other sleuthers here can express their opinions of what or who they feel his was referencing? Chime in with your thoughts, please!

As i have said here numerous times... there may be an organized crime element to this case.

 

[killarney rose]

Has anyone been in tocuch with a mod to find out why the original third thread was not cleaned up and reopened?

 

[cherrymeg]

I wonder if it is possible to test the pants. Or if they were tested. Like mud, water could have unique qualities organisms in it. Someone mentioned a golf course being nearby. If they had been in something man made could that be determined. This case needs to be put in the media. Is there a way to sign a petition asking Investigative Discover or another channel that takes on crimes and ask them to air Shined Rabbit.

 

[Bulldog23]

Has anyone been in tocuch with a mod to find out why the original third thread was not cleaned up and reopened?

I messaged Bessie and Tricia but never received a response.

 

[TedMac]

What do we believe to be the motive for these killings? That is the part I have wrestled with the most. What could two 17 year-old girls have done to make someone kill them? Serial killer coming thru town? Attempted rape? Car jacking? Info brought forward in the HCR report? Drug involvement? Organized crime-if so, how did the girls fit into that? Revenge for some event that occurred earlier? Blackmail? The camera in a certain individual's bathroom and/or bedroom that may have captured someone or several people in a "compromising position"? Could they have rejected someone's advances? Coud the killing of one of the girls been an accident and the other had to be killed to eliminate any witnesses? Racial or gender hatred? Could they have run into someone who just enjoyed killing people? Or something not mentioned here?

We have done a great job discussing several aspects of the case. I am curious to know what everyone else is thinking concerning motive?

I have changed my opinion several times as to who and why. I guess I am now leaning more towards them rejecting someone's advances and the person became enraged and killed them. Some men just can't handle rejection or being told no.

I will add this...Almost all of the possibilities referenced above-Veritas had some connection to. Just saying!

 

[somequestions]

I think the motive is what police think the motive is. That motive is that the crime was sexually motivated in some way. No matter what the motive was back on July 31, 1999, what we do know is the outcome. The outcome was the double murder of J.B. Beasley and Tracie Hawlett in the trunk of J.B. Beasley's car. I think the FBI profile I read said the individual(if it was only one person) would be a young loner. This was in some article I cannot remember. But being young and being a loner does not make one a murderer.

All things considered, if someone can take a gun and shoot two girls in the head, then drive their car and leave it on what appears to be a relatively deserted road at night, then that person is very cold. That says to me that this person looks at females as an object to be used and discarded. And since it does not really look like there was much of an attempt to cover up the crime or get rid of the bodies, I think the killer is a stranger.

But who knows. When you cannot connect the victims to a potential suspect, what you are left with is that everyone is a suspect And unfortunately after over 19 years, everyone still is a suspect.

 

[SavageMarkIII]

What do we believe to be the motive for these killings? That is the part I have wrestled with the most. What could two 17 year-old girls have done to make someone kill them? Serial killer coming thru town? Attempted rape? Car jacking? Info brought forward in the HCR report? Drug involvement? Organized crime-if so, how did the girls fit into that? Revenge for some event that occurred earlier? Blackmail? The camera in a certain individual's bathroom and/or bedroom that may have captured someone or several people in a "compromising position"? Could they have rejected someone's advances? Coud the killing of one of the girls been an accident and the other had to be killed to eliminate any witnesses? Racial or gender hatred? Could they have run into someone who just enjoyed killing people? Or something not mentioned here?

We have done a great job discussing several aspects of the case. I am curious to know what everyone else is thinking concerning motive?

I have changed my opinion several times as to who and why. I guess I am now leaning more towards them rejecting someone's advances and the person became enraged and killed them. Some men just can't handle rejection or being told no.

I will add this...Almost all of the possibilities referenced above-Veritas had some connection to. Just saying!

I go back and forth between:

1) Random, someone came upon an opportunity and it was sexually motivated

2) Someone they knew; and the use of V's apartment with the possible hidden camera and if true that JB and others had use of the apartment, then JB could have either discovered the camera or if V made tapes, she could have discovered the tapes, is my top motive in the someone they knew category

 

[Bulldog23]

I have the exact same answer as Mark above. I will say this.. there are 2 cases I watch very closely... this one and the Kemberly Ramer case. (Both these cases are fairly close to my home.) It turns out that in the Kemberly Ramer case, the main suspect (I strongly believe in this guy's guilt) was Kem's sister's boyfriend.. and his father was a sheriff's department deputy/ investigator in a neighboring county. My gut tells me that the killer in this case also had a strong tie to local LEO's. (Maybe to narcotics officers?) I have come full circle and believe that most likely the killer was, or had help that night from, local LEO's. Combined with Tracie's Hawlett's step dad's comment, I think there was very possibly obstruction early in the case that complicated the investigation. Again, it is a gut feeling only.

 

[Irishrose70]

I still think just having been at the Skipperville field party can basically eliminate everything to do with the wet pants, dirty shoes, dirty car, etc. All of it could have easily happened there, with absolutely no foul play involved. It's literally a couple miles from the store they called from. I wish we could find out the layout and conditions of that field.

 

[Irishrose70]

Something else ive wondered about if people are looking at the "stranger" scenario, is what if it kind of wasn't? Keep in mind where Tracie worked. The men's department of a popular department store in the mall. One of the only places in the entire area that had quality yet affordable clothing. Would she stop to help or talk to a regular customer? Would that be considered a stranger? Were plans for the night, or potential plans discussed when J.B. picked her up and overheard by someone? As an attractive female working in the men's department I'm betting she got unwanted attention on several occasions. Were store security tapes reviewed or employees questioned about creeps? Was this crossreferenced to residents of Ozark living in the Herring area?

 

[Irishrose70]

I also have a lot of trouble with the "earlier consensual act". I guess it just doesn't fit what we think we know about these girls. I think i read somewhere they were both virgins, with negative toxicology. (I remember reading somewhere a different report about toxicology but cant find it now). Regardless, i dont care, and would never judge! However, if they never met up with the two guys they were "double dating" then who was the dna donor? Im sorry, but no girl i knew at that time, even the trashiest, would try to make arrangements to meet up with a guy double dating with their best friend with dried semen on their underwear and skin! Period! Unless she had encountered the same guy literally minutes before she picked up Tracie, it just doesn't make sense. Even that doesn't, but is at least a little more plausible. But two different guys? Just doesn't seem likely... Particularly not without at least changing clothes and grabbing a washcloth. Absolutely no disrespect or judgement intended. It just doesn't add up in my brain.

 

[cherrymeg]

I also have a lot of trouble with the "earlier consensual act". I guess it just doesn't fit what we think we know about these girls. I think i read somewhere they were both virgins, with negative toxicology. (I remember reading somewhere a different report about toxicology but cant find it now). Regardless, i dont care, and would never judge! However, if they never met up with the two guys they were "double dating" then who was the dna donor? Im sorry, but no girl i knew at that time, even the trashiest, would try to make arrangements to meet up with a guy double dating with their best friend with dried semen on their underwear and skin! Period! Unless she had encountered the same guy literally minutes before she picked up Tracie, it just doesn't make sense. Even that doesn't, but is at least a little more plausible. But two different guys? Just doesn't seem likely... Particularly not without at least changing clothes and grabbing a washcloth. Absolutely no disrespect or judgement intended. It just doesn't add up in my brain.

Saying that it is "trashy" if she had a sexual encounter is why people lie about this stuff. She was waiting for a friend to get off work, so did she meet up with a guy? Wiping semen off on your bra, stomach, and underwear isn't slutty - it's practical. She possibly could have changed her other clothing before going out. Remember she didn't know she was going to be murdered.

 

[cherrymeg]

What do we believe to be the motive for these killings? That is the part I have wrestled with the most. What could two 17 year-old girls have done to make someone kill them? Serial killer coming thru town? Attempted rape? Car jacking? Info brought forward in the HCR report? Drug involvement? Organized crime-if so, how did the girls fit into that? Revenge for some event that occurred earlier? Blackmail? The camera in a certain individual's bathroom and/or bedroom that may have captured someone or several people in a "compromising position"? Could they have rejected someone's advances? Coud the killing of one of the girls been an accident and the other had to be killed to eliminate any witnesses? Racial or gender hatred? Could they have run into someone who just enjoyed killing people? Or something not mentioned here?

We have done a great job discussing several aspects of the case. I am curious to know what everyone else is thinking concerning motive?

I have changed my opinion several times as to who and why. I guess I am now leaning more towards them rejecting someone's advances and the person became enraged and killed them. Some men just can't handle rejection or being told no.

I will add this...Almost all of the possibilities referenced above-Veritas had some connection to. Just saying!

I keep thinking of different scenarios like they went somewhere while sort of lost and saw something they shouldn't have. Or they were at a party and people were playing with a gun one girl got killed so they killed the other and put them in the trunk. They could have been victims of a thrill killer, whatever happened it was cold.

 

[TedMac]

I also have a lot of trouble with the "earlier consensual act". I guess it just doesn't fit what we think we know about these girls. I think i read somewhere they were both virgins, with negative toxicology. (I remember reading somewhere a different report about toxicology but cant find it now). Regardless, i dont care, and would never judge! However, if they never met up with the two guys they were "double dating" then who was the dna donor? Im sorry, but no girl i knew at that time, even the trashiest, would try to make arrangements to meet up with a guy double dating with their best friend with dried semen on their underwear and skin! Period! Unless she had encountered the same guy literally minutes before she picked up Tracie, it just doesn't make sense. Even that doesn't, but is at least a little more plausible. But two different guys? Just doesn't seem likely... Particularly not without at least changing clothes and grabbing a washcloth. Absolutely no disrespect or judgement intended. It just doesn't add up in my brain.

BBM...The private investigator stated that one of them was a virgin. The autopsy showed "traces" of semen on Beasley's bra, underwear and skin. Note the word trace. It may very well have been a minute amount which could indicate a good part of it washed or wiped off. She may not have been aware it was even there.

 

[DimeDetective]

In light of the current conversation regarding the finding of semen on J.B. Beasley's clothing, I'm hoping my own post from May 30, 2014, may be helpful:

"A few days ago I read the Christie Lynn Mullins thread which links to the article written by Websleuths user Nycsleuth that has recently brought about some astonishing developments in that case.

As it turns out, the incredibly well-researched and -written article happens to contain information that sheds some light on one of the key questions we've asked when looking at the Beasley-Hawlett case.

From page 30 of the Mullins article:

There was precious little forensics evidence introduced: no fingerprints, no blood typing, no hair or fiber analysis. Either it didn't exist, was never collected, or could not reliably be tested.

Dr. Nobuhisa Baba, the deputy coroner, testified that Christie was not raped (she was still a virgin) and that there was no evidence of semen to be found anywhere. A police chemist, however, testified that there appeared to be semen on the bathing suit bottom she was wearing beneath her blue jeans. That seemed inexplicable, given that the jeans, though unzipped, were not pulled down, and her swimsuit bottom was undisturbed.

Another possibility is that whatever semen was there came from the boyfriend of some other girl. Christie and other girls in the neighborhood frequently borrowed bathing suits from one another, and Christie's sister Melony believes that Christie was wearing a borrowed suit the day she was killed. (A day or so before the murder, Christie had borrowed a suit from an older, sexually active girl, which she never returned.)

Christie did not go in the water the day of the murder, and even if the borrowed suit had been recently washed, that would not necessarily have eliminated all traces of semen. According to one scholarly article, washing semen-stained fabrics with detergent fails to remove the stains 25% of the time.

To the best of our knowledge, the discovery of semen on the clothes of J.B. Beasley about 70 days after the murders changed the investigation entirely, as suspects have since been ruled out through DNA comparison made possible by that discovery.

We have often wondered about the possibility that the semen originated from a previous (consensual) sexual encounter unrelated to the murders, thus throwing the investigation, as it has seemingly hinged upon DNA evidence, entirely off-track. Now we have a source that indicates this could very well be what happened. To say nothing of the possibility that the clothes J.B. was wearing that night were unwashed."

Also, it is important to note that media reports were inconsistent regarding where the semen was found: While it was often reported that traces were discovered on J.B. Beasley's underclothes, her dress is also named by at least one source, and, most importantly, not all reports mention the skin as being a site of discovery. Though frustrating, these inconsistencies do leave open the possibility that semen was only found on the clothing, perhaps increasing the chances that this potential evidence is actually linked with a previous, consensual encounter and thus unrelated to the murders.

[Thanks to Nycsleuth for permission to quote his article on the Christie Mullins case.]

 

[ALMurderMystery]

What do we believe to be the motive for these killings? That is the part I have wrestled with the most. What could two 17 year-old girls have done to make someone kill them? Serial killer coming thru town? Attempted rape? Car jacking? Info brought forward in the HCR report? Drug involvement? Organized crime-if so, how did the girls fit into that? Revenge for some event that occurred earlier? Blackmail? The camera in a certain individual's bathroom and/or bedroom that may have captured someone or several people in a "compromising position"? Could they have rejected someone's advances? Coud the killing of one of the girls been an accident and the other had to be killed to eliminate any witnesses? Racial or gender hatred? Could they have run into someone who just enjoyed killing people? Or something not mentioned here?

We have done a great job discussing several aspects of the case. I am curious to know what everyone else is thinking concerning motive?

I have changed my opinion several times as to who and why. I guess I am now leaning more towards them rejecting someone's advances and the person became enraged and killed them. Some men just can't handle rejection or being told no.

I will add this...Almost all of the possibilities referenced above-Veritas had some connection to. Just saying!

Sadly all of these are very possible. I don't know near as much about this case as many of you do but I just get this feeling that it was someone she didn't know. Or like @Irishrose70 said it was someone she met casually. I feel like killers who know their victims usually take far more extreme measures to get rid of a body so that they aren't linked back to the murder. This was almost like a proud display from someone who knew they wouldn't be caught. It very well could have been someone in an authority position but maybe they didn't actually know the girls.

 

[killarney rose]

Welcome back Dime Detective, you have been missed!

 

[TedMac]

I want to 2nd Killarney Rose's post. Welcome back DimeDetective your expertise and insight has been sorely missed. We hope you will join in the conversation about who the killer may be and why the girls were killed. Again, welcome back and please visit here often!

 

[TedMac]

Sadly all of these are very possible. I don't know near as much about this case as many of you do but I just get this feeling that it was someone she didn't know. Or like @Irishrose70 said it was someone she met casually. I feel like killers who know their victims usually take far more extreme measures to get rid of a body so that they aren't linked back to the murder. This was almost like a proud display from someone who knew they wouldn't be caught. It very well could have been someone in an authority position but maybe they didn't actually know the girls.

What do you feel the motive was?

 

[TedMac]

In light of the current conversation regarding the finding of semen on J.B. Beasley's clothing, I'm hoping my own post from May 30, 2014, may be helpful:

"A few days ago I read the Christie Lynn Mullins thread which links to the article written by Websleuths user Nycsleuth that has recently brought about some astonishing developments in that case.

As it turns out, the incredibly well-researched and -written article happens to contain information that sheds some light on one of the key questions we've asked when looking at the Beasley-Hawlett case.

From page 30 of the Mullins article:

There was precious little forensics evidence introduced: no fingerprints, no blood typing, no hair or fiber analysis. Either it didn't exist, was never collected, or could not reliably be tested.

Dr. Nobuhisa Baba, the deputy coroner, testified that Christie was not raped (she was still a virgin) and that there was no evidence of semen to be found anywhere. A police chemist, however, testified that there appeared to be semen on the bathing suit bottom she was wearing beneath her blue jeans. That seemed inexplicable, given that the jeans, though unzipped, were not pulled down, and her swimsuit bottom was undisturbed.

Another possibility is that whatever semen was there came from the boyfriend of some other girl. Christie and other girls in the neighborhood frequently borrowed bathing suits from one another, and Christie's sister Melony believes that Christie was wearing a borrowed suit the day she was killed. (A day or so before the murder, Christie had borrowed a suit from an older, sexually active girl, which she never returned.)

Christie did not go in the water the day of the murder, and even if the borrowed suit had been recently washed, that would not necessarily have eliminated all traces of semen. According to one scholarly article, washing semen-stained fabrics with detergent fails to remove the stains 25% of the time.

To the best of our knowledge, the discovery of semen on the clothes of J.B. Beasley about 70 days after the murders changed the investigation entirely, as suspects have since been ruled out through DNA comparison made possible by that discovery.

We have often wondered about the possibility that the semen originated from a previous (consensual) sexual encounter unrelated to the murders, thus throwing the investigation, as it has seemingly hinged upon DNA evidence, entirely off-track. Now we have a source that indicates this could very well be what happened. To say nothing of the possibility that the clothes J.B. was wearing that night were unwashed."

Also, it is important to note that media reports were inconsistent regarding where the semen was found: While it was often reported that traces were discovered on J.B. Beasley's underclothes, her dress is also named by at least one source, and, most importantly, not all reports mention the skin as being a site of discovery. Though frustrating, these inconsistencies do leave open the possibility that semen was only found on the clothing, perhaps increasing the chances that this potential evidence is actually linked with a previous, consensual encounter and thus unrelated to the murders.

[Thanks to Nycsleuth for permission to quote his article on the Christie Mullins case.]

Great post! I followed the Mullins case and have read where the authorities have now closed it because they feel they know the killer's identity and he is deceased.

I have always thought that LE may have let the killer slip thru their hands because of the DNA. It is very possible the killer has been tested and cleared based on a nonDNA match.