By David in TN
wednesday, april 19, 2023 at 4:19:00 p.m. edt
The source for the following is RickeyStokesNews.com.
“On wednesday, the first day of the trial for the double murder of Tracie Hawlett and J.B. Beasley, one of the jurors didn’t show up. The judge sent court officials to find him. He was apparently working at his job, cutting grass.
“The jury is five men, seven women with two alternates. Only two of the jurors are black. The one who didn’t bother to show is said to be one of the black jurors. He was found and brought to court.
“The above is unconfirmed.
“The opening statement by the prosecutor came after 11 a.m., two hours late. He explains how cell phones, GPS, etc. were not common in 1999.
“The girls stopped at the Big and Little convenience store around 11:45 p.m. The proprietor saw they were happy, clean, no problems.
“When the girls were found in the trunk of the car two days later, they had mud on their clothes, and were ‘dirty and muddy.’
“The killer apparently made contact with them at the Big and Little and ‘forced them to another location, raped J.B. Beasley, then forced them into the trunk of the car, once in the car, the killer shot each of them one time.’
“The killer then got into the car. You will see mud in the driver side of the car, drove those girls to another location and abandoned the car.
“The killer makes two mistakes. In the autopsy took a vaginal swab, panties and shirt and forensics determined semen in the girl, hence the rape
“Mistake 2, leaving car on herring avenue. Abandoned the car and took off running.
“It turned out McCraney lived about half a mile from where the car was found. His home was also close to the Big and Little.
“The prosecutor ‘submits you will hear a lot, let the dna and mud do the talking.
“The defense opening was a ‘Mazda was seen in the area,’ which was ‘an unmarked police car.’
“The gist of the defense opening statement was: ‘He saw those girls, who said they were lost. he was a player. McCraney got into the car and showed them. Started talking to JB, socialize, and they had sex.”
David in TN: In 2018, when McCraney was interviewed, when asked if he knew the girls, he said, NO, never met them.
This was the end of the first half day. Again, the source was www.RickeyStokesNews.com.
By David in TN
Wednesday, April 19, 2023 at 8:04:00 PM EDT
Below is from wsfa-tv station, montgomery, al.
“The missing juror, one Adrian Brooke, during a hearing with presiding judge William Fillmore, was revealed by authorities to have an existing warrant for a traffic violation.
“Brooke was then arrested, disqualified from the jury, and later transported to Dothan. He will be charged with contempt of court. Brooke caused a two hour delay.
“One of the alternates replaced the disqualified juror. One alternate is left.”
By Grand Rapids Anonymous
thursday, april 20, 2023 at 10:44:00 p.m. edt
(wsfa) “This is the second trial for McCraney in this case. The initial prosecution ended with the judge declaring a mistrial in august, because a jury could not be struck from a pool of 75.”
GRA: Arguing about the number of blacks and Whites, obviously. I wonder who gave in here. Probably the prosecution.
--GRA
Note, too, as David in TN has recounted, McCraney’s wife has insisted that he was with her at the time of the crime. She’ll get a free perjury for that.
From WTVY Dothan Alabama.
ReplyDeleteOn Thursday the testimony was by Forensic witnesses. In my opinion they were weak under cross examination, like their counterparts in the O.J. Simpson criminal trial. When the autopsy witness was asked by the defense, "It's easy to make a mistake isn't it? The brilliant witness obligingly answered, Yes, it is."
Utter stupidity. He should have said, "I check and recheck to make sure my judgments are correct." From the trial accounts, the prosecutor, who is the Attorney General of the State of Alabama doesn't bother (or has never heard of) with redirect examination of his witness.
The DNA witness is supposed to testify for the prosecution on Friday.
As I stated previously,this nig--and ALL nigs--use the Rodney Reed switcheroo strategy:
ReplyDelete"Didn't know her"--to""Yeah,we was having a consensual affair."
All it takes is one black juror to quash a conviction.
--GRA
https://www.wdhn.com/news/local-news/mccraney-murder-trial/no-evidence-other-than-possible-dna-links-mccraney-to-murders-in-thursday-testimonies/
ReplyDeleteThe outline of this case seems fairly straightforward: there is little other than DNA evidence directly linking the accused to the murder of the two girls.
It looks like the DNA evidence is less ironclad than the prosecution would like due to the fact the forensic sample is degraded. The match to the accused is weaker than if that were not the case.
Also it seems the car with the bodies, which belonged to one of the victims, was found not far from the home of the accused.
One story said the defense did not plan to contest the DNA evidence, but instead will claim the accused had consensual sex with one of the victims. Presumably then the two victims went on their way and were murdered later by person or persons unknown.
Was there evidence of robbery? If not, who would murder two young girls, and why?
Seems more likely the murders were to cover up the alleged rape. Assuming no robbery, the prosecution has to emphasize this to the jury: no robbery, so what was the motive for killing them?
The consensual sex defense does not make a lot of sense. Honestly, who will believe that back then a young white high school girl would have consensual sex with an unknown black male when lost trying to find an address?
The defense could also attack the relative weakness of the DNA evidence, which could not be matched to the defendant with the usual precision: seems that in this case it is one in tens of millions, whereas ideally it is one in billions.
The prosecution has to be a little bit careful here. Because it is true that it cannot be stated definitively that the DNA is the result of a rape, rather than consensual sex, especially so long after the fact. By claiming it is rape they open themselves to a simple question on cross-examination, where an expert witness will have to admit that it is impossible to say rape or not rape based on DNA only. Might be better to save the rape allegation for the closing argument. Then only the defense lawyer, rather than an expert witness, would have the chance to refute the rape claim in front of the jury.
Most states probably have precedent for jury instructions about DNA evidence. What will the judge tell the jury constitutes reasonable doubt in the case of DNA evidence?
How will the jury weigh the totality of the evidence?
How do the courtroom presence and skills of the lawyers compare?
Hard to say about the outcome.
In today's climate probably no better than 50:50 he's convicted.
“The jury is five men, seven women with two alternates. Only two of the jurors are black. The one who didn’t bother to show is said to be one of the black jurors."
ReplyDeleteThey evidently rounded the guy up and brought him to court. Blacks traditionally are no-showa when they receive a jury summons.
That man wiff the bow time is the defense attorney? A black muslim I think laughing as I type this.
ReplyDeleteI think that's Farrakhan,lol.
ReplyDelete--GRA
"Blacks traditionally are no-showa when they receive a jury summons."
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about a summons, which is what you get when you are selected for "jury duty", meaning you're supposed to show up to be a member of a pool of potential jurors. To actually get on a jury you have to go thru the selection process. That already happened here.
"On wednesday, the first day of the trial for the double murder of Tracie Hawlett and J.B. Beasley, one of the jurors didn’t show up."
So the jury was already selected. From all of those summoned to appear, some were chosen to serve as jurors in this trial. Apparently the black guy who did not bother to show up was one of them. Unbelievable.
Imagine being an intelligent, decent white person on trial and a dumb black juror does not bother to show up.
Going thru the experience of being on trial will probably be enough to kill any remaining faith in a "jury of your peers".
Just like seeing who the voters actually are should be enough to kill your belief in democracy.
Was that Coley's high school graduation photo?
ReplyDeleteLol.
--GRA