Murder on Songbird Road: Episode 8 - The Evidence

Murder on Songbird Road, a gripping true-crime series by iHeartPodcasts, delves deep into the controversial case surrounding the tragic stabbing death of Jade Beasley, an 11-year-old girl from Southern Illinois. Episode 8, titled "The Evidence," meticulously examines the forensic and investigative aspects that led to the arrest and conviction of Julia Beverly, Jade’s father’s fiancée. Hosted by veteran true-crime host Lauren Bright Pacheco and criminal defense attorney Bob Motta, this episode scrutinizes whether justice was truly served or if an innocent woman is languishing behind bars.

Key Discussion Points

1. Suspicious 911 Calls and Initial Investigation

   The episode opens by revisiting the critical timeline of events on the day of Jade's murder. Multiple 911 calls were made, including one from Julia Beverly reporting a suspicious person in a dark hoodie running through backyards ([03:13]). Bob Motta highlights the significance of these calls, questioning their authenticity and timing:

   Bob Motta [03:23]: "He said, I made the 911 call."

2. Julie Beverly’s Interrogation and the Walmart Alibi

   Central to the prosecution’s case was Beverly's account of visiting a Walmart before returning home. This alibi has been a focal point of skepticism among listeners.

   During her interrogation, Beverly consistently stated she went to Walmart but only remained in the parking lot ([08:07]). The inconsistency in her statements raises red flags:

   Cindy Geitman [08:53]: "On face value, the Walmart story appears to be a lie."

   Cody Flom, co-host, emphasizes the psychological strain Beverly might have been under:

   Jason Flom [09:13]: "Lying to the police is particularly bad."

3. The Time Gap Between Incident and 911 Call

   A significant point of contention is the approximately 30-minute delay between Beverly’s return home and her call to 911 ([10:10]). The hosts debate whether this delay is indicative of consciousness of guilt or a natural reaction to trauma.

   Cindy Geitman [12:03]: "According to the prosecution's timeline, Beverly failed to dial 911 for roughly 30 minutes after returning home."

   Flom considers the possibility of shock-induced paralysis:

   Jason Flom [12:42]: "If you're in her shoes...that would probably be running through your mind."

4. Forensic Evidence: DNA and Bite Mark Analysis

   The episode delves into the forensic evidence presented against Beverly, particularly focusing on DNA findings and the controversial bite mark analysis.

   • DNA Evidence: A swab from Beverly's arm tested positive for Jade's DNA, but its exact source (saliva or blood) remains unclear. This raises questions about its relevance and conclusiveness.

     Bob Motta [22:08]: "The DNA on the arm to me was probably the smoking gun in this case..."

   • Bite Mark Analysis: The prosecution presented a discredited forensic technique, bite mark analysis, to suggest a struggle between Beverly and Jade. Despite objections from the defense, the court admitted this evidence.

     Cindy Geitman [21:00]: "Bite mark evidence...has been debunked, discredited as junk science."

5. Issues with Evidence Collection and Chain of Custody

   A significant portion of the episode critiques the methods used during the collection of evidence, highlighting procedural lapses that could undermine the integrity of the case.

   • Improper Handling by Investigators: Matt Deschamps, a member of the Illinois State Police Crime Scene Unit, is shown mishandling evidence by not changing gloves, leading to potential contamination ([38:53]).

     Bob Motta [43:15]: "If I was training him, I would have stopped him and said, you need to change your gloves..."

   • Chain of Custody Breaks: The mishandling resulted in a break in the chain of custody, particularly concerning Beverly’s sweatshirt, which could have contained crucial DNA evidence from the alleged assailant.

     Cindy Geitman [44:10]: "The bag containing Beverly's sweatshirt...was left in the interrogation room...resulted in a break in the chain of custody."

6. Selective Testing and Potential Bias

   The hosts argue that selective testing of evidence played a crucial role in shaping the prosecution’s narrative. Essential items like Beverly’s fingernail scrapings and electronic devices owned by Jade were not adequately tested, potentially hiding exculpatory evidence.

   Cindy Geitman [50:26]: "In December 2024...the Illinois office of the State's Attorney's appellate prosecutor confirmed that none of Jade Beasley's electronic devices were forensically tested."

   Flom underscores the gravity of these omissions:

   Jason Flom [52:05]: "It's insane...there was no forensic examination of any of those devices to build a real timeline."

Notable Quotes with Attributions

• Bob Motta [03:23]: "He said, I made the 911 call."
• Jason Flom [09:13]: "Lying to the police is particularly bad."
• Bob Motta [22:08]: "The DNA on the arm to me was probably the smoking gun in this case..."
• Cindy Geitman [21:00]: "Bite mark evidence...has been debunked, discredited as junk science."
• Bob Motta [43:15]: "If I was training him, I would have stopped him and said, you need to change your gloves..."
• Cindy Geitman [50:26]: "In December 2024...none of Jade Beasley's electronic devices were forensically tested."
• Jason Flom [52:05]: "It's insane...they didn't look at any of those devices to find out if Jade was active..."

Insights and Analysis

The episode provides a thorough critique of the investigative and forensic procedures employed in Beverly’s case. Key insights include:

1. Questionable Forensic Practices: The reliance on discredited techniques like bite mark analysis, combined with ambiguous DNA evidence, casts doubt on the solidity of the prosecution’s case.

2. Procedural Lapses: The mishandling of evidence collection and the break in the chain of custody severely undermine the credibility of the evidence presented against Beverly.

3. Selective Evidence Testing: The omission of potentially exculpatory evidence, such as Beverly’s nail scrapings and Jade’s electronic device data, suggests a possible bias in the investigation aimed at sealing Beverly’s guilt without thorough examination.

4. Psychological Impact on Witnesses: The discussion around Beverly’s delayed 911 call highlights the complexity of human reactions to trauma, questioning whether procedural expectations adequately account for such nuances.

5. Lack of Defense Advocacy: The episode hints at ineffective defense strategies during the trial, such as not raising critical issues regarding evidence handling, which now hampers any appeals process.

Conclusions

Episode 8, "The Evidence," of Murder on Songbird Road meticulously dismantles the prosecution’s case against Julia Beverly by highlighting significant flaws in forensic evidence handling, investigative procedures, and the overall integrity of the case against her. The collaboration between Lauren Bright Pacheco and Bob Motta underscores the importance of scrutinizing every facet of a trial to ensure justice is not miscarried by technical oversights or potential biases. As the series progresses, it continues to build a compelling argument that questions whether an innocent woman has been wrongfully convicted, leaving listeners eagerly anticipating further revelations.

About the Hosts

• Lauren Bright Pacheco: A seasoned true-crime host dedicated to uncovering the truth behind complex cases.
• Bob Motta: An experienced criminal defense attorney providing legal insights and advocacy.

Production Credits:

• Executive Producers: Taylor Chicoin and Lauren Bright Pacheco
• Research and Investigative Reporting: Bob Motta and Lauren Bright Pacheco
• Editing and Sound Design: Evan Tyre and Taylor Chicoin
• Additional Music: Asher Kurtz and Taylor Chicoine

For more detailed discussions and updates on the case, subscribe to Murder on Songbird Road on your preferred podcast platform or visit the iHeartRadio app for additional true-crime stories.