Murder on Songbird Road - 8. The Evidence

Episode Date: February 13, 2025

The access to the interrogation video and the collection of Bevely’s DNA raise concerns about official protocol and the broader objectives of the investigation. Additionally, the prosecution’s influence on the case comes under scrutiny. Email us with thoughts, suggestions or tips at [e-mail]. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Welcome to the Criminalia Podcast. I'm Maria Tremorchi. And I'm Holly Fry. Together, we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime. Each season, we explore a new theme from poisoners to art thieves. We uncover the secrets of history's most interesting figures, from legal injustices to body snatching. And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story.

Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It was big news. I mean, white girl gets murdered, found in a cemetery, big, big news. A long investigation stalls until someone changes their story. I like saw nothing to happen. An arrest, trial and conviction soon follow. He did not kill her. There's no way. Is the real killer rightly behind bars or still walking free? Did you kill her? Listen to The Real Killer, Season 3 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts.

Need the latest crime news fast? Whether it's the latest developments in a high profile case or urgent alerts about missing persons, Crime Alert Hourly Update delivers the news you need to know as it happens. I'm Nancy Grace, and with our team of investigative reporters and experts, we bring you the top crime headlines you need to know every hour on the hour. Listen to Crime Alert Hourly Update on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Monster BTK concludes. A judge asked Dennis Rader to take him through all the killings in the courtroom, live on TV.

He was not expecting that. He's exposed and known for what he is. To hear the final four episodes early and ad-free, subscribe to iHeart True Crime Plus. The latest episodes will become available for free every Monday. Monster, BTK. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Murder on Songbird Road is a production of iHeart Podcasts. Previously on Murder on Songbird Road, Julia Beverly's 911 call wasn't the only one of interest on the day of Jade's murder.

And this call was made at 1030 for a suspicious person. No way. He was out there, belligerent, talking about harming somebody. And it looks like there were two calls. The police were responding to Julia Beverly's call, but it looks like Marion police were already in route to a call about a male in all black. But I did overhear one of the officers state that we had a 911 call. They were looking for a person in a dark hoodie and dark pants, suspiciously running through backyards.

There was a guy in a mask or a person in a mask running through the backyard at that time, and he made that call. He said, I made the 911 call. The property that's adjacent to the murder scene with multiple bodies of water, a heavily wooded area, and now what we're hearing, a makeshift encampment for transient people.

And the police don't check it? That's what I can't understand. Jason Plomb, Bob Mata, Bob, Jason. Nice to meet you, man. We have this adversarial system, right? Where the prosecution's trying to win and the defense is trying to win and the defense is trying to defend their client. What we need is an inquisitorial system.

I'm Lauren Brad Pacheco and this is Murder on Songbird Road. Obtaining the trial transcripts and Julia Beverly's interrogation video had been a long, frustrating, and arduous process. However, once we had them, they provided incredible insights into the prosecution's case against Beverly, particularly regarding the investigation. Would you state your name so we have voice identification? Julia, Bethley. Can you give me your date of birth, Julia?

4-23-91. And do you have a middle initial? E-B-E-L-Y. 42391. And do you have a middle initial? E. B-E-E-E-L-Y? Mm-hmm. All right. And it says 42191. 42391.

42391. All right. I'm going to ask you, can you start all over from the beginning, what happened? Oh. Oh, wait, wait, sorry. I need to read you the Miranda warning. To the left of frame, seated across from two detectives at a small table in a compact interrogation room,

a sweatshirt-clad Beverly waved her rights to remain silent and to an attorney before agreeing to be questioned for what would end up being ours. Do you wish to speak with us today? I'm going to get your signature right here on this one. The prosecution emphasized her stayed demeanor during the investigation, but Beverly's emotions are evident when she speaks about finding Jade.

I realized I didn't have my cards with me. I turned around and came back home. about finding Jade. to grab the knife from him and at that time just multiple things just trying to grab him and stuff. He got cuts on my hand. At that point he just ran off. I ran in the house, sellable as everywhere. I ran to my bathroom to grab my rag. I'll wipe my hand real quick, because it was bleeding.

And I ran to go find Jade. When I found her in the bathroom. Before we delve deeper, let's recap the key bad facts that ultimately led to Beverly's conviction for the murder of Jade Beasley. We have, she left Jade alone. She left the dogs outside.

She said she made it to Walmart. That is the number one thing that people who've listened to the podcast have hit me up with. They've said, why did she lie? Why did she lie? The bulk of the case against Beverly was built on the foundation of her statements about making it to Walmart. Here, in Beverly's own words from her interrogation on the day of the murder,

is her account as questioned by Williamson County Detective Cindy Geitman and Marion Police Detective Carl Eggemeier. When was it that you realized you didn't have your cards? When I got to Walmart, I pulled out my purse and I was checking my phone and I realized I didn't have any of my cards with me. Okay. And then you came back home? Yeah. Okay.

Later in the interrogation, she's asked for more specifics about that Walmart trip. — When you went to Walmart, did you go into Walmart? — No, I didn't even get out because I wanted to check my phone. I didn't realize I didn't have any of my cards with me. — Okay. But you were in the parking lot? — Yeah, just in the parking lot. — Okay. — On face value, the Walmart story appears to be a lie.

A quick aside, I had actually questioned Beverly extensively about that Walmart trip over the phone the day before. And you've mentioned the fact that lying is never good, but lying to the police is particularly bad. Well, I mean, if you're trying to get yourself arrested and charged, that's the number one way to do it. But again, I cannot stress this enough. It's so easy to sit here in your chairs or in your car or in your bed, wherever

you're listening to this podcast and think, well, I would never lie to the police in that situation. I would tell the truth. And again, I'm going to restate this. If you've left your house for 15 minutes, okay? And you come back and whoever it is, whether it's your kid, your step kid, whoever, and you come back and that child has been brutally murdered, brutally murdered, in that short

of the span of time, anybody who thinks that they are not going to think, that the cops are going to think that I did it, is just not being honest with themselves. I don't suffer from that same delusion because it wouldn't be the first thing that I'd think of, really. The question for me always with respect to when somebody in that situation lies and we see it all the time is are they lying because they are in protection mode

or are they lying for a situation like what Julie's talking about happening? Like her mind, because that was her plan, she thought that's what she was going to do. When is the first time she mentions the Walmart stop? Is it initially before she's brought into the station or is it when she's being interrogated? It is, I think, on scene that she said that's where she was going. She was heading to town

and then her brain appears to have just filled in the missing pieces. So by the time they're in the interrogation, she's saying where she always parks because that's the easiest place for her to unload the kids without feeling like someone's going to park right next to her. Now I did push her in the conversation we had yesterday about that because I said, why did you go to Carbondale? There was a local Walmart. Why that Carbondale? And without missing a beat she said they are a bigger store and they still had the Black Friday bin sales left. The bigger issue for me initially was the gap in time from the time that she gets home till the time that she calls 911. That was something that was tough for me to try to stretch it out.

Remember, according to the prosecution's timeline, Beverly failed to dial 911 for roughly 30 minutes after returning home. This period of time, it's hard to account for all of it. That has always kind of been my one thing. More than anything else, like I completely understand that when Julia decides that, oh my God, they're coming after me. They think I'm the one who did this. That she'd try to get herself away

from that house for longer. If you're in her shoes and she's gone, what 15, 20 minutes, you would realize, okay, well, that seems crazy that somebody like snuck in and did this in the time that I just happened to leave the house. I think that that would probably be running through your mind. I agree with you that it's suspect, but we unfortunately are at the disadvantage of having to confirm the state's timeline because the defense never challenged it.

Right. And it's problematic, but it's still explainable to me, because you cannot know how you will respond to a situation like that unless you're in it. People can speculate all day long. I like to think that if I were on the bus or a subway or on an airplane and somebody pulled out a shank that I would jump out of my seat

and I'd go tackle that person and save the day, I've had that kind of fantasy dream a million times. Would I do that in real life? I have no idea. You mentioned the gap in time, and that comes up in the interrogation. She actually isn't asked about it. She just offers that.

I found her and that she could possibly not be breathing. And then at that point, I just kind of was waiting. I sat in the kitchen, I know. I just kind of went to shut down panic mode. I didn't know what to do. I felt like I needed to do something for her. I didn't know what to do. Julie shutting down is plausible. When you have all of those things trying to work their way around in your mind and you're

trying to make sense of it, I can see that being crippling. I can see that causing somebody to just freeze up, to freak out. The word freeze immediately made me recall conversations I'd had with three longtime friends of Beverly, Hillary, Katie, and Leah, during my first trip to Marion. Here are their combined takes on that lapse of time before Beverly called 911. I could see her freezing, like just in horror. I can see her just in total shock, like frozen. And I can picture her that way.

I can't even imagine how she even got the phone to call. I wouldn't have even had it in me. Incidentally, that's Leah, a former military police officer who, like Julie, is mixed race and was singled out while attending Beverly's trial. But we'll get into that later. And Julie shakes so much. So how she was able to dial the phone honestly shocks you. I'm so proud of her.

I know for a fact that she broke down. She can't, she's just very emotional. She can't handle any kind of thing without crying. What seemed like five seconds to her was probably 20 minutes. She's a thinker. So she had everything going for her head. She had, I'm the stepmom. I'm the one who found her. She had, I'm the mixed one in this white family.

I am the one of color in this white family in this hick southern Illinois town. My girl that I raised is gone. How are my kids gonna be affected? She probably had every bit of that running through her mind in what would have seemed like a five second thought was probably an absolute frozen moment of shock, of straight shock.

And tears. Let's not forget, she was attacked by an intruder walking into her home, then found her daughter dead. She is in shock. No one can tell you how they would respond in that situation. I've been in a lot of stressful situations and I've completely shut down at times

where I wasn't even able to speak. Just cry and I'm not as soft as Julie. speak. Just cry. And I'm not as soft as Julie. Murder on Songbird Road will be back after the break. Where is Missing Mom of Florence? This week on Crime Stories, we're joined by Payne Lindsay from Up and Vanished podcast. She just fell off the map completely. Looking at her, it would be uncommon for Florence to go hiking or camping without her children leaving them with no idea where their mother was. Her personal items found outside of this man's tent. What the hell happened? Listen to Crime Stories with Nancy Grace on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever

you get your podcasts. It was big news. I mean, white girl gets murdered, found in a cemetery. Big, big news. When a young woman is murdered, a desperate search for answers takes investigators to some unexpected places. He believed it could be part of a satanic cult. I think there were many individuals present.

I don't know who pulled the trigger. A long investigation stalls until someone changes their story. I like saw what could happen. An arrest, trial and conviction soon follow. He just saw his body just kind of collapsing. Two decades later, a new team of lawyers says their client is innocent. He did not kill her. There's no way.

Is the real killer rightly behind bars or still walking free? Are you capable of murder? I definitely am not. Did you kill her? Listen to The Real Killer, Season 3 on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Monster, BTK, concludes. The plans were made.

Search warrants were drawn in advance. On that day, I remember it was radio silence. When the chief came out and said, we've caught BTK, denial was the first reaction. Now that they got him, how am I going to get my hands on him? The judge asked Dennis Rader to take him through all the killings in the courtroom, live on TV. He was not expecting that. And you see him trying to maintain control. You see his voice change.

He's acting like he's bored. He's exposed and known for what he is. To hear the final four episodes early and ad-free, subscribe to iHeart True Crime Plus. The latest episodes will become available for free every Monday. Monster, BTK. listen on the iHeart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Welcome to the Criminalia Podcast. I'm Maria Tremarchi. And I'm Holly Frey. Together, we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime. Holly Frye Each season, we explore a new theme, everything from poisoners and pirates to art thieves and snake oil products and those who made and sold them. HOST We uncover the stories and secrets of some of history's most compelling criminal figures, including a man who built a submarine as a

getaway vehicle. Yep, that's a fact. We also look at what kinds of societal forces were at play at the time of the crime, from legal injustices to the ethics of body snatching, to see what, if anything, might look different through today's perspective. And be sure to tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in custom-made cocktails and mocktails inspired by the stories. There's one for every story we tell. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Now, back to murder on Songbird Road. Back to Bob and his take on the time gap before the 911 call. When I first read the Coburger probable cause affidavit, and there was a phrase that was used and I think they called it frozen shock phase, it was the exact same circumstance. Bob is referencing the 2022 Idaho Four killings, in which four University of Idaho students were fatally stabbed in an off-campus residence. The roommate who saw the suspected killer walking out had the bushy eyebrows, and then in that case doesn't call 911 ever. 911 didn't get called till just about noon the following day.

She sees this stranger in the house at 4 a.m., 4.30 a.m., and doesn't make the call. They use the word she was in frozen shock phase. That one's explainable to me. It's still a bad fact though. The injuries Beverly claimed resulted from a struggle with the knife-wielding intruder she says she encountered at the front door, along with others she attributed to self-harm, were also under scrutiny. There was a bite mark on her arm, which Beverly attributed to a self-inflicted bite. That's when the state brought in something that makes you and I both groan, and that is bite mark evidence, because it has been debunked, discredited as junk science.

There's no shortage of wrongful convictions that can be directly attributed to the junk science of bite marks, identification and analysis. After a local dentist with no forensics training made dental molds, an expert witness in forensic odontology testified. The defense raised a continuing objection to the witness's testimony, arguing it was inadmissible. However, the judge ruled in favor of the prosecution, stating that any observational, not theoretical, evidence is admissible in court.

Meanwhile, a swab from Beverly's arm tested positive for Jade's DNA, though it was not further analyzed to determine if it was saliva. As a result, it remained unclear whether the DNA sample was related to the incident or merely household DNA. The DNA on the arm, to me, was probably the smoking gun in this case, in conjunction with the lies about Walmart. Out of physical evidence that it existed, that DNA that they claim that they tested, that tested positive as to being jades, but they didn't go so far as to figure out what the source was. They didn't figure out if it was saliva, blood. It's inexplicable

to me. Like, how are you not figuring that out? Nonetheless, an implication was made, supported by the dentist's observations, that the bite mark was caused by Jade as she struggled for her life. However, it's important to remember that the prosecution also argued that Beverly had thoroughly cleaned herself after the murder to eliminate any evidence from her body. Here's Bob.

That's going to be the primary wound that you're going to try to clean off if you know that Jade bit you. So again, it's insane to think that that would remain the one area where they found Jade's DNA because it would have been the one area that she would have been sure to have cleaned off the most thoroughly. Furthermore, in 2022, the National Institute of Standards and Technology

reviewed the scientific foundations of bite mark analysis, concluding there was insufficient data to support its validity as a forensic technique. But what's even more significant? The arm swab taken from Beverly on the day of the murder, which the prosecution used to tie the bite mark to Jade, despite the fact it wasn't confirmed to be saliva. That swab was the only DNA sample from Beverly

that was actually tested. You heard that correctly. None of Beverly's hand swabs, fingernail scrapings, finger wounds, scratches on her forehead, or clothing were tested. The only evidence analyzed from that DNA collection was that one arm swab. How do you have all of her DNA and you only test one thing? It's unbelievable to me. What's also hard to believe is who was deciding what evidence was or wasn't tested. A particular excerpt from the preliminary hearing transcript stood out to us right away. In it, Julie Bevelie's defense attorney is cross-examining Cindy Geitman, the lead detective. It's also worth noting again that this was Geitman's first and last time leading a murder

investigation as she has since retired. Bob and I will read that exchange for Badam. So every piece of physical evidence would have at least come into your jurisdiction. You were the one that decides what goes to the lab for testing, correct? Incorrect. Who does make that decision? At the time, at the beginning of trial, we were using the Williamson County State's Attorney's Office and Assistant State's Attorney Lisa Ervin was the one that directed me on

what evidence to send to the state police lab for testing. Okay, do you have any independent discretion in your own investigation to determine what items should or should not be tested or what items you would suggest be tested? I suggested items, and by my training, it was... I was supposed to use her as the final decision on what items were taken to the state lab. So, was the prosecution essentially dictating the scope of the lead investigator's investigation?

I've reached out multiple times to the current state's attorney for clarification on whether this is standard protocol in Williamson County, but to date I've yet to receive a response. Meanwhile, Bob's not exactly shocked. I mean, there's some truth to it. They can't test everything. And they are allowed to cherry pick evidence. They are allowed to pick and choose. Even though, in theory, they do have unlimited resources,

and they do have a state lab that they're sending these things to, when you're talking to laypeople about it, they're not going to like the answer, well, they should be testing everything. We're trying to get to the truth here. But the reality is that they just don't test everything. There's everything. And then there's what you would absolutely assume they had tested, because it doesn't make sense that they didn't test

things like Julia Beverly's nail scrapings. If you're so sure that she is guilty, why wouldn't you test the swabs of her fingers and her hands, which were covered with blood from what she contends were her defensive wounds when she was met by the assailant, but what the state contends were wounds that she sustained while she was murdering Jade. Either which way, how do you not test her nail scrapings? It would have been a slam dunk. It's unexplainable.

You're asking me to answer a question that I couldn't possibly answer because it makes no sense at all. Like you said, it either opens and shuts the case immediately because she's got jade skin under her fingernails and the case is done or it's somebody else's. What I take from it more than anything else is not that the state was cherry picking evidence that they wanted tested because they wanted to keep a very narrow focus on potentially who this could have been that done it. And I hate to do it to a fellow defense attorney, but when you start getting the police reports

in, there's a million things that they should be testing and they're not testing any of them. I am filing a motion getting in front of the judge and asking the judge that they order. Even if you have to narrow it down like they're clearly not going to pay to test everything but I'm going to narrow down the three or four most critical. But I'm going to narrow down the three or four most critical pieces of evidence that I absolutely think could be exculpatory to my client. I'm going to go in. I'm at least making a record of it. Even if the judge is going to deny it, I'm making a record because you know what? That's powerful on appeal.

I was just going to say, I think that a lot of people don't understand that your hands are tied on appeal by things that were raised as issues during trial. As we've seen, we have some very real issues, but the fact that they weren't raised by her defense attorney means that they cannot be tackled in the appeal. Honestly, the way in which her newborn son was immediately removed while she was a pre-trial detainee speaks volumes to me in terms of lack of presumption of innocence. 100%. That wasn't raised during the trial.

What was raised during the trial, however, was something Beverly has remained consistent about since the day of the murder, her description of the alleged assailant. He had like a ski mask so I could see from here. I could tell he was white. And then he was a little taller than me, maybe a few inches or so. Bevelie has always described the male she says she encountered that December day as around five foot five or so. Beverly has always described the male she says she encountered that December day as around 5'5 or so.

But as mentioned before, why, if the guy is a fictional scapegoat, wouldn't she have made a made-up man sound more imposing? Granted, Beverly's only 4'11, but the average height for American men is 5'9 inches, and her then-fiance, Mike Beasley stands about 6 foot. Why, if she was set on creating someone else to blame, would she have said this to police? — I told you it's my fault because I loved her. — You were there with her. You were there for me.

— I should have just taken her with me. — In the interrogation, Beverly even says, this is my fault. I should have taken her with me. This is my fault. Which speaks to her innocence. I mean, that speaks to her innocence. It does.

So does something else. You'll remember from our last episode that police were advised of a mail fitting the description Beverly gave in terms of clothing, from the CAD reports. Marion advised they saw a male wearing a black hoodie walking on Buckley about 50 yards westbound off Quarry League. An officer named Sloan was sent to investigate. Here's his testimony from Beverly's trial, which Bob and I will read.

Officer Welge, I believe, advised for me to check on a person that was wearing a black hoodie or a black jacket that was walking on Buckley Road. I believe is the name of the road, so I did that. So Officer Welge went to the residence. Yeah, he continued on, and I stopped. You stopped. Did you get out of your car? Yes, I did.

And did you talk to the person in the black hoodie? Yes, I did. Did you identify that person? I don't believe I identified her. Was it female? Yes. Okay. Did you speak with her? Yeah. She was walking her dog or looking for her dog or something to do with her dog.

She was looking for a dog in the area. And you were able to confirm she lived in that area? Yes. She's a resident. Okay. After you spoke with the female, did you, what did you do next? I continued to songbird to assist Officer Welge. Here's Beverly's defense attorney's cross-examination.

Officer Sloan, did you prepare a written report in this case? Yes, ma'am, I did. In that report, did you mention any contact with this individual wearing a black hoodie on Buckley Road? No, I did not. Did you, when you stopped to identify this person, did you get a name?

I do not believe so. Did you get an address? I do not believe so. How long did this contact occur? Guessing probably... Moments? A couple of minutes, maybe. Like,? A couple of minutes maybe. Like a whole couple of minutes?

I assume. I didn't... I didn't... I didn't time it. Okay. Did this person have a dog with them? Uh, I don't recall seeing a dog. Okay, so if you reported back that this individual was walking a dog,

that would have been an error? I said she was either walking a dog or she said something. She was walking or looking for her dog or something. But you don't recall if the dog was there? I do not believe so. But this person was dressed in black, is that correct? She had a black hoodie on. Alright, so this to me is such an interesting exchange because

Officer Sloan didn't get her name or address, but knew she was a resident. Couldn't remember if she was walking a dog or looking for a dog, but remembered the color of her hoodie, and did not make any official note or report of this interaction. Yeah, it's got zero evidentiary value. Again, Thien should have filed a motion in Lemonade, barring this entire line of testimony. The only reason that Mudge asked that question was in order to say that, oh yeah, I saw a woman in a black hoodie.

I spoke to her, she was looking for her dog or she was walking her dog, to just discredit the black hoodie situation. Oh yeah, we found the person. I mean, it's- It wasn't a guy, it was a woman. She lives in the neighborhood, but I didn't get her name. Don't remember she had a dog.

Didn't get her address, but she lives in the neighborhood. It seems really disingenuous to me. It is disingenuous. It's, and it completely undermines Julie's story in one fell swoop, and it's got no evidentiary value. It shouldn't have been allowed in. If they can't prove it in terms of it's not written in a report, that it doesn't exist anywhere other than this cop's memory, I mean how much weight can you give that? They're offering it for one reason and one

reason alone, because of the mention of a black hoodie. That was it. I find it very interesting too, just a coincidence, but Sloan was one of the officers who responded to Aaron Luton that morning and let him go the first time. Murder on Songbird Road will continue after the break. Murder on Songbird Road will continue after the break. would be uncommon for Florence to go hiking or camping without her children, leaving them with no idea where their mother was.

Her personal items found outside of this man's tent. What the hell happened? Listen to Crime Stories with Nancy Grace on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It was big news. I mean, white girl gets murdered, found in a cemetery. Big, big news. When a young woman is murdered, a desperate search for answers takes investigators to some unexpected places. He believed it could be part of a satanic cult. I think there were many individuals present. I don't know who pulled the trigger. A long investigation stalls until someone changes their story.

I like saw what they were happening. An arrest, trial and conviction soon follow. He just saw his body just kind of collapsing. Two decades later, a new team of lawyers says their client is innocent. He did not kill her. There's no way. Is the real killer rightly behind bars or still walking free? Monster BTK concludes. The plans were made.

Search warrants were drawn in advance. On that day, I remember it was radio silence. When the chief came out and said, we've caught BTK, denial was the first reaction. Now that they got him, how am I going to get my hands on him? The judge asked Dennis Rader to take him through all the killings in the courtroom live on TV. He was not expecting that. And you see him trying to maintain control. You see his voice change. He's acting like he's bored. He's exposed and known for what he is. To hear the final four episodes early and ad-free, subscribe to iHeart True Crime

Plus. The latest episodes will become available for free every Monday. Monster, BTK. Listen on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Welcome to the Criminalia Podcast. I'm Maria Tremarchi. And I'm Holly Frey. Together we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical true crime. Each season we explore a new theme, everything from poisoners and pirates to art thieves and snake oil products and those who made and sold them. We uncover the stories and secrets of some of history's most compelling criminal figures,

including a man who built a submarine as a getaway vehicle. Yep, that's a fact. We also look at what kinds of societal forces were at play at the time of the crime, from legal injustices to the ethics of body snatching, to see what, if anything, might look different through today's perspective. And be sure to tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in custom-made cocktails and mocktails inspired by the stories. There's one for every story we tell. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. Now back to murder on Songbird Road. Next, we turn to the collection of Beverly's

DNA. On the day of the murder, after Beverly voluntarily agreed to be questioned without an attorney, she also consented to the collection of her DNA, from both her person and her clothing. The entire collection process was videotaped. I'll step out for a second just so there's a little more room. Hello, my name is Matt. I'm with the state police. Matt is Matt DeShamps, a member of the Illinois State Police Crime Scene Unit. What struck us immediately was that Deschamps entered the room wearing gloves,

propping the door open with his left hand as he entered. Then, without hesitation, he began handling the folders belonging to the detectives who had just interviewed Beverly, moving them to the side with both gloved hands. So, first of all, can I, is there anybody, take some pictures of you, just to document your, what you're wearing and... He then adjusted the camera around his neck, still wearing the same gloves,

never changing them, not once. If you want, you have a shirt underneath your hoodie. Do you want to go ahead and take that off? You didn't have anything in your pockets that you need to do Right Go a little bit lower. Sorry. Thank you And when we do them with take these overalls and I'm gonna go close up on each arm The camera is being tricked. Do you have any more scrapes or any other injuries on your arms? No, I'm coming with it.

In fact, Deschamps collected all samples while wearing the same set of gloves, which came into contact with multiple objects throughout the procedure. This appears to be in clear violation of the Illinois State Police's Clean Technique Protocol, which mandates that investigators use disposable gloves during sample collection and exercise caution to prevent gloves from coming into contact with anything that could contaminate the evidence.

The protocol further instructs investigators to check gloves periodically for contamination and change them frequently. Additionally, it specifies that the wearer should avoid touching their bare skin, such as the face or arms, while wearing gloves. I'm gonna get, you got a little cut here on your chin that I'm gonna take a picture of and then up here by your eyebrow. The video clearly shows DeShamps touching his own face with his gloved hands while referencing Beverly's injuries.

He also reaches into his pocket for a ruler and later a pen, retrieving them multiple times. Observing this, I began documenting each potential instance of contamination on a Google Doc, which I later shared with this woman. My name is Katie Hartman, and I worked with the crime scene unit in Louisville, Kentucky. And how long did you work in that capacity? 11 years for the unit itself.

And you were in law enforcement for even longer than that, correct? Yes, I was in law enforcement for 21. Now retired, Hartman has earned an impeccable reputation throughout her decades-long career and is also married to a former detective. Are there standard protocols for collecting DNA samples from a suspect? Yes. Standard. And they can be different from state to state because each state has their own labs as far as they are affiliated with the police department or any other law enforcement entity. Those protocols let us know how they want that evidence collected. And what that does, it enables them

to do the best possible testing without contamination. How often would you, hypothetically, if you had to test four different things, how often would you change your gloves? Very often. Especially when you're dealing with DNA or gunshot residue where you're touching with DNA or gunshot residue where you're touching the other person's hands or the other person's body.

You want to change gloves in between hands even. Really? Yes. The best thing you can do is change your gloves constantly. Make sure that you're not also touching anything else and transferring anything that might topically be on something of fibers, liquids, anything onto another piece of evidence by doing so when you're touching something else.

I asked Hartman to review the video of Beverly's DNA collection, and this was her response. There was a lot of red flags. Let me say that. Got it. If I was training him, I would have stopped him and said, you need to change your gloves, you know, because he was taking samples of her fingernails and everything. Then after all that, he holds the sweatshirt she's just removed

with both hands, again, with the gloves that he's touched everything, folding it for several seconds, and then the ungloved female detective continues to hold the collection bag to assist. And again, that goes back to training. The ungloved detective, I can't say I never had ungloved detectives touching my stuff, but at the same time, most of our detectives thankfully made themselves aware of the possibility across contamination,

and they would glove up if they were going to be in the room with you. And that sweatshirt further played into something called chain of custody. Chain of custody simply is what happens to a piece of evidence, including DNA. DNA is a piece of evidence, including DNA. DNA is a piece of evidence. Blood is evidence. So all these things are documented in where they go, who has them, what time they went there, was anybody else involved in the handling of that said evidence. So what you're doing is you're creating a timeline. That's a chain of custody.

If you're in the chain, then that means you had something to do with this case, either rightly so or negatively so. It protects the person and the case. It protects the suspect. It protects the victim. It needs to be completely untouched by anyone that's not involved. I bring it up because the bag containing Beverly's sweatshirt,

the one DeShamps touched with his gloved hands while an ungloved Cindy Geitman helped place it inside, that was left in the interrogation room after DeShamps departed. This resulted in a break in the chain of custody for an item that could have held crucial DNA evidence from the alleged assailant Beverly claims to have encountered. Now, back to Katie Hartman. That really bothered me.

Then he left some evidence in there. Yeah, he left her clothing in the bag behind. Yeah, that bothered me. And the detective just picked it up and threw it in the corner. Which means that the chain of custody was disrupted. Yeah. Bob and I have discussed Matt DeShamp's evidence collection at length.

So it's of note also that he processed the crime scene and Beverly's car. We don't have any video of the protocol he followed during that, but when he knew he was being videotaped, it was pretty noteworthy. Do you have any thoughts you want to add on that? The collection, look, it's always one of our primary tools and our tool belt as defense attorneys to attack. The investigation, the collection of evidence in this one was worse than most. The problem with it from the defense side of it is it's a bit of a double-edged sword

in that theoretically, if exculpatory DNA evidence was found, that too, in theory, could be tainted. You know, so it's like, it's just a shame. It's a shame that it wasn't done properly, and I don't know that there's anything that you can do to fix it. Katie Hartman remains more troubled by what wasn't tested, including Beverly's fingernail scrapings and finger swabs. Not upset me, but it disturbed me. Because your job as a crime scene person, sometimes it's hard not to be biased.

I'm not gonna lie. It's very hard, very hard. Especially if you see a lot of things through the years. But your job is still to prove or disprove what someone is being accused of and try to find out who did it. Not who they think did it, but prove or disprove if this person who has been accused did it. Those fingernail scrapings, the clothing, all of it that wasn't sent could prove or disprove

her story. Absolutely. In your personal experience, who would dictate what should or should not be sent for testing to the state lab? Our head detective and the crime scene person. I've never had anybody but a lead detective or a detective or a police officer who I was working the case with and worked with me on the lab. No one else has told me what to send to the lab.

So it would be unusual in your experience or opinion for the prosecutor's office to dictate exactly what should and should not be sent. I've never had that happen. Now I have had prosecutors ask me, can you resend something or is there still anything left of this piece of evidence to do an additional testing? They do get involved in that type of thing, but I've never had any of them be the sole person to tell me or a detective what to send.

This is how special prosecutor Jennifer Mudge addressed selective testing in her closing argument. So now we're in CSI Miami and we have to test every single thing that was in that house? No. This is the real world. We can't do that. Yeah. You don't make that statement publicly ever, let alone at trial. It's just one of those things that, you know, there's some truth to it. They're not going to test everything. They're just not. But all the critical things, which had they been brought up on cross-examination, would have absolutely laid waste to the state's

case. You have to point the finger at who it needs to be pointed at. It shouldn't be you and I on a podcast being the first two people to point this out publicly. This should have happened at trial because it's a big deal. Is that unusual for the state to do it? No, not necessarily, but it is unusual for a defense attorney not to point it out, all the things that they should have tested. One could argue that things that would implicate Beverly were tested while anything that could possibly vindicate her was purposely not tested. Her nail scrapings and her finger swabs aside, it was our impression that only Julia Beverly's phone was subjected to forensic examination. When we talk about a timeline, you have an 11-year-old who's at home with a smartphone,

a Chromebook, a laptop, and a gaming device. If there was any activity on those devices after 1015 or during the time that Beverly is caught on camera at Hux, that... It's game over. ...is exculpatory. It's game over. It destroys, it completely destroys the state's timeline. That means that she's alive and well, while Julie's allegedly dumping all the bloody clothes and murder weapon in a Huck's garbage can.

I mean it just it destroys their timeline. In December 2024, in response to a Freedom of Information Act request, the Illinois Office of the state's attorney's appellate prosecutor confirmed that none of Jade Beasley's electronic devices were forensically tested. None. Why? Like the testing of Beverly's nail scrapings, it would have potentially been a slam dunk for the prosecution.

It's insane. When we learned of that fact, I bot lost my mind. I mean, in the day and age that we live in where forensic device examination has now become the primary way that they are getting convictions on cases, solving cases, to think that they didn't even look at any of those, to find out if Jade was active in order to build a timeline, a real timeline, is unbelievable to me. This thing slides into the ineffective assistance

of counsel column very, very easily because you have to challenge things in court, on the record, and when you don't do it, it creates a massive problem. And now the question was who or what would be able to fix it? On the next murder on Songbird Road, access to Huck's footage raises new issues. Does it mean that I don't think there's any way in hell that that's what she was disposing of there? Absolutely.

Compounded by observations about Beverly... She didn't like blood. She didn't like violence. ...before her legal team morphs in a major way. If anyone can get Julie out, it's her. Murder on Songbird Road is a production of iHeart Podcasts. Our executive producers are Taylor Chocoin and Lauren Bright Pacheco. Research writing and hosting by Lauren Bright Pacheco. Investigative reporting by Bob Mata and Lauren Bright Pacheco.

Editing, sound design, and original music by Evan Tyre and Taylor Chocoin. Additional music by Asher Kurtz. Please like, subscribe, and leave us a review wherever you're listening. You can follow me on all platforms at Lauren Bright Pacheco and email the show with thoughts, suggestions, or tips at investigatingmur get your favorite shows. Thanks for listening. For more I Heart podcasts, visit the I Heart Radio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your favorite shows. Thanks for listening. Welcome to the Criminalia podcast. I'm Maria Tremorchi. And I'm Holly Frey. Together, we invite you into the dark and winding corridors of historical

true crime. Each season, we explore a new theme from Poisoners to Art Thebes. We uncover the secrets of history's most interesting figures from legal injustices to body snatching. And tune in at the end of each episode as we indulge in cocktails and mocktails inspired by each story. Listen to Criminalia on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. It was big news. I mean, white girl gets murdered, found in a cemetery, big, big news. A long investigation stalls until someone changes their story.

I like saw, hoping to happen. An arrest, trial and conviction soon follow. He did not kill her. There's no way. Is the real killer rightly behind bars or still walking free did you kill her listen to the real killer season 3 on the I heart radio app Apple podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. Need the latest crime news fast whether it's the latest developments in a high profile case or urgent alerts about

missing persons crime alert hourly update delivers the news you need to know as it happens. about See you app, Apple podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. He's exposed and known for what he is.