Mitchell Wasek faces felony charges in Travis County as his defense challenges evidence and seeks dismissal of the indictment.
Buc-ee’s Co-Founder’s Son Fights Felony Case as New Court Hearing Nears
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
The criminal case against the son of a Buc-ee’s co-founder is heading back to court.
Mitchell Wasek now wants a judge to suppress evidence in his felony child pornography case. His defense also wants the indictment dismissed.
Court records reviewed by Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose show a pretrial hearing set for August 18, 2026, at 1:15 p.m. in Travis County’s 167th District Court.
The latest filings reveal a significant new legal fight.
Mitchell Wasek Case Update: Defense Challenges Evidence
Wasek faces a felony charge of possession of child pornography in Travis County.
The current court docket lists the offense as a second-degree felony.
His attorney filed a motion to suppress on April 14, 2026.
The docket describes the filing as a:
“Motion to suppress evidence obtained by theft and breach of computer security.”
The wording raises a major question.
What evidence does the defense want thrown out, and how was it obtained?
The court docket does not answer that question by itself.
The actual motion could provide those details.
Defense Also Wants Indictment Dismissed
Another filing could have an even bigger impact on the case.
On June 2, 2026, Wasek’s defense filed a motion asking the court to dismiss the indictment.
The stated reason:
An expired statute of limitations.
The judge has not dismissed the case based on the docket reviewed for this report.
The State also requested several subpoenas that same day.
One went to Detective Keith McManus.
Court records show that subpoena was executed on June 5.
Pretrial Hearing Set for August 18
The next scheduled hearing could determine what happens with those defense challenges.
The Travis County Odyssey Portal lists a:
Pretrial Hearing August 18, 2026 1:15 p.m. 167th District Court
The hearing could bring new arguments over the evidence and the defense request to dismiss the indictment.
It could also provide the clearest update yet on where the case stands.
Wasek Also Faces 21 Invasive Recording Counts
Mitchell Wasek faces felony charges in Travis County as his defense seeks to suppress evidence and dismiss the indictment.
The child pornography case came after an earlier investigation involving allegations of secret recordings.
The Travis County District Attorney’s Office announced in May 2024 that a grand jury returned six indictments against Wasek.
Those indictments contained 21 counts of invasive visual recording involving 13 alleged victims.
Prosecutors said the alleged recordings occurred over roughly two years in Travis County.
Those cases also remain listed in Travis County court records.
Wasek has not been convicted of the allegations discussed in this report. He remains presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.
Why the Buc-ee’s Name Draws Attention
Arch Aplin remained in contact with investigators as questions continued about the Rebecca Beard case timeline.
Mitchell Wasek is the son of Buc-ee’s co-founder Don Wasek.
That connection has pushed the criminal case into headlines across Texas.
It also creates an unusual overlap with another story I have covered extensively.
Not because the criminal cases have anything to do with each other.
My reporting has also examined conflicting information in historical records about when Aplin last saw Becky and who investigators reported seeing at the Excalibur Club around the time of her disappearance.
Again, there is no known connection between Mitchell Wasek’s criminal case and Rebecca Beard’s murder case.
The common thread is that both stories involve members of the families behind one of Texas’ most recognizable brands.
Related Rebecca Beard Coverage
Exclusive: Arch Aplin Responds to Rebecca Beard Question
Nearly 40 years after Rebecca “Becky” Beard disappeared from Freeport, Texas, her family is still searching for the answer that matters most.
Where is Becky?
Rebecca “Becky” Beard disappeared in March 1986. Her family continues searching for information that could help locate her remains.
Now, her family wants the public to hear information from a woman known as “Rio.” Her account includes disturbing claims about what may have happened to Becky and where someone may have taken her remains.
However, an important warning comes with Rio’s story.
According to Becky’s family, prosecutors recently presented information involving Rio to a Brazoria County grand jury. Family members say the grand jury took no action.
Becky’s family also says the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office told them investigators did not consider Rio a credible witness.
I am not presenting Rio’s statements as established facts.
Still, Becky’s family believes parts of her account could contain accurate information. They hope releasing these details reaches someone who knows what happened or where to find Becky.
Who Was Rebecca “Becky” Beard?
Rebecca “Becky” Beard pictured with her daughter before Becky disappeared from Freeport, Texas, in March 1986.
Becky Beard was 22 years old when she disappeared after spending the night at the Excalibur Club in Freeport on March 1, 1986.
She never came home.
Investigators have never recovered her body.
Years later, Paul Taylor Jr. pleaded guilty in connection with Becky’s death. Despite that conviction, her family has spent decades trying to find her remains.
That search continues today.
Who Is the Witness Known as Rio?
Cherie “Rio” Starr stands near Tammy Rose’s Jeep during an interview connected to the Rebecca “Becky” Beard investigation.
During my investigation, I tracked down Cherie “Rio” Starr, a woman who has provided an account of events surrounding Becky’s disappearance.
Rio made several specific and disturbing claims. Some involve what allegedly happened to Becky’s body and where people may have taken her remains.
Investigators have not established those claims as fact.
According to Becky’s family, the district attorney told them authorities did not find Rio credible.
Still, one reason the family has not completely dismissed her story is that some details appear to connect with information they already knew about Becky’s life before she disappeared.
The Galveston Weekend in Becky’s Planner
Becky Beard’s personal planner contains entries documenting events and trips in the weeks before her March 1986 disappearance.
One detail deserves closer examination.
Becky kept a planner. An entry documents a weekend trip to Galveston from February 14 through February 16, 1986, just weeks before she disappeared.
Becky was dating Beaver Aplin at the time.
Rio described an incident involving Aplin during which she said he got down on his knees with a dozen roses, jewelry and bottles.
That detail caught the family’s attention because Becky’s mother, Linda Barnes, already knew about Becky’s Galveston weekend.
Linda recalled Becky returning from the trip and throwing away roses.
Her mother asked her why she was throwing them away.
According to Linda, Becky did not want to talk about it.
That does not prove Rio’s account.
It does, however, raise a question for the family: How much of Rio’s story, if any, could be independently verified?
Becky’s planner documents the Galveston weekend. Her mother remembers the roses. Rio later provided an account involving roses and the man Becky was dating.
The family believes those details are worth examining rather than ignoring.
Family Says Evidence Was Presented to a Grand Jury
A remote dirt road in the Brazoria National Wildlife Refuge near the area where witness Cherie Lynette “Rio” Starr claims Rebecca “Becky” Beard was buried.
Becky’s family says prosecutors recently presented evidence involving Rio to a Brazoria County grand jury.
According to family members, the grand jury took no action.
They also say the district attorney told them authorities did not consider Rio a credible witness.
Those details matter.
Rio’s claims are not established facts.
I am not presenting them as proof of what happened to Becky.
Instead, the family wants to know whether someone else can independently confirm any part of her account.
Why Release Rio’s Story?
There is a simple reason.
Becky still has not been found.
Almost four decades have passed since she disappeared. People who were young adults in 1986 are now much older. Some witnesses have died. Properties have changed. Memories have faded.
That makes information from people who were there increasingly important.
The family understands authorities have questioned Rio’s credibility. They also understand that a grand jury took no action after hearing information related to her account, according to what family members say they were told.
Still, they cannot get past the possibility that one detail could be true even if other parts of a witness’s story are not.
The Galveston weekend is one reason they continue asking questions.
Someone May Remember Something
Texas Department of Public Safety missing person bulletin for Rebecca “Becky” Beard, who disappeared in 1986.
Maybe you were at the Excalibur Club.
Maybe you knew Becky, Paul Taylor Jr., Beaver Aplin or Rio.
Maybe you remember the Galveston weekend in February 1986.
Maybe you heard a conversation afterward.
Or perhaps you know something about a location connected to the case.
The family isn’t asking people to speculate. They are looking for firsthand information that can be independently checked.
If you know something, even if it seemed insignificant at the time, consider coming forward.
After nearly 40 years, Becky’s family isn’t looking for rumors.
They are looking for Becky.
Carol Mize shows areas she has searched while continuing to look for answers in the 1986 disappearance of her sister, Rebecca “Becky” Beard.
This article is part of my continuing independent investigation into the disappearance and death of Rebecca “Becky” Beard. Statements attributed to witnesses represent their accounts unless independently corroborated. The inclusion of any person’s name does not imply criminal conduct or involvement in Becky’s death.
Former Brazoria County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Daniel Tippit was arrested by Texas Rangers on August 11, 2026, in connection with the fatal shooting of 18-year-old John Gabriel Mendoza Jr. Photo credit: Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office.
Former Brazoria County Deputy Kevin Tippit Indicted in Fatal Shooting of 18-Year-Old
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
Former Brazoria County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Daniel Tippit now faces a first-degree felony charge and the possibility of decades in prison following the fatal shooting of 18-year-old John Gabriel Mendoza Jr.
A Brazoria County grand jury indicted Tippit on aggravated assault by a public servant in connection with the June 1, 2026 shooting in Lake Jackson, according to the Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office. Texas Rangers arrested Tippit Tuesday, August 11.
Brazoria County jail records list his bond at $250,000.
If convicted as charged, Tippit faces five to 99 years or life in prison, according to the district attorney’s office.
Pursuit Ends at John Mendoza Jr.’s Home
The Lake Jackson home where John Gabriel Mendoza Jr., 18, was fatally shot on June 1, 2026, after a pursuit ended at the residence. Photo by Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose.
The shooting happened early June 1 after Tippit attempted to stop Mendoza while he was driving in Lake Jackson.
Mendoza did not immediately stop and instead drove to his father’s home in the 100 block of Indian Warrior Trail. The pursuit ended at the home, where Tippit encountered Mendoza near or inside the garage and fired his weapon. Mendoza later died from his injuries.
Mendoza was a Texas State University student who had just completed his freshman year and was home for the summer.
Grand Jury Indicts Kevin Tippit
The indictment marks a major development in the Texas Rangers’ investigation into Mendoza’s death.
Court documents allege Tippit recklessly caused serious bodily injury to Mendoza by shooting him.
That wording is significant because the charge focuses on Tippit’s alleged reckless conduct. A grand jury indictment means jurors found sufficient probable cause for the criminal case to proceed. It does not establish guilt.
Tippit remains innocent unless a court finds him guilty.
Shooting Came Within Seconds of Deputy’s Arrival, Family Attorney Says
John Gabriel Mendoza Jr., 18, pictured in a Brazoswood football uniform. Mendoza was fatally shot on June 1, 2026, after a pursuit ended at his family’s Lake Jackson home. Photo courtesy of the Mendoza family.
Attorney Charles Adams, who represents Mendoza’s family, has said surveillance video shows Tippit fired within seconds of getting out of his patrol vehicle.
Adams has also said Mendoza and the other occupants were unarmed. Those details came from the family’s attorney and should not be confused with an official finding by investigators.
The Texas Rangers later obtained a search warrant as they investigated the shooting. Court documents showed investigators were examining several possible offenses, including manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide and aggravated assault by a public servant.
Brazoria County Sheriff Fired Kevin Tippit
Former Brazoria County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Tippit, left, pictured with Brazoria County Sheriff Bo Stallman during a department ceremony. Tippit was later fired following the fatal shooting of 18-year-old John Gabriel Mendoza Jr. in Lake Jackson.
Eight days after the shooting, Brazoria County Sheriff Bo Stallman fired Tippit on June 9, 2026.
Stallman said an internal investigation found Tippit violated department policies involving the handling and discharge of his firearm.
The sheriff stressed that Tippit’s termination was an administrative decision separate from the criminal investigation being conducted by the Texas Rangers and Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office.
Tippit had served as a Brazoria County deputy since July 2024 after previously working as a jailer.
Kevin Tippit Faces Up to Life in Prison
Former Brazoria County Sheriff’s Deputy Kevin Daniel Tippit was arrested by Texas Rangers on August 11, 2026, in connection with the fatal shooting of 18-year-old John Gabriel Mendoza Jr. Photo credit: Brazoria County Sheriff’s Office.
The charge carries potentially severe consequences.
The Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office says aggravated assault by a public servant in this case constitutes a first-degree felony.
If convicted, Tippit could receive a sentence ranging from five to 99 years or life in prison.
A conviction and sentence are not predetermined. The prosecution must prove the criminal charge in court.
John Mendoza Jr. Case Enters New Stage
The criminal charge marks a significant development in a case that has drawn attention across Brazoria County since the June shooting.
Mendoza’s family has repeatedly called for transparency and accountability while the Texas Rangers investigated what happened.
Now, more than two months after Mendoza’s death, the former deputy who fired the fatal shot is facing a first-degree felony charge.
This remains a developing story. Investigator Reporter Tammy Rose will continue following the criminal case and any new court filings or hearings involving Kevin Tippit.
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you. Some travel links may also be affiliate links, which means I may earn a commission at no additional cost to you.
Former Deputy Kent McGowen Responds to Susan White 911 Call, Allegations Before 1992 Shooting
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
More than three decades after the fatal shooting of Susan White, former Harris County Sheriff’s Office Deputy Kent McGowen is publicly responding to allegations White made before the shooting, including claims she voiced during calls to 911.
In an exclusive interview with Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose, McGowen discussed the August 25, 1992 shooting, disputed allegations that he sexually harassed White, addressed why she repeatedly mentioned his name and shared courtroom demonstration photographs that he says support his version of events.
The interview pairs portions of White’s 911 call with McGowen’s current account, allowing readers to compare both versions of events.
Viewer Note: This story contains discussion of a fatal officer-involved shooting and includes portions of a 911 call that some readers may find disturbing.
⸻
Before entering law enforcement, Kent McGowen served in the U.S. Air Force. He later worked as a Houston police officer and Harris County deputy before the Aug. 25, 1992, fatal shooting of Susan White that led to two criminal trials and his eventual conviction.
Background Before the Case
Before beginning his law enforcement career, Kent McGowen served in the United States Air Force.
After leaving the military, he joined the Houston Police Department before later serving with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. During his career, he received commendations and officer recognition awards.
After serving in the U.S. Air Force, Kent McGowen joined the Houston Police Department before later serving with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office.
Before beginning his law enforcement career, Kent McGowen served in the United States Air Force.
After leaving the military, he joined the Houston Police Department before later serving with the Harris County Sheriff’s Office. During his career, he received commendations and officer recognition awards.
McGowen’s career changed forever on August 25, 1992, when deputies serving a felony warrant fatally shot Susan White at her home.
A jury convicted McGowen of murder in his first trial. An appellate court later overturned that conviction. A second jury convicted him in 2002. He ultimately served approximately 19 years in prison before his release in 2021.
Book About the Case
Journalist Jerry Langton later examined the case in Reasonable Doubts: How Rumor and Innuendo Convicted Deputy Kent McGowen of Murder. The book explores the investigation, the two trials and McGowen’s conviction.
In addition to the trial record, Kent McGowen has provided investigative records and expert reports that he says support his account of the shooting.
Among the records McGowen provided is a forensic review by consulting forensic scientist Dr. Edward E. Hueske.
Hueske prepared the review during McGowen’s legal proceedings.
McGowen also provided a statement he wrote at the request of Harris County Assistant District Attorney Baldwin Chin, then chief of the Harris County District Attorney’s Office Post Conviction Integrity Review Unit, during the office’s review of his case in 2011–2012.
According to McGowen, the statement summarizes the case and his account of events as they existed during the Harris County District Attorney’s Office Post Conviction Integrity Review in 2011-2012.
After two criminal trials stemming from the Aug. 25, 1992, fatal shooting of Susan White, Kent McGowen was ultimately convicted of murder. He served approximately 19 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice before his release in 2021.
⸻
Watch the Full Investigation
The television report below includes exclusive interview excerpts with Kent McGowen, courtroom demonstration photographs and additional background on the Susan White case.
⸻
Listen to Susan White’s 911 Call
The audio below captures one of Susan White’s calls to 911 before deputies entered her home.
During the recording, White repeatedly asks dispatchers for help and expresses fear as deputies remain outside the residence.
The call contains emotional language and may be disturbing to some listeners.
Susan White’s 911 Call Before Deputies Entered The Home
The video and audio above include one of Susan White’s 911 calls before deputies entered the home.
During the recording, White repeatedly asks dispatchers for help while describing people outside her home.
The recording contains emotional language that some listeners may find disturbing.
⸻
McGowen Strongly Disputes White’s Allegations
Kent McGowen while serving with the Waller County Sheriff’s Office at age 19, before joining the Houston Police Department pending completion of his background investigation.
During his interview with Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose, McGowen firmly denied White’s allegations.
According to McGowen, he never sexually harassed White, never stalked her and never had the repeated contacts she described.
“I had never pulled her over. I’d never spoken to her,” McGowen said during the interview.
McGowen believes White confused him with another deputy who previously worked in the area.
He told Tammy Rose that investigators later uncovered witness statements he believes support that explanation.
According to McGowen, White mistakenly identified him after seeing him during the arrest of her son and others connected to a burglary investigation.
⸻
Why Did White Know McGowen’s Name?
Susan White. Investigators and former Deputy Kent McGowen have offered differing explanations for why White repeatedly mentioned his name before the August 25, 1992, shooting.
One of the questions surrounding the case is why White repeatedly mentioned McGowen by name before the shooting.
McGowen offered his explanation during the interview.
He said White arrived at the scene after deputies arrested her son and began asking officers who “McGowen” was.
According to McGowen, several deputies pointed in different directions while trying to identify him, causing White to approach multiple officers before eventually speaking with him.
McGowen believes that encounter explains why she later knew his name.
He disputes claims that he had an ongoing personal conflict with White before the shooting.
⸻
McGowen Says White Mistook Him for Another Deputy
McGowen also challenged allegations that he repeatedly stopped or harassed White before the shooting.
Instead, he told Tammy Rose that another deputy had previous contact with White and believes she mistakenly associated him with those earlier encounters.
McGowen said he never received phone calls from White, never contacted her outside official duties and never had a personal relationship with her.
He also pointed to subpoenaed telephone records that he says failed to show communication between them.
Those statements reflect McGowen’s account. Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose continues reviewing court records, witness statements and other documents connected to the case.
⸻
McGowen’s Description of White’s Condition
McGowen also discussed White’s condition while deputies attempted to serve the warrant.
According to McGowen, White appeared to be slurring her speech as deputies tried to communicate with her through the front door.
He told Tammy Rose he believed White was impaired and described her behavior as confused and erratic.
McGowen said those observations influenced how he interpreted her actions that morning.
His statements represent his account of the encounter and should not be interpreted as independent findings of fact.
⸻
The Warrant That Led to the Shooting
Left to right: Confidential informant Michael Shaffer, Susan White and Jason Aguillard, Susan White’s teenage son.
According to McGowen, deputies went to Susan White’s home to serve a felony retaliation warrant after investigators alleged she threatened a confidential informant connected to a burglary investigation.
McGowen said he first attempted to obtain the warrant during the overnight hours but claimed a judge was unavailable to sign it. He returned the following morning with the approved warrant and several deputies to serve it.
He told Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose that deputies knocked on the front door for several minutes, repeatedly identified themselves as members of the Harris County Sheriff’s Office and asked White to come outside.
According to McGowen, White refused to open the door.
McGowen said deputies eventually forced entry after obtaining permission from a supervisor.
⸻
McGowen Describes What Happened Inside
According to McGowen, deputies entered the home and began clearing rooms while searching for White.
He told Tammy Rose he saw White move through the house toward a bedroom. He followed her and said she picked up a handgun after entering the room.
McGowen said he ordered White three times to drop the weapon.
He claims White raised the handgun toward him and began placing her finger on the trigger.
Believing his life and the lives of the other deputies were in danger, McGowen fired three shots.
He has consistently maintained that he acted in self-defense.
Prosecutors disputed that version of events during both criminal trials.
⸻
Courtroom Demonstration Photos
Former deputy Kent McGowen recently provided Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose with these courtroom demonstration photographs, which he says were used during legal proceedings to illustrate his version of the Aug. 25, 1992, fatal shooting of Susan White. The images reflect McGowen’s account and are presented for context alongside court records, the 911 call, and his interview.
McGowen recently provided Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose with courtroom demonstration photographs that he says were used during legal proceedings to explain his version of the shooting.
Several photographs include handwritten descriptions showing where McGowen says he was standing, where White was positioned and where he believes the handgun came to rest after the shooting.
Other images illustrate the angle from which he says he observed White inside the bedroom.
The photographs are not crime scene photographs. Instead, they are courtroom demonstrations created to illustrate McGowen’s account during litigation.
⸻
One Issue Continues to Draw Attention
One issue discussed during Tammy Rose’s interview involved which hand White used to hold the handgun.
McGowen maintains White pointed the weapon with her right hand before he fired.
During the interview, Tammy Rose asked McGowen about reports indicating White was left-handed.
McGowen stood by his account and said the position of the handgun after the shooting matched what he remembered seeing inside the bedroom.
That issue remains one of several points that have been debated for years.
⸻
McGowen Says Jurors Never Heard Everything
During the interview, McGowen repeatedly argued that jurors never heard all of the evidence he believes supports his account.
He pointed to witness statements, subpoenaed records and other documents that he says were unavailable or never fully presented during trial.
McGowen also criticized how the case was investigated and prosecuted.
Those claims have not been independently verified by Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose and remain part of McGowen’s account of the case.
⸻
Two Trials, Two Different Juries
The Susan White case was presented to two different juries.
McGowen’s first murder conviction was later overturned on appeal, resulting in a new trial.
Following that second trial, another jury convicted McGowen of murder in 2002.
He ultimately served approximately 19 years in prison before his release in 2021.
Since leaving prison, McGowen has continued speaking publicly about the shooting and maintains he acted lawfully while serving the warrant.
⸻
Why Revisit the Susan White Case Now?
More than 30 years after the shooting, Kent McGowen continues to challenge the conclusions reached during his criminal case.
Since his release from prison in 2021, he has participated in interviews, worked with author Jerry Langton on a book about his case and continues to review court records and investigative documents.
His recent interview with Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose offers readers an opportunity to hear his account in his own words while comparing those statements with court records, courtroom exhibits and the 911 call placed by Susan White.
As with any decades-old criminal case, many questions remain disputed.
Tammy Rose will continue reviewing court records, witness statements and other documents connected to the investigation as additional records become available.
⸻
Editor’s Note: This article includes court records, historical documents, portions of Susan White’s 911 call, and an interview with Joseph Kent McGowen. McGowen disputes allegations made against him before the shooting. The interview is presented so readers can review his response in full.
This interview is part of an ongoing investigative series examining Kent McGowen’s criminal case and new claims he has made since his release from prison.
Readers can also follow Tammy Rose’s continuing investigation into McGowen’s allegations involving convicted serial killer Roy Alan Stuart.
Juan Laureles Cold Case: Texas Rangers Seek New Tips 30 Years Later
Nearly 30 years after Juan Leon Laureles was found shot to death beside his burning car, Texas investigators are making a renewed push for answers.
The Texas Department of Public Safety announced that authorities are seeking new information in the Juan Laureles cold case. Laureles, 30, died in Brown County in May 1996.
Now, investigators hope someone who knows what happened will finally come forward.
Juan Laureles Found Beside Burning Car
On May 10, 1996, Brown County Sheriff’s deputies responded to a vehicle fire at about 12:30 a.m.
The fire occurred along FM 2126 near the railroad crossing and the access road to the Brownwood Rifle and Pistol Range.
When deputies arrived, they found Laureles dead next to his burning 1988 Ford Thunderbird.
Investigators determined that someone had shot Laureles in the back of the head. Someone also set his vehicle on fire.
Stolen Credit Card Used After Murder
Investigators discovered another important clue.
Someone stole Laureles’ credit card and used it at a Bealls Department Store in the area later that same day.
Authorities still want information about those transactions.
In addition, investigators want to hear from anyone who remembers seeing Laureles’ Ford Thunderbird or other vehicles near the murder scene that night.
Texas Rangers Continue Investigating Juan Laureles Cold Case
Investigators have followed numerous leads during the past three decades. However, they have not made an arrest.
The Brown County Sheriff’s Office and Texas Rangers continue to actively investigate the murder.
Authorities believe people in the community may still have information that could help solve the case.
Even a detail that seemed insignificant in 1996 could potentially give investigators a new lead today.
Reward Increased to $6,000
Texas Crime Stoppers has increased the reward to up to $6,000 for information that leads to an arrest in the case.
However, the increased reward remains available only until DPS announces its next featured Texas Rangers cold case.
Anyone seeking the cash reward must submit the information through Texas Crime Stoppers.
Tipsters can call 1-800-252-TIPS (tel:1-800-252-TIPS) (8477) or submit information through the official Texas Crime Stoppers tip system.
Nearly 30 Years Without Answers
Three decades have passed since someone killed Juan Laureles.
Yet murder has no statute of limitations in Texas, and investigators have not closed the case.
The Texas Rangers continue reviewing unsolved homicides in hopes that new information, witnesses or investigative methods can provide the break detectives need.
For Laureles’ case, that break could come from someone who remembers what happened on May 10, 1996.
Anyone with information should contact Texas Crime Stoppers.
Source: Texas Department of Public Safety
The official DPS release is here: Texas DPS — Juan Laureles Cold Case. DPS confirms the $6,000 enhanced reward applies if an eligible tip comes in before the next featured Texas Rangers cold case is announced.
Planning a Texas trip?
If your travels take you through Brown County or elsewhere in Texas, you can compare hotel options and rates through Hotels.com.
Interested in Texas cold cases?
Readers who follow unsolved cases can browse Texas true crime books on Amazon.
Why I Continue Investigating the Texas Killing Fields: Every Victim Deserves to Be Remembered
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
People often ask why I continue investigating murders that happened more than 50 years ago.
They wonder why I file public records requests. They ask why I travel hundreds of miles to interview witnesses. They also question why I keep digging into cases that many people have forgotten.
When I began researching the Texas Killing Fields, one issue quickly bothered me.
Old news reports often focused on how the victims died. Police records also placed heavy attention on their circumstances. Those accounts did not always show who the women were or how they lived.
Authorities described some victims as runaways. Others struggled with addiction or lived through difficult times. Reports also linked some women to prostitution.
Those labels often overshadowed their identities.
Investigators first viewed Laura Miller as a possible runaway. Reports also associated Carolyn Sosa and Teri McDaniel with prostitution.
Those descriptions may have been accurate, incomplete or unfair. Either way, they often became the focus of the story.
The victims deserved better.
No one should disappear from history because of a label.
My investigation has taken me across Texas and beyond.
I have tracked down key witnesses. I have interviewed retired investigators. I have reviewed thousands of pages of public records.
I have also examined evidence that many people have never seen.
Each interview raises another question. Every record leads to another document. One conversation can reveal a missing piece of history.
Some discoveries involve unidentified remains. Others involve witnesses who were overlooked years ago. Records may also expose decisions that still raise questions today.
I do not investigate these cases to sensationalize tragedy.
I investigate because every victim mattered.
A person’s past should never decide how much effort investigators make. It should not affect whether authorities search for them or work to solve their murder.
A straight-A student had value. A runaway had value. A woman struggling with addiction had value. A person living on the streets had value.
Their circumstances did not make their lives less important.
Justice should never depend on someone’s background.
My investigations sometimes require travel across Texas and beyond. When I need a place to stay near an interview, courthouse or records office, I compare available hotels through Hotels.com.
I also rely on practical tools while reviewing old case files. A portable document scannerhelps me preserve records, photographs and handwritten notes.
This post contains affiliate links. I may earn a small commission from qualifying bookings or purchases at no additional cost to you. As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Porch surveillance image released as part of the investigation into the Nancy Guthrie case.
Public Records Reveal Ransom Messages Sent After Nancy Guthrie Disappeared
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
Nancy Guthrie disappeared from her home in the Catalina Foothills near Tucson, Arizona, during the early morning hours of February 1, 2026. Six months later, publicly released investigative records continue to provide insight into one of the most unusual aspects of the case.
Among the documents released are messages that appeared to demand a ransom and later claimed Nancy Guthrie had died. The messages became part of the investigation and remain included in the publicly released records.
Ransom Message Demanded Bitcoin
Redacted ransom note documents included in the investigative records for the Nancy Guthrie case.
According to publicly released records, one message claimed Nancy Guthrie had been kidnapped and demanded a multi-million-dollar Bitcoin payment in exchange for her safe return.
The message included a deadline, threatened harm if payment was not made, and referenced details about Nancy Guthrie’s home. Investigators documented the message as part of the case.
At the time, there was no public confirmation that the claims made in the message were true.
Second Message Claimed Nancy Guthrie Died
Nancy Guthrie in an undated family photo provided as part of case coverage.
A second message later claimed Nancy Guthrie had died shortly after being taken.
The message stated that her death was not intentional and expressed sympathy to her family. It also claimed she had been buried in a natural area.
Authorities included the message in the investigative file that was later released as a public record.
Investigators Examined the Messages
Law enforcement reviewed the messages as part of the investigation into Nancy Guthrie’s disappearance.
Publicly released records show the communications were preserved as evidence, but investigators have not publicly confirmed who authored the messages or whether any of the claims contained in them were accurate.
As with many criminal investigations, detectives examined numerous leads while working to determine what happened.
Why These Records Matter
The release of investigative records provides the public with a better understanding of the evidence reviewed during the case.
While the messages generated significant attention, they represent only one part of the overall investigation. Any conclusions about who sent them or why should be based on official investigative findings rather than speculation.
As additional records become public, they may continue to provide new details about the investigation.
If you have information related to the case, contact the investigating law enforcement agency.
⸻
Home Security Camera (Indoor/Outdoor) – If you’re interested in true crime or home security, a smart security camera is one of the best ways to monitor your property and record suspicious activity.
Planning to visit Texas for court proceedings, historical research, or to explore the areas connected to this case? Find hotels that fit your budget through my Hotels.com affiliate link.
Amazon Disclosure
As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. If you shop through my affiliate links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for supporting my independent journalism.
If you book a hotel through my Hotels.com affiliate links, I may earn a small commission at no additional cost to you. Thank you for helping support my reporting and website.
James Elmore Jr. booking photo. His trial is currently scheduled to begin Aug. 31, 2026, in Galveston County.
James Elmore Jr. Trial Moves Forward
Nearly four decades after several young women were found murdered and their bodies abandoned near Calder Road in Galveston County, the case against James Elmore Jr. continues moving toward trial.
For many victims’ families, the upcoming court proceedings represent another chance to finally see justice.
After checking the Galveston County court docket, I confirmed the case is still moving forward.
According to the current schedule:
Discovery Conference: August 10, 2026
Pretrial Conference: August 21, 2026
Jury Trial: August 31, 2026
The trial is scheduled in the 122nd District Court before Judge Jeth Jones.
If the schedule remains unchanged, I plan to attend the trial and provide updates from the courtroom.
Laura Miller’s Family Has Waited Decades for Answers
Tim Miller, founder of Texas EquuSearch, has assisted in hundreds of missing persons cases across Texas and the United States.
Laura Miller was last seen on September 10, 1984, after stopping at a convenience store in League City to use a pay phone. Her mother had dropped her off because the family’s phone had not yet been connected after they moved into the area.
Laura never returned home.
Memorial sign highlighting four victims whose cases have been linked to the same recovery site during the investigation into Clyde Hedrick and several unsolved homicides.
Nearly 17 months later, on February 2, 1986, her remains were discovered in a wooded area near Calder Road. During that same search, investigators also found the remains of Audrey Cook.
For both families, the upcoming trial comes after decades of unanswered questions.
In an earlier interview, Texas EquuSearch founder Tim Miller discussed Laura Miller’s disappearance, the years of searching, and why the case has remained so important to investigators and her family.
Watch: Tim Miller Discusses Laura Miller’s Disappearance
Charges Against James Elmore Jr.
James Elmore Jr. booking photo. He is scheduled to stand trial beginning Aug. 31, 2026, in Galveston County.
James Elmore Jr. remains jailed while awaiting trial.
According to jail records, he faces the following charges:
Manslaughter
Two counts of tampering with physical evidence involving a human corpse
Possession of visual material depicting sexual assault
Possession of child sexual abuse material
His total bond is listed at $4.5 million.
As with all criminal cases, these charges are allegations, and James Elmore Jr. is presumed innocent unless proven guilty in court.
Clyde Hedrick Died Before Additional Charges Could Be Filed
Clyde Hedrick was convicted in the murder of Ellen Beason. Investigators were preparing to charge him in additional cases before his death in March 2026.
The upcoming trial follows the death of Clyde Hedrick, who for years had been publicly linked to several Texas Killing Fields investigations.
Authorities were reportedly preparing additional charges against Hedrick. However, on March 21, 2026, Hedrick removed his breathing tube and died before those charges could be filed.
Hedrick was convicted only in the death of Ellen Beason. He served prison time for that case and was on parole when he died.
Trial Could Bring Long-Awaited Answers
Whether new evidence or testimony emerges during the trial remains to be seen.
However, for the families of Laura Miller, Audrey Cook, Donna Prudhomme, Heidi Fye, and others connected to the Calder Road investigations, the upcoming proceedings represent another opportunity to seek answers after nearly 40 years.
I’ll continue monitoring the Galveston County court docket and, if the trial remains on schedule, will be in the courtroom beginning August 31 to provide updates.
Whether you’re traveling to attend court proceedings or visiting Galveston Island, you can compare hotels throughout Galveston County before your trip.
As I continue covering cold cases and court proceedings, a reliable body camera is an important part of documenting interactions in the field. This is similar to the type of equipment many journalists and investigators use.
Amazon Affiliate Disclosure
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases. If you purchase through my links, I may receive a small commission at no additional cost to you.
Paul Gayland Taylor Jr. pleaded guilty to murder in Brazoria County in 1995 and received a life sentence.
Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
Paul Gayland Taylor Jr. filed a writ of habeas corpus in 2007 after the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles denied him release.
Taylor challenged his parole denial, not his conviction
The filing did not challenge his murder conviction.
Instead, Taylor argued that the parole board unfairly relied on his crime and past conduct. He claimed the board ignored his prison record, education and other accomplishments.
Taylor pleaded guilty to murder in Brazoria County in 1995. A judge sentenced him to life in prison.
Taylor said the filing was about parole
The writ form asked whether Taylor had previously challenged his conviction.
Taylor marked “no.”
He also wrote:
“Not challenging the conviction. This is a parole related issue.”
That statement is important. This filing did not claim that Taylor was innocent. It also did not ask the court to overturn his guilty plea.
Taylor focused his arguments on the parole process.
In his 2007 writ application, Paul Taylor wrote that he was not challenging his conviction and described the matter as a parole-related issue.
The writ listed his conviction and sentence
The application identified Taylor’s criminal case as Cause No. 27,636 in the 23rd Judicial District Court of Brazoria County.
The document listed:
Judgment date: May 30, 1995 Offense: Murder Plea: Guilty Sentence: Life Punishment assessed by: Judge
Taylor also stated that he did not have a jury trial. He indicated that he did not appeal the judgment.
Taylor’s writ application lists his 1995 guilty plea to murder and his life sentence.
Taylor had been eligible for parole since 1997
Taylor wrote that he had been eligible for parole since February 2, 1997.
According to his filing, the parole board denied him release again on January 12, 2007. The board then gave him a three-year setoff before his next review.
Taylor said the board had denied him parole for about 13 years, including the period between his eligibility date and his next review.
The filing quotes the board’s reason for denial. It referred to the violent nature of the offense, the use of a weapon and a threat to public safety.
The quoted language also stated that the offense showed brutality, violence or the selection of a vulnerable victim.
Taylor argued that these factors came from the crime itself. He said he could never change the past.
Taylor’s memorandum states that the parole board relied on the violent nature of the offense when it denied his release.
Taylor raised five arguments
1. The parole board abused its discretion
Taylor claimed the board denied parole for the same conduct that led to his conviction and sentence.
He argued that the board created an “impossible obstacle” because he could not change the crime.
Taylor also said the board failed to give enough weight to his prison accomplishments.
2. The parole process violated due process
Taylor argued that the board did not explain how it decided he remained a future threat.
He claimed the board should have told him what method it used to assess that risk.
Taylor suggested that he could have submitted more information if he had known what evidence the board wanted.
3. The process violated equal protection
Taylor claimed the board released other people with similar or worse criminal records.
He argued that the board treated him differently without a valid reason.
The filing does not include the names or full records of those other prisoners in the pages reviewed.
4. Repeated parole denials amounted to cruel punishment
Taylor argued that repeated denials violated the Eighth Amendment.
He claimed the board continued to deny him for the same unchangeable reasons.
He also accused the board of ignoring his conduct while incarcerated.
5. A Texas life sentence carried an expectation of parole
Taylor argued that Texas did not have a life-without-parole sentence for his case.
Therefore, he claimed that a life sentence carried an expectation of eventual release.
For the first four claims, Taylor asked for a new parole hearing.
However, under his fifth claim, he argued that parole should become mandatory.
These were Taylor’s legal arguments. The filing does not show that a court accepted them.
Taylor’s memorandum states that the parole board relied on the violent nature of the offense when it denied his release.
Taylor highlighted his prison record
Taylor wrote that he earned a bachelor’s degree from Sam Houston State University while incarcerated.
He also said he had never received a disciplinary infraction.
In addition, Taylor said he worked in a prison craft shop. He claimed that the work helped him support himself and assist his family.
However, the filing only reflects Taylor’s account. It does not independently verify every statement about his prison history.
What this document does not say
The writ does not claim that Taylor was innocent.
It does not challenge his guilty plea or murder conviction.
The filing also does not present new evidence about Rebecca “Becky” Beard’s disappearance or the location of her remains.
Instead, Taylor challenged the parole board’s review process.
Therefore, this document focuses on parole. It does not attempt to overturn the murder conviction.
Read the full writ and court decision
The complete 2007 filing appears below, along with the court document showing the outcome.
Taylor challenged the parole process, not his murder conviction. However, the court denied his request for relief
Court records and police files can contain hundreds of pages. A portable document scanner can make it easier to save, organize and review records while working away from home.
Screenshot from the dash camera video released by Brazoria County in response to a Texas Public Information Act request. The recording contains no audio. The requested body camera video remains pending while the Texas Attorney General reviews whether it may be withheld.
Texas Public Information Act Request Leads to Dash Camera Release While Body Camera Remains Under Review
The Brazoria County Criminal District Attorney’s Office released the dash camera recording in response to my Texas Public Information Act request. The responding deputy’s body camera recording remains under review by the Texas Attorney General.
Page one of the Brazoria County Criminal District Attorney’s Office response confirming my public information request, payment, and the release of the dash camera recording while the requested body camera recording remains under review by the Texas Attorney General.
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
Transparency matters. That is why I filed a Texas Public Information Act request after an encounter with a woman connected to the Rebecca Beard investigation.
The request resulted in sheriff’s reports, dispatch records, redacted documents, and dash camera video. However, one important record remains unavailable. The Brazoria County District Attorney’s Office has asked the Texas Attorney General to decide whether the responding deputy’s body camera can be withheld.
This article explains what happened, what the released records show, and why I continue to seek the body camera recording.
Why I Went to the Property
As an investigative reporter, I believe everyone deserves an opportunity to comment before publication.
I went to Cherie “Rio” Starr’s residence to request an interview about statements she has made regarding the Rebecca Beard investigation.
She declined to comment.
According to the incident report, Starr told deputies she was a protected witness and wanted to know how I obtained her personal information.
The report also states she believed someone had sent me to her property.
I Returned to My Jeep
After Starr declined to comment, I walked back to my Jeep because I intended to leave.
According to the sheriff’s report, I told deputies that Starr and Kenneth Cadenhead prevented me from leaving the property.
The dashcam video released by Brazoria County contains no audio. Therefore, it cannot capture the conversations that occurred during the encounter.
However, the video does show Starr standing near my driver’s side while Cadenhead remained behind my Jeep during part of the incident.
According to my recollection, both were asking me to identify my confidential source.
I declined.
Why I Would Not Reveal My Source
The incident report notes that I refused to identify my source.
That decision was intentional.
Protecting confidential sources is a long-standing practice in investigative journalism. Sources often provide information only because they trust reporters to keep their identities confidential.
My purpose that day was to request an interview. It was not to disclose who provided information for my reporting.
A Detail Not Included in the Report
One part of the encounter is not reflected in the written incident report.
According to my recollection, while standing near my driver’s side door, Starr told me she would agree to an interview “when this is all over.”
She also indicated that the Rebecca Beard investigation remained an active case that had never been closed.
Because the released dashcam has no audio, viewers cannot hear that conversation.
For that reason, I continue to seek release of the responding deputy’s body camera recording.
What the Public Records Show
My Texas Public Information Act request produced several records, including:
Sheriff’s incident reports Dispatch and CAD records Dashcam video Redacted documents
The only major record that has not been released is the deputy’s body camera.
The District Attorney’s Office has asked the Texas Attorney General to determine whether that recording may be withheld under the Texas Public Information Act.
Receiving a request for an Attorney General ruling does not automatically mean the recording will never be released. The Attorney General will determine whether any exceptions to disclosure apply under Texas law.
How I Obtained the Records
Many people ask how to request police records in Texas.
In my case, I submitted a Texas Public Information Act request to Brazoria County.
After receiving a cost estimate, I paid the required fee at the Brazoria County Treasurer’s Office inside the courthouse.
The courthouse is beautiful, although locating the correct office can be a little confusing for first-time visitors.
After payment was processed, I went to the District Attorney’s Office to pick up the responsive records.
Everyone I dealt with during the process was courteous and helpful.
I also received more records than I expected.
Part Two Is Coming Soon
In Part Two, I will explain the Texas Public Information Act process step by step.
I will also show:
How to submit an open records request Where to pay the required fees How to pick up responsive records Why some records are released immediately while others require a ruling from the Texas Attorney General
Understanding the process can help anyone request public records in Texas.
