Speaker 1: Murder on Songbird Road is a production of iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Previously on Murder on Songbird Road. Julia Beverly's nine to
Speaker 1: one one call wasn't the only one of interest on
Speaker 1: the day of Jade's murder.
Speaker 2: And this call was made at ten thirty for a
Speaker 2: suspicious person. No way. He was out there belligerent talking
Speaker 2: about harming somebody.
Speaker 1: And it looks like there were two calls.
Speaker 3: The police were responding to Julie Beverly's call, but it
Speaker 3: looks like Marion police were already en route to a
Speaker 3: call about a male in all black.
Speaker 4: But I did overhear one of the officers state that
Speaker 4: we had a ninety one one call. They were looking
Speaker 4: for a person in a dark hoodie in dark hands,
Speaker 4: suspiciously running through backyard.
Speaker 2: There was a guy in a mask or a person
Speaker 2: in a mask running through the backyard at that time,
Speaker 2: and he made that call. He said, I made the
Speaker 2: nine to one one call.
Speaker 1: The property that's adjacent to the murder scene with multiple
Speaker 1: bodies of water, a heavily wooded area, and now what
Speaker 1: we're hearing a makeshift encampment for transient people and the
Speaker 1: police don't check it.
Speaker 2: That's what I can't understand.
Speaker 1: Jason Bom Bob Mada, Bob, Jason, nice.
Speaker 5: To meet you.
Speaker 6: Man.
Speaker 2: We have this adversarial system right where the prosecution's trying
Speaker 2: to win and the defense is trying to defend their client.
Speaker 5: What we need is an inquisitorial system.
Speaker 1: I'm Lauren brad Pacheco and this is Murder on Songbird Road.
Speaker 1: Obtaining the trial transcripts and Julia Beverley's interrogation video had
Speaker 1: been a long, frustrating and arduous process. However, once we
Speaker 1: had them, they provided incredible insights into the prosecution's case
Speaker 1: against Beverly, particularly regarding the investigation. Would you date your
Speaker 1: name so we.
Speaker 7: Have voice identifications, Julia Bethley?
Speaker 2: Can you give me your day of birth Julia.
Speaker 6: For twenty three ninety one?
Speaker 7: And do you have a middle initial E B, E
Speaker 7: B E LA?
Speaker 5: All right?
Speaker 7: And the ninety one four, twenty three, four.
Speaker 1: Twenty three and ninety one right, awesome.
Speaker 2: I'm going to ask you.
Speaker 7: Can you start all over from the beginning what happened home?
Speaker 2: Oh?
Speaker 1: Wait, wait, you sorry?
Speaker 2: You did?
Speaker 1: I need to read the nine of one to the
Speaker 1: left of seated across from two detectives at a small
Speaker 1: table in a compact interrogation room. A sweatshirt clad Beverly
Speaker 1: waved her rights to remain silent and to an attorney
Speaker 1: before agreeing to be questioned for what would end up
Speaker 1: being ours.
Speaker 6: Do you wish to.
Speaker 1: Speak with those today?
Speaker 7: Many get your signature right now on your line.
Speaker 1: The prosecution emphasized her staid demeanor during the investigation, but
Speaker 1: Beverly's emotions are evident when she speaks about finding Jade.
Speaker 6: I realized I didn't have my cards with me. I
Speaker 6: turned around and came back home. Whenever I got home,
Speaker 6: I saw the front door with open. As I went
Speaker 6: to in, he came out and tried to grab the
Speaker 6: knife from him. And at that time, just multiple things,
Speaker 6: They're trying to grab them and stuff, and you got
Speaker 6: cut on my hand. At that point he just ran off.
Speaker 6: I ran in the house, tall boys.
Speaker 2: Everywhere.
Speaker 6: I ran to my dosthroom to grab my rag. I'll
Speaker 6: white my hand real quick because it was bleeding, and
Speaker 6: I ran to go find Jade when I found her
Speaker 6: in the bath groom.
Speaker 1: Before we delve deeper, let's recap the key bad facts
Speaker 1: that ultimately led to Beverly's conviction for the murder of
Speaker 1: Jade Beasley. We have she left Jade alone, she left
Speaker 1: the dogs outside. She said she made it to Walmart.
Speaker 1: That is the number one thing that people who've listened
Speaker 1: to the podcast have hit me up with. They've said,
Speaker 1: why did she lie? Why did she lie? The bulk
Speaker 1: of the case against Beverly was built on the foundation
Speaker 1: of her statements about making it to Walmart. Here in
Speaker 1: Beverly's own words from her entire g on the day
Speaker 1: of the murder is her account as questioned by Williams
Speaker 1: and County detectives Cindy Geittman and Marion Police detective Karl Egemeier.
Speaker 7: When was it that you realized you didn't have your cards?
Speaker 7: When I brought to Walmart, pulled out my purse and
Speaker 7: I was checking my phone, and that's when I realized
Speaker 7: I didn't.
Speaker 6: Have any of my cards with me. Okay, And then
Speaker 6: you came back home. Yeah, okay.
Speaker 1: Later in the interrogation, she's asked for more specifics about
Speaker 1: that Walmart trip.
Speaker 8: Did when you went to Walmart?
Speaker 7: Did you go into Walmart?
Speaker 6: No, I I didn't even get out cause the Finemart
Speaker 6: pitched up my phone and realized I didn't have any
Speaker 6: of my cards with me.
Speaker 7: Okay, but you were in the parking lot.
Speaker 6: Yeah, just a parking moort.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: On face value, the Walmart story appears to be a lie.
Speaker 1: A quick aside. I had actually questioned Beverly extensively about
Speaker 1: that Walmart trip over the phone the day before. And
Speaker 1: you've mentioned the fact that lying is never good, but
Speaker 1: lying to the police is particularly bad.
Speaker 8: Well, I mean, if you're trying to get yourself arrested
Speaker 8: and charged, that's the number one way to do it.
Speaker 8: But again, I cannot stress this enough. It's so easy
Speaker 8: to sit here in your chairs, or in your car,
Speaker 8: or in your bed or wherever you're listening to this
Speaker 8: podcast and think, well, I would never lie to the
Speaker 8: police in that situation. I would tell the truth. And
Speaker 8: again I'm going to restate this. If you've left your
Speaker 8: house for fifteen minutes, okay, and you come back and
Speaker 8: whoever it is, whether it's your kid, your step kid, whoever,
Speaker 8: and you come back and that child has been brutally murdered,
Speaker 8: brutally murdered, and that short of the span of time,
Speaker 8: anybody who thinks that they are not going to think
Speaker 8: that the cops are going to think that I did.
Speaker 8: It is just not being honest with themselves.
Speaker 1: I have suffer from that same delusion, because it wouldn't
Speaker 1: be the first thing that I'd think of.
Speaker 8: Really, the question for me always with respect to when
Speaker 8: somebody in that situation lies, and we see it all
Speaker 8: the time, is are they lying because they are in
Speaker 8: protection mode? Or are they lying for a situation like
Speaker 8: what Julie's talking about happening like her mind, because that
Speaker 8: was her plan.
Speaker 5: She thought that's what she was going to do.
Speaker 8: When is the first time she mentions the Walmart stop?
Speaker 8: Is it initially before she's brought into the station, or
Speaker 8: is it when she's being interrogated.
Speaker 1: It is I think on scene that she said that's
Speaker 1: where she was going. She was heading to town, and
Speaker 1: then her brain appears to have just filt in the
Speaker 1: missing pieces. So by the time they're in the interrogation,
Speaker 1: she's saying where she always parks because that's the easiest
Speaker 1: place for her to unload the kids without feeling like
Speaker 1: someone's going to park right next to her. Now, I
Speaker 1: did push her in the conversation we had yesterday about that,
Speaker 1: because I said, why did you go to Carbondale? There
Speaker 1: was a local Walmart, Why that Carbondale, And without missing
Speaker 1: a beat, she said, they are a bigger store and
Speaker 1: they still had the Black Friday Bend sales left.
Speaker 8: The bigger issue for me initially was the gap in
Speaker 8: time from the time that she gets home till the
Speaker 8: time that she calls nine to one one. That was
Speaker 8: something that was tough for me to try to stretch
Speaker 8: it out.
Speaker 1: Remember, according to the prosecution's timeline, Beverly failed to dial
Speaker 1: nine to one one for roughly thirty minutes after returning home.
Speaker 8: This period of time, it's hard to account for all
Speaker 8: of it. That has always kind of been my one
Speaker 8: one thing more than anything else. Like, I completely understand
Speaker 8: that when Julia decides that, oh my god, they're coming
Speaker 8: after me, they think I'm the one who did this,
Speaker 8: that she'd try to get herself away from that house
Speaker 8: for longer.
Speaker 5: If you're in her shoes.
Speaker 8: And she's gone what fifteen to twenty minutes, you would realize, Okay, well,
Speaker 8: that seems crazy that somebody like snuck in and did
Speaker 8: this in the time that I just happened to leave
Speaker 8: the house.
Speaker 5: I think that that would probably be running through your mind.
Speaker 1: I agree with you that it's suspect, but we unfortunately
Speaker 1: are at the disadvantage of having to confirm the state's
Speaker 1: timeline because the defense never challenged.
Speaker 8: It right, and it's it's problematic, but it's still explainable
Speaker 8: to me. Because you cannot know how you will respond
Speaker 8: to a situation like that unless.
Speaker 5: You're in it. People can speculate all day long.
Speaker 8: I like to think that if I or on the
Speaker 8: bus or a subway or on an airplane and somebody
Speaker 8: pulled out a shank, that I would jump out of
Speaker 8: my seat and I'd go tackle that person and save
Speaker 8: the day.
Speaker 5: I've had that kind of fantasy dream a million times.
Speaker 5: Would I do that in real life? I have no idea.
Speaker 1: You mentioned the gap in time, and that comes up
Speaker 1: in the interrogation. She actually isn't asked about it. She
Speaker 1: just offers that I found.
Speaker 6: Her unless she could possibly not beat reading, and then
Speaker 6: at that point just was waiting in the kitchen. I know,
Speaker 6: I just kind of went to shut down panic mode.
Speaker 6: I didn't know what to do. I felt like I
Speaker 6: needed to do something for her to do.
Speaker 9: Yeah, Julie shutting down as plausible when you have all
Speaker 9: of those things trying to work their way around in
Speaker 9: your mind and you're trying to make sense of it.
Speaker 8: I could see that being crippling. I can see that
Speaker 8: causing somebody to just freeze up, to freak out.
Speaker 1: The word freeze immediately made me recall conversations I'd had
Speaker 1: with three longtime friends of Beverly, Hillary, Katie, and Leah
Speaker 1: during my first trip to Marian. Here are their combined
Speaker 1: takes on that lapse of time before Beverly called nine
Speaker 1: one one.
Speaker 10: I could see her freezing, like just in horror. I
Speaker 10: can see her just in total shock, like frozen, and
Speaker 10: I can picture her that way.
Speaker 11: I can't even imagine how she even got the phone
Speaker 11: to call. I wouldn't have even had it in me.
Speaker 1: Incidentally, that's Leah, a former military police officer who, like Julie,
Speaker 1: is mixed race and was singled out while attending Beverly's trial,
Speaker 1: but we'll get into that later in Julie's shakes.
Speaker 10: So so how she was able to dial the phone Onnestly,
Speaker 10: I'm so.
Speaker 1: Proud of her.
Speaker 11: I know for a fact that oh Gosh, broke down.
Speaker 11: She can't. She's just very emotional. She can't handle any
Speaker 11: kind of thing without crying.
Speaker 10: What seemed like five seconds to her was probably twenty minutes.
Speaker 10: She's a thinker, so she had everything going far. She
Speaker 10: had I'm the stepmom, I'm the one who found her.
Speaker 10: She had, I'm the mixed one in this white family.
Speaker 10: I am the one of color in this white family
Speaker 10: in this hick southern Illinois town. My girl that I
Speaker 10: raised is gone. How are my kids going to be effective?
Speaker 10: She probably had every bit of that running through her mind.
Speaker 10: Then what would have seemed like a five second thought
Speaker 10: was probably an absolute frozen moment of shock, of straight
Speaker 10: and tears.
Speaker 11: Let's not forget she was attacked by an intruder walking
Speaker 11: into her home, then found her daughter dead. She is
Speaker 11: in shock. No one can tell you how they would
Speaker 11: respond in that situation. I've been in a lot of
Speaker 11: stressful situations, and I've completely shut down at times where
Speaker 11: I wasn't even able to speak, just cry. And I'm
Speaker 11: not as soft as Julie.
Speaker 1: Murder on Songbird Road. We'll be back after the break.
Speaker 1: Now back to Murder on Songbird Road. Back to Bob
Speaker 1: and his take on the time gap before the nine
Speaker 1: to one one call.
Speaker 8: When I first read the Coburger probabill cause Affidavid was
Speaker 8: a phrase that was used, and I think they called
Speaker 8: it frozen shock phase. It was the exact same circumstance.
Speaker 1: Bob is referencing the twenty twenty two Idaho four killings,
Speaker 1: in which four University of Idaho students were fatally stabbed
Speaker 1: in an off campus residence.
Speaker 8: The roommate who saw the suspected killer walking out had
Speaker 8: the bushy eyebrows and then in that case doesn't call
Speaker 8: nine to one one. Ever, nine to one one didn't
Speaker 8: get called till just about noon the following day. She
Speaker 8: sees this stranger in the house at four am, four
Speaker 8: thirty am and doesn't make the call. They use the
Speaker 8: words she was in frozen shock phase. That one's explainable
Speaker 8: to me. It's still a bad fact.
Speaker 5: Though.
Speaker 1: The injuries Beverly claimed resulted from a struggle with the
Speaker 1: knife wielding intruder she says she encountered at the front door,
Speaker 1: along with others she attributed to self harm, were also
Speaker 1: under scrutiny. There was a bitemark on her arm, which
Speaker 1: Beverly attributed to a self inflicted bite. That's when the
Speaker 1: state brought in something that makes you and I both grown,
Speaker 1: and that is bitemark evidence because it has been debunked
Speaker 1: discredited as junk science. There's no shortage of wrongful convictions
Speaker 1: that can be directly attributed to the junk science of
Speaker 1: bitemarks identification and analysis. After a local dentist with no
Speaker 1: forensics training made dental molds, an expert witness in forensic
Speaker 1: odentology testified. The defense raised a continuing objection to the
Speaker 1: witness's testimony, arguing it was inadmissible. However, the judge ruled
Speaker 1: in favor of the prosecution, stating that any observational, not
Speaker 1: theoretical evidence is admissible in court. Meanwhile, a swab from
Speaker 1: Beverly's arm tested positive for Jade's DNA, though it was
Speaker 1: not further analyzed to determine if it was saliva. As
Speaker 1: a result, it remained unclear whether the DNA sample was
Speaker 1: related to the incident or merely household DNA.
Speaker 8: The DNA on the arm to me, was probably the
Speaker 8: smoking gun in this case, in conjunction with the lies
Speaker 8: about Walmart out of physical evidence that it existed that
Speaker 8: DNA that they claimed that they that tested positive as
Speaker 8: to being Jades, but they didn't go so far as
Speaker 8: to figure out what the source was they didn't figure
Speaker 8: out if it was saliva blood. It's inexplicable to me, like,
Speaker 8: how are you not figuring that out.
Speaker 1: Nonetheless, an implication was made, supported by the dentist's observations
Speaker 1: that the bite mark was caused by Jade as she
Speaker 1: struggled for her life. However, it's important to remember that
Speaker 1: the prosecution also argued that Beverly had thoroughly cleaned herself
Speaker 1: after the murder to eliminate any evidence from her body.
Speaker 8: Here's Bob, that's going to be the primary wound that
Speaker 8: you're going to try to clean off if you know
Speaker 8: that Jade bit you. So again, it's insane to think
Speaker 8: that that would remain the one area where they found
Speaker 8: Jade's DNA, because it would have been the one area
Speaker 8: that she would have been sure to have cleaned off
Speaker 8: the most thoroughly.
Speaker 1: Furthermore, in twenty twenty two, the National Institute of Standards
Speaker 1: and Technology reviewed the scientific foundations of bitemark analysis, concluding
Speaker 1: there was insufficient data to support its validity as a
Speaker 1: forensic technique. But what's even more significant the ARMSWAB taken
Speaker 1: from Beverly on the day of the murder, which the
Speaker 1: prosecution used to tie the bitemark to jade, despite the
Speaker 1: fact it wasn't confirmed to be saliva. That swab was
Speaker 1: the only DNA sample from Beverly that was actually tested.
Speaker 1: You heard that correctly. None of Beverly's hand swabs, fingernail scrapings,
Speaker 1: finger wounds, scratches on her forehead, or clothing were tested.
Speaker 1: The only evidence analyzed from that DNA collection was that
Speaker 1: one arm swab. How do you have all of her
Speaker 1: DNA and you only test one thing.
Speaker 5: It's unbelievable to me.
Speaker 1: What's also hard to believe is who was deciding what
Speaker 1: evidence was or wasn't tested. A particular excerpt from the
Speaker 1: preliminary hearing transcript stood out to us right away. In it,
Speaker 1: Julie Beverly's defense attorney is cross examining Cindy Geittman, the
Speaker 1: lead detective. It's also worth noting again that this was
Speaker 1: Geatman's first and last time leading a murder investigation, as
Speaker 1: she has since retired. Bob and I will read that
Speaker 1: exchange for batim.
Speaker 8: So every piece of physical evidence would have at least
Speaker 8: come into your journey.
Speaker 5: Stiction.
Speaker 8: You were the one that decides what goes to the
Speaker 8: lab for testing.
Speaker 1: Correct incorrect.
Speaker 5: Who does make that decision?
Speaker 1: At the time, at the beginning of trial, we were
Speaker 1: using the Williamson County States Attorney's office, and Assistant State's
Speaker 1: Attorney Lisa Irvin was the one that directed me on
Speaker 1: what evidence to send to the state Police Lab for testing.
Speaker 8: Okay, do you have any independent discretion in your own
Speaker 8: investigation to determine what items should or should not be tested,
Speaker 8: or what items you would suggest be tested.
Speaker 1: I suggested items, and by my training it was I
Speaker 1: was supposed to use her as the final decision on
Speaker 1: what items were taken to the state lab. So was
Speaker 1: the prosecution essentially dictating the scope of the lead investigator's investigation.
Speaker 1: I've reached out multiple times to the current State's attorney
Speaker 1: for clarification on whether this is standard protocol in Williamson County,
Speaker 1: but to date I've yet to receive a response. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Bob's not exactly shocked.
Speaker 5: I mean, there's some truth to it.
Speaker 8: They can't test everything, and they are allowed to cherry
Speaker 8: pick evidence. They are allowed to pick and choose, even
Speaker 8: though in theory they do have unlimited resources and they
Speaker 8: do have a state lab that they're sending these things to.
Speaker 8: When you're talking to lay people about it, They're not
Speaker 8: going to like the answer. Well, they should be testing everything.
Speaker 8: We're trying to get to the truth here, But the
Speaker 8: reality is that they just don't test everything.
Speaker 1: There's everything, and then there's what you would absolutely assume
Speaker 1: they had tested, because it doesn't make sense that they
Speaker 1: didn't test things like Julia Beverly's nail scrapings. If you're
Speaker 1: so sure that she is guilty, why wouldn't you test
Speaker 1: the swabs of her fingers on her hands, which were
Speaker 1: covered with blood from what she contends were her defensive
Speaker 1: wounds when she was met by the assailant, but what
Speaker 1: the state contends were wounds that she sustained while she
Speaker 1: was murdering Jade. Either which way, how do you not
Speaker 1: test her nail scrapings? It would have been a slam dunk.
Speaker 5: It's unexplainable.
Speaker 8: You're asking me to answer a question that I couldn't
Speaker 8: possibly answer because it makes no sense at all. Like
Speaker 8: you said, it either opens and shuts the case immediately
Speaker 8: because she's got Jade's skin under her fingernails and the
Speaker 8: case is done, or it's somebody else's What I take
Speaker 8: from it, more than anything else is not that the
Speaker 8: state was cherry picking evidence that they wanted to test
Speaker 8: it because they wanted to keep a very narrow focus
Speaker 8: potentially who this could have been that done it. And
Speaker 8: I hate to do it to a fellow defense attorney,
Speaker 8: but when you start getting the police reports in, there's
Speaker 8: a million things that they should be testing, and they're
Speaker 8: not testing any of them. I am filing emotion getting
Speaker 8: in front of the judge and asking the judge that
Speaker 8: they order even if you have to narrow it down,
Speaker 8: like they're clearly not going to pay to test everything,
Speaker 8: but I'm going to narrow down the three or four
Speaker 8: most critical pieces of evidence that I absolutely think could
Speaker 8: be exculpatory to my client.
Speaker 5: I'm going to go in.
Speaker 8: I'm at least making a record of it, even if
Speaker 8: the judge is going to deny it. I'm making a
Speaker 8: record because you know what, that's powerful on appeal.
Speaker 1: I was just going to say, I think that a
Speaker 1: lot of people don't understand that your hands are tied
Speaker 1: on appeal by things that were raised as issues during trial.
Speaker 1: As we've seen, we have some very real issues, but
Speaker 1: the fact that they weren't raised by her defense attorney
Speaker 1: means that they cannot be tackled in the appeal. Honestly,
Speaker 1: the way in which her newborn son was immediately removed
Speaker 1: while she was a pre trial detainee speaks volumes to
Speaker 1: me in terms of lack of presumption of innocence. That
Speaker 1: wasn't raised during the trial. What was raised during the trial, however,
Speaker 1: was something Beverly has remained consistent about since the day
Speaker 1: of the murder. Her description of the alleged assailant.
Speaker 2: Can you describe him for it?
Speaker 6: As black clothes, I mean, average bill, maybe a little muscular.
Speaker 7: Not I mean, couldn't really tell.
Speaker 6: He had like a fe mask so I could see
Speaker 6: from here, I could tell he's white.
Speaker 1: And then.
Speaker 6: You little taller and me maybe a few inches or so.
Speaker 1: Beverly has always described the male she says she encountered
Speaker 1: that December day as around five foot five or so.
Speaker 1: But as mentioned before, why if the guy is a
Speaker 1: fictional scapegoat, wouldn't she have made a made up man
Speaker 1: sound more imposing. Granted, Beverly's only four foot eleven, but
Speaker 1: the average height for American men is five feet nine inches,
Speaker 1: and her then fiance, Mike Beasley stands about six foot
Speaker 1: Why if she was said on creating someone else to blame.
Speaker 1: Would she have said this to police.
Speaker 6: Always, I've lest her.
Speaker 7: You were there with her, you were there for her.
Speaker 11: I should to just take her Wedsday.
Speaker 1: Co In the interrogation, Beverly even says, this is my fault.
Speaker 1: I should have taken her with me. This is my fault,
Speaker 1: which speaks to her innocence. I mean that speaks to
Speaker 1: her innocence. It does, so does something else. You'll remember
Speaker 1: from our last episode that police were advised of a
Speaker 1: male fitting the description Beverly gave in terms of clothing.
Speaker 1: From the CAD reports, Marian advised they saw a male
Speaker 1: wearing a black hoodie walking on Buckley about fifty yards
Speaker 1: westbound off Corey League. An officer named Sloan was sent
Speaker 1: to investigate. Here's his testimony from Beverly's trial, which Bob
Speaker 1: and I will read.
Speaker 8: Officer Welgi, I believe, advised for me to check on
Speaker 8: a person that was wearing a black hoodie or a
Speaker 8: black jacket that was walking on Buckley Road.
Speaker 5: I believe is the name of the road. So I
Speaker 5: did that.
Speaker 1: So Officer Welgi went to the residence.
Speaker 5: Yeah, he continued on, and I stopped.
Speaker 1: You stopped. Did you get out of your car?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 7: I did.
Speaker 1: And did you talk to the person in the black hoodie?
Speaker 5: Yes? I did.
Speaker 1: Did you identify that person?
Speaker 8: I don't believe I identified her. Uh?
Speaker 1: Was it female?
Speaker 5: Yes? Okay.
Speaker 2: Did you speak with her?
Speaker 5: Yeah?
Speaker 8: She was walking your dog or looking for her dog
Speaker 8: or something to do with her dog.
Speaker 5: She was looking for a.
Speaker 1: Dog in the area, and you were able to confirm
Speaker 1: she lived in that area.
Speaker 5: Yes, she's a resident.
Speaker 1: Okay, After you spoke with a female, did you what
Speaker 1: did you do next?
Speaker 8: I continued to Songbird to assist Officer Welgi.
Speaker 1: Here's Beverly's defense attorney's cross examination, Officer Sloan, Did you
Speaker 1: prepare a written report in this case?
Speaker 5: Yes, ma'am I did.
Speaker 1: In that report. Did you mention any contact with this
Speaker 1: individual wearing a black hoodie on Buckley Road?
Speaker 6: No?
Speaker 5: I did not.
Speaker 1: Did you when you stopped to identify this person? Did
Speaker 1: you get a name?
Speaker 5: I do not believe so.
Speaker 1: Did you get an address?
Speaker 5: I do not believe so.
Speaker 1: How long did this contact occur?
Speaker 8: Guessing probably moments, A couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: Maybe like a whole couple of minutes.
Speaker 5: I assume I didn't. I didn't. I didn't time it.
Speaker 1: Okay, did this person have a dog with them?
Speaker 5: I don't recall seeing a dog.
Speaker 1: Okay, so if you reported back that this individual was
Speaker 1: walking a dog, that would have been an error.
Speaker 8: I said she was either walking a dog or she
Speaker 8: said something she was walking or looking for her dog
Speaker 8: or something.
Speaker 1: But you don't recall if the dog was there.
Speaker 5: I do not believe so.
Speaker 1: But this person was dressed in black? Is that correct?
Speaker 5: She had a black hoodie on.
Speaker 1: All right, So this, to me is such an interesting
Speaker 1: exchange because Officer Sloan didn't get her name or address,
Speaker 1: but knew she was a resident, couldn't remember if she
Speaker 1: was walking a dog or looking for a dog, but
Speaker 1: remembered the color of her hoodie, and did not make
Speaker 1: any official note or report of this interaction.
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's got zero evidentiary value. Again, themes should have
Speaker 8: filed emotion in Lemonae barring this entire line of testimony.
Speaker 5: The only reason that.
Speaker 8: Mudge asked that question was in order to say that, oh, yeah,
Speaker 8: I saw a woman in a black hoodie. I spoke
Speaker 8: to her. She was looking for her dog or she
Speaker 8: was walking her dog, to just discredit the black hoodie situation.
Speaker 8: Oh yeah, we found the person.
Speaker 1: That It wasn't a guy, it was a woman. She
Speaker 1: lives in the neighborhood. But I didn't get her name.
Speaker 1: I don't remember she had a dog. Didn't get her address,
Speaker 1: but she lives in the neighbor It seems really disingenuous
Speaker 1: to me.
Speaker 8: It is disingenuous, and it completely undermines Julie's story in
Speaker 8: One Fell Swoop. And it's got no evidentiary value. It
Speaker 8: shouldn't have been allowed in if they can't prove it
Speaker 8: in terms of it's not written in a report that
Speaker 8: it doesn't exist anywhere other than this cops memory. I mean,
Speaker 8: how much weight can you give that they're offering it
Speaker 8: for one reason, and one reason alone, because of the
Speaker 8: mention of a black hoodie that was it.
Speaker 1: I find it very interesting too, just a coincidence, But
Speaker 1: Sloan was one of the officers who responded to Aaron
Speaker 1: Luton that morning and let him go the first time.
Speaker 1: Murder on Songbird Road will continue after the break. Now
Speaker 1: back to Murder on Songbird Road. Next, we turned to
Speaker 1: the collection of Beverly's DNA on the day of the murder.
Speaker 1: After Beverly voluntarily agreed to be questioned without an attorney.
Speaker 1: She also consented to the collection of her DNA from
Speaker 1: both her person and her clothing. The entire collection process
Speaker 1: was videotaped.
Speaker 6: It's all good about for seconds of.
Speaker 11: Hello running Mat.
Speaker 5: From with the stake leaf.
Speaker 1: Matt is Matt Deschamps, a member of the Illinois State
Speaker 1: Police Crime scene Unit. What struck us immediately was that
Speaker 1: Deschamps entered the room wearing gloves, propping the door open
Speaker 1: with his left hand as he entered. Then, without hesitation,
Speaker 1: he began handling the folders belonging to the detectives who
Speaker 1: had just interviewed Beverly, moving them to the side with
Speaker 1: both gloved hands.
Speaker 7: So, first of all, tonight, then I think to pictures
Speaker 7: of us to document your what you're wearing.
Speaker 1: And he then adjusted the camera around his neck, still
Speaker 1: wearing the same gloves, changing them not once.
Speaker 6: If you want you have a shirt on or in
Speaker 6: your hoodie, do you want to take that off?
Speaker 11: You didn't have anything in your pocket that you do?
Speaker 6: Great, A little bit lower, sorry, thank you, and we
Speaker 6: wonder take it the world and to go closer bunting child,
Speaker 6: I camera.
Speaker 2: Being correct.
Speaker 7: If you have any more scrapes or any other injuries
Speaker 7: on your arms.
Speaker 1: You know that, In fact, Deschamps collected all samples while
Speaker 1: wearing the same set of gloves, which came into contact
Speaker 1: with multiple objects throughout the procedure. This appears to be
Speaker 1: in clear violation of the Illinois State Police's Clean Technique Protocol,
Speaker 1: which mandates that investigators use disposable gloves during sample collection
Speaker 1: and exercise caution to prevent gloves from coming into contact
Speaker 1: with anything that could contaminate the evidence. The protocol further
Speaker 1: instructs investigators to check gloves periodically for contamination and change
Speaker 1: them frequently. Additionally, it specifies that the wearer should avoid
Speaker 1: touching their bare skin, such as the face or arms,
Speaker 1: while wearing gloves.
Speaker 7: And then what about I'm going to get you get
Speaker 7: a little cupture on your chin that I want to
Speaker 7: take a picture of.
Speaker 6: And an up your way your eyebrow.
Speaker 1: The video clearly shows to Shaps touching his own face
Speaker 1: with his gloved hands while referencing Beverly's injuries. He also
Speaker 1: reaches into his pocket for a ruler and later a pen,
Speaker 1: retrieving them multiple times. Observing this, I began documenting each
Speaker 1: potential instance of contamination on a Google doc which I
Speaker 1: later shared with this woman.
Speaker 2: My name's Katie Hartman, and I worked with the Creme
Speaker 2: Scene Unit in Louisbo, Kentucky.
Speaker 1: And how long did you work in that capacity?
Speaker 2: Eleven years for the unit itself.
Speaker 1: And you were in law enforcement for even longer than that, correct, Yes.
Speaker 2: I was in law enforcement for.
Speaker 1: Twenty one now retired. Hartman has earned an impeccable reputation
Speaker 1: throughout her decades long career and is also married to
Speaker 1: a former detective. Are there standard protocols for collecting DNA
Speaker 1: samples from a suspect?
Speaker 2: Yes, standard, and they can be different from state to
Speaker 2: state because each state has their own labs as far
Speaker 2: as they are affiliated with police department or any other
Speaker 2: law enforcement entity. Those protocols let us know how they
Speaker 2: want that evidence collected and what that does. It enables
Speaker 2: them to do the best possible testing without contamination.
Speaker 1: How often would you, hypothetically, if you had to test
Speaker 1: four different things, how often would you change your gloves?
Speaker 2: Very often, especially when you're dealing with DNA or gunshot
Speaker 2: residue where you're touching the other person's hands or the
Speaker 2: other person's body. You want to change gloves in between
Speaker 2: hands even really, yes, the best thing you can do
Speaker 2: is change your gloves constantly, make sure that you're not
Speaker 2: also touching anything else and transferring anything that might topically
Speaker 2: be on something of fibers, liquids, anything onto another piece
Speaker 2: of evidence by doing so when you're touching something else.
Speaker 1: I asked Hartman to review the video of Beverly's DNA
Speaker 1: collection and this was her response.
Speaker 2: There was a lot of red flags. Let me say
Speaker 2: that got it. If I was training him, I would
Speaker 2: have stopped him and said, you need to change your gloves,
Speaker 2: you know, because he was taking samples of her fingernails
Speaker 2: and everything.
Speaker 1: Then after all that, he holds the sweatshirt she's just
Speaker 1: removed with both hands again with the gloves that he's
Speaker 1: touched everything, folding it for several seconds, and then the
Speaker 1: ungloved female detective continues to hold the collection bag to assist.
Speaker 2: And again that goes back to training, you know, the
Speaker 2: ungloved detective. You know, I can't say I never had
Speaker 2: ungloved detectives touching my stuff. But at the same time,
Speaker 2: most of our detectives thankfully made themselves aware of the
Speaker 2: possibility across contamination and they would glove up if they
Speaker 2: were going to be in the room with you.
Speaker 1: And that sweatshirt further played into something called chain of custody.
Speaker 2: Chain and custody simply is what happens to a piece
Speaker 2: of evidence, including DNA is a piece of evidence. Blood
Speaker 2: is evidence. So all these things are documented in where
Speaker 2: they go, who has them, what time they went, there
Speaker 2: was anybody else involved in the handling of that said evidence.
Speaker 2: So what you're doing is you're creating a timeline that's
Speaker 2: a chain of custody. If you're in the chain, then
Speaker 2: that means you had something to do with this case,
Speaker 2: either rightly so or negative Philly. So it protects the
Speaker 2: person and the case, It protects the suspect, it protects
Speaker 2: the victim. It needs to be completely untouched by anyone
Speaker 2: that's not involved.
Speaker 1: I bring it up because the bag containing Beverly's sweatshirt,
Speaker 1: the one Deschamps touched with his gloved hands while an
Speaker 1: ungloved Cyndi Geittman helped place it inside, that was left
Speaker 1: in the interrogation room after Deschamps departed. This resulted in
Speaker 1: a break in the chain of custody for an item
Speaker 1: that could have held crucial DNA evidence from the alleged
Speaker 1: assailant Beverly claims to have encountered. Now back to Katie Hartman.
Speaker 2: That really bothered me. Then he left some evidence in there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, he left her clothing in the back beyond.
Speaker 2: That bothered me. And then the tecta just through picked
Speaker 2: it up through the corner.
Speaker 1: Which means that the chain of custody was disrupted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Bob and I have discussed Matt Deschamp's evidence collection at length,
Speaker 1: so it's of note also that he processed the crime
Speaker 1: scene and Beverly's car. We don't have any video of
Speaker 1: the protocol he followed during that, but when he knew
Speaker 1: he was being videotaped, it was pretty noteworthy. Do you
Speaker 1: have any thoughts you want to add on that.
Speaker 8: The collection, Look, it's always one of our primary tools
Speaker 8: and our tool belt as defense attorneys to attack the
Speaker 8: investigation the collection of evidence, and this one was.
Speaker 5: Worse than most. The problem with.
Speaker 8: It from the defense side of it is it's a
Speaker 8: bit of a double edged sword in that theoretically, if
Speaker 8: exculpatory DNA evidence was found, that too, in theory could be.
Speaker 5: Tainted, you know, So it's like it's just a shame.
Speaker 5: It's a shame that.
Speaker 8: It wasn't done properly, and I don't know that there's
Speaker 8: anything that you can do to fix it.
Speaker 1: Katie Hartman remains more troubled by what wasn't tested, including
Speaker 1: Beverly's fingernail scrapings and finger swabs.
Speaker 2: Not upset me. That disturbed me because your job as
Speaker 2: a crime scene person sometimes it's hard not to be biased.
Speaker 2: I'm not gonna lie. It's very hard, very hard, especially
Speaker 2: if you see a lot of things through the years.
Speaker 2: But your job is still to prove or disprove what
Speaker 2: someone is being accused of and try to find out
Speaker 2: who did it, not who they think did it, but
Speaker 2: prove or disprove if this person who has been accused
Speaker 2: did it. Those far nail scrapings, the clothing, all of
Speaker 2: it that wasn't sent could prove or disprove her story.
Speaker 1: Absolutely in your personal experience, who would dictate what should
Speaker 1: or should not be sent for testing to the state lab.
Speaker 2: Our head detective and the crime scene person. I've never
Speaker 2: had anybody but a lead detective or a detective or
Speaker 2: a police officer who I was working in case with
Speaker 2: and worked with me on the lab. No one else
Speaker 2: has told me what to send to the lab.
Speaker 1: So it would be unusual, in your experience or opinion,
Speaker 1: for the prosecutor's office to dictate exactly what should and
Speaker 1: should not be sent.
Speaker 2: I've never had that happen. Now I have had prosecutor
Speaker 2: to ask me, can you resend something? Or is there
Speaker 2: still anything left of this piece of evidence to do
Speaker 2: an additional testing. You know, they do get involved in
Speaker 2: that type of thing, but I've never had any of
Speaker 2: them be the sole person to tell me or a
Speaker 2: detective what stand.
Speaker 1: This is how Special Prosecutor Jennifer Mudge addressed selective testing
Speaker 1: in our closing argument. So now we're in CSI Miami
Speaker 1: and we have to test every single thing that was
Speaker 1: in that house. No, this is the real world. We
Speaker 1: can't do that.
Speaker 8: Yeah, you don't make that statement publicly ever, let alone
Speaker 8: a trial. It's just one of those things that you know,
Speaker 8: there's some truth to it. They're not going to test everything.
Speaker 5: They're just not.
Speaker 8: But all the critical things, which had they been brought
Speaker 8: up on cross examination, would have absolutely laid.
Speaker 5: Waste to the state's case.
Speaker 8: You have to point the finger at who it needs
Speaker 8: to be pointed at it shouldn't be you and I
Speaker 8: on a podcast being the first two people to point
Speaker 8: this out publicly.
Speaker 5: That should have happened a trial.
Speaker 8: Because it's a big d Is that unusual for the
Speaker 8: state to do it? No, not necessarily, but it is
Speaker 8: unusual for a defense attorney not.
Speaker 5: To point it out. All the things that they should
Speaker 5: have tested.
Speaker 1: One could argue that things that would implicate Beverly were tested,
Speaker 1: while anything that could possibly vindicate her was purposely not tested.
Speaker 1: Her nail scrapings and her finger swaps aside. It was
Speaker 1: our impression that only Julia Beverly's phone was subjected to
Speaker 1: forensic examination. When we talk about a timeline, you have
Speaker 1: an eleven year old who's at home with a smartphone,
Speaker 1: a Chrome book, a laptop, and a gaming device. If
Speaker 1: there was any activity on those devices after ten fifteen
Speaker 1: or during the time that Beverly is caught on camera
Speaker 1: at HUCKS, that it's game over, is exculpatory.
Speaker 8: Game over, It destroys, it completely destroys the state's timeline.
Speaker 8: That means that she's alive and well while Julie's allegedly
Speaker 8: dumping all the bloody closed murder weapon in a Huk's
Speaker 8: garbage can.
Speaker 5: I mean it just it destroys their timeline.
Speaker 1: In December twenty twenty four, in response to a Freedom
Speaker 1: of Information Act request, the Illinois Office of the State's
Speaker 1: Attorney's A Pellet prosecutor, confirmed that none of Jade Beasley's
Speaker 1: electronic devices were forensically tested. None. Why like the testing
Speaker 1: of Beverly's nail scrapings, it would have potentially been a
Speaker 1: slam dunk for the prosecution.
Speaker 5: It's insane.
Speaker 8: When we learned of that fact, I bout lost my mind.
Speaker 8: I mean, in the day and age that we live
Speaker 8: in where forensic device examination has now become the primary
Speaker 8: way that they are getting convictions on cases, solving cases.
Speaker 8: To think that that they didn't even look at any
Speaker 8: of those devices to find out if Jade was active
Speaker 8: in order to build a timeline, a real timeline, is.
Speaker 5: Unbelievable to me.
Speaker 8: This thing slides into the ineffective assistance of council column
Speaker 8: very very easily, because you have to challenge things in
Speaker 8: court on the record, and when you don't do it, it
Speaker 8: creates a massive problem.
Speaker 1: And now the question was who or what would be
Speaker 1: able to fix it on the next murder on Songbird Road,
Speaker 1: access to Hucks footage raises new issues.
Speaker 8: Does it mean that I don't think there's any way
Speaker 8: in hell that that's what she was disposing of?
Speaker 5: There?
Speaker 1: Absolutely compounded by observations about Beverly.
Speaker 10: She didn't like blood, she didn't like violence.
Speaker 1: Before her legal team morphs in a major way.
Speaker 5: If anyone can get Julie out, it's her.
Speaker 1: Murder on Songbird Road is a production of iHeart Podcasts.
Speaker 1: Our executive producers are Taylor Chackoine and Lauren Bright Pacheco.
Speaker 1: Research writing and hosting by Lauren Bright Pacheco. Investigative reporting
Speaker 1: by Bob Matta and Lauren Bright Pacheco, editing, sound design
Speaker 1: and original music by Evan Tyre and Taylor Chackoine. Additional
Speaker 1: music by Asher Kurtz. Please like, subscribe, and leave us
Speaker 1: a review. Wherever you're listening, you can follow me on
Speaker 1: all platforms at Lauren Bright Pacheco and email the show
Speaker 1: with thought, suggestions or tips at Investigating Murder at iHeartMedia
Speaker 1: dot com. For more iHeart podcasts, visit the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite shows. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening,