James Elmore Jr. was sentenced to 20 years in prison in the Laura Miller case. The judge also imposed a $10,000 fine and credited him with 156 days served.
James Elmore Jr. received a 20-year prison sentence Thursday in the Laura Miller case.
The judge also imposed a $10,000 fine.
The sentencing came after an emotional statement from Laura’s father, Tim Miller. He spoke directly to Elmore before the judge announced the punishment.
Tim Miller addresses James Elmore Jr.
Miller told Elmore about the damage Laura’s death caused his family.
He also spoke about Elmore’s own family.
Miller said Elmore’s son had recently posted messages suggesting he did not want to live. Despite everything that happened, Miller said he would do what he could to help keep Elmore’s son alive.
Miller then turned his attention back to Laura.
He told Elmore he once wanted to believe Elmore had not played a larger role in what happened to his daughter.
Miller said he no longer believed that.
He ended his statement by telling Elmore that he hoped he could someday find peace.
Judge sentences Elmore to 20 years
After Miller finished speaking, the judge sentenced Elmore to 20 years in the Texas Department of Criminal Justice.
The judge also ordered Elmore to pay a $10,000 fine.
Elmore received credit for 156 days already spent in custody.
The sentence followed a jury trial in Galveston County.
Elmore plans to appeal
The defense also confirmed plans to appeal the case.
Elmore’s trial attorney asked the court to release him as counsel. The judge said the court would appoint another attorney to handle the appeal.
The notice of appeal had already been filed when the judge addressed the issue in court.
Laura Miller case reaches another milestone
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.
Laura Miller disappeared in September 1984.
Her remains were discovered near Calder Road in League City in February 1986.
Her father later founded Texas EquuSearch and spent decades searching for missing people while continuing to seek answers about Laura.
The sentencing marks another major development in a case that has remained part of the Texas Killing Fields story for more than four decades.
Outside the courtroom, I have also been working on a deeply personal project.
My new book, When Two Worlds Collide During WWII, follows two families on opposite sides of World War II and the remarkable events that eventually brought their lives together in Wisconsin.
The story is based on my own family history, with real people, family photographs and stories passed down through generations.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases.
Jodi Arias will not have to file her long-awaited post-conviction relief petition next week.
A judge has granted Arias more time to prepare the petition challenging her murder conviction. The new order moves the Jodi Arias PCR deadline from September 2, 2026, to January 29, 2027.
The ruling gives Arias and her defense team nearly five additional months. Prosecutors had strongly opposed the extension.
Judge extends Jodi Arias PCR deadline
Defense attorney Christopher Stavris requested the extension in June.
He told the court that serious medical problems had disrupted the defense team’s work. One key team member needs more than three months of leave for surgery. Another team member also needs surgery and can only work in a limited role.
Two other team members face significant health problems. The defense may also need to replace another member because of continuing medical issues.
Stavris argued that those problems created extraordinary circumstances. He said the team could not complete its investigation before September 2.
The judge has now given the defense until January 29, 2027, to file Arias’ PCR petition.
Mystery evidence remains unresolved
The defense also says it still awaits information about an unidentified piece of evidence.
Court filings do not publicly describe that item. However, the defense says the issue involves the State, the Mesa Police Department or both.
Arias’ attorneys say they first requested information about the evidence nearly one year ago. They argue that they need answers before completing the PCR petition.
The filings do not explain whether the evidence still exists, what it may contain or how it could affect Arias’ claims.
Those questions remain unresolved.
Prosecutors fought the extension
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office urged the judge to keep the September deadline.
Prosecutors argued that Arias has already received years to prepare her petition. She filed her PCR notice on February 11, 2021.
The State said the September deadline gave her more than five and a half years to finish the filing. Prosecutors also argued that Arias could file the petition and request permission to amend it later.
The State took an even stronger position in its response. Prosecutors argued that missing the September deadline could support dismissal of Arias’ PCR notice.
Despite those objections, the court gave the defense more time.
What happens next in the Jodi Arias case?
Arias must now file her PCR petition by January 29, 2027.
That petition should identify the legal grounds she plans to use to challenge her conviction or sentence. It may also reveal more about the mystery evidence mentioned in recent court filings.
Arias was convicted in 2013 of murdering Travis Alexander inside his Mesa home. She is serving a natural-life sentence with no possibility of release.
The new order does not overturn her conviction or grant her a new trial. It only gives her defense team more time to file the petition seeking post-conviction relief.
For now, the biggest questions remain unanswered.
What is the unidentified evidence? What happened to it? And how does the defense believe it could affect one of Arizona’s most closely watched murder cases?
Jodi Arias appears in court during proceedings in her Arizona murder case.
Jodi Arias court fight erupts over mystery evidence and looming deadline
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
A new court fight in the Jodi Arias case centers on a looming deadline, health problems and an unidentified piece of evidence.
Arias faces a September 2, 2026 deadline to file her petition for post-conviction relief, or PCR petition.
Her attorney wants much more time.
Defense attorney Christopher Stavris asked the court to extend the Jodi Arias PCR deadline to January 29, 2027.
Prosecutors strongly oppose that request.
Now, newly reviewed court filings reveal another twist. Arias’ defense says it still awaits information about an item of evidence involving the State and/or Mesa Police Department.
The defense says it first asked about that evidence almost one year ago.
Jodi Arias PCR deadline sparks court battle
Stavris filed the extension request on June 16, 2026.
He told the court that several defense team members face significant health problems.
According to the filing, one key team member needs more than three months of surgical medical leave.
Another team member also needs surgical leave and can only work in a limited capacity.
The defense says two other team members face serious health problems that have slowed their work.
Another team member may need replacement because of ongoing medical issues.
Stavris argues those problems qualify as extraordinary circumstances under Arizona court rules.
He says his team cannot complete the necessary investigation before September 2.
Prosecutors say Arias has had enough time
Prosecutor Juan Martinez walks into court with a witness during Jodi Arias’s resentencing trial.
The Maricopa County Attorney’s Office pushed back.
Deputy County Attorney Jordan Smith argued that Arias has already had years to prepare her petition.
Arias filed her PCR notice on February 11, 2021.
Prosecutors say the September deadline gives her more than five and a half years from that filing.
The State called the deadline realistic.
Prosecutors also argued that Arias could file her petition and seek changes later if new evidence develops.
The State took an even stronger position in its filing.
Prosecutors argued that failure to meet the September 2 deadline should support dismissal of Arias’ PCR notice.
Defense reveals unresolved evidence issue
In a June 25, 2026 filing, Jodi Arias’s defense said it was still waiting for a status update on an item of evidence first raised nearly a year earlier.
The defense responded on June 25.
That filing contains one of the most interesting details in the latest court battle.
Stavris says Arias still waits for a status update involving an item of evidence.
The filing does not publicly identify the evidence.
The defense says it first asked about the item almost a year ago.
Stavris also says the State and Mesa Police Department have communicated about the evidence.
However, he says the defense still does not know its status.
The defense sent another status request several weeks before filing its reply.
According to Stavris, nobody had answered that request.
Defense says records from 2021 remain outstanding
The defense also raised another issue.
Stavris says Arias submitted a public records request through the Maricopa County Attorney’s Office in 2021.
The office partially fulfilled that request.
However, the defense says some records remain outstanding.
Arias’ team submitted a narrower request in February 2026.
The defense hoped that move would speed up the process.
Stavris says prosecutors told the defense that they continue to process the request.
Those outstanding records now form part of the defense argument for more time.
Arias attorney says PCR investigation remains active
Stavris argues that post-conviction work requires more than reviewing old court transcripts.
He says PCR claims often require new investigation outside the original trial record.
That work can involve attorneys, investigators and experts.
The defense also challenged the State’s description of the affected team members.
Prosecutors referred to them as investigators.
Stavris says several of them serve as experts in specialized fields.
He argues that those experts play a critical role in developing possible PCR claims.
The defense also says it continues to conduct discovery and investigate possible claims.
Defense offers closed hearing with judge
Stavris told the court he could provide more information if the judge wants it.
However, he asked to present those details during a sealed, ex parte hearing.
That type of hearing could allow the defense to discuss sensitive investigative information without publicly revealing its strategy.
The filing does not disclose what claims Arias may eventually raise in her PCR petition.
State asks for oral argument
In a June 26, 2026 filing, prosecutors asked Judge Aryeh Schwartz to schedule oral argument on Jodi Arias’s request for more time, with any argument set for July 23 or later.
The fight did not end with the defense reply.
On June 26, prosecutors asked the judge to hold oral arguments about the requested extension.
The State said it needs time to contact next of kin who may want to address the court.
Prosecutors cited victims’ rights to a prompt and final conclusion of the case.
The State asked the court to schedule any argument for July 23, 2026 or later.
The filing says the prosecutor assigned to the matter planned to return from vacation on July 23.
Will Jodi Arias get more time?
The filings reviewed for this story show both sides digging in.
The defense wants until January 29, 2027.
The State wants the September 2 deadline to remain in place.
The defense points to serious medical problems, unfinished investigative work, outstanding records and unresolved evidence.
Prosecutors point to the amount of time Arias has already had.
The biggest unanswered question now centers on the judge.
These filings do not include a final ruling on the extension request.
That ruling could determine whether Arias must file her long-awaited PCR petition within weeks or gets several more months to prepare it.
The mystery surrounding the unidentified evidence also adds a new question to one of Arizona’s most closely watched criminal cases.
No ruling yet on Jodi Arias PCR deadline request
As of August 17, 2026, the Maricopa County Clerk of the Superior Court says there is no minute entry or court order yet ruling on Jodi Arias’s request to extend her September 2, 2026 PCR filing deadline.
A court operations specialist told Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose that she had sent everything currently in the case and did not see a minute entry or order addressing the extension request.
That means the September 2 deadline remains the current filing date unless Judge Aryeh Schwartz issues a new order.
Read the court filings: Below are the June 2026 filings in State v. Jodi Arias, including the defense motion for more time, the State’s response, the defense reply and the State’s request for oral argument.
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 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.
Rhonda Renee Johnson, left, and Sharon Lynn Shaw disappeared after leaving Webster for a trip to Galveston on August 4, 1971. Public-domain image via Wikimedia Commons.
New Records Raise Questions About Unidentified Remains in Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw Investigation
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
More than five decades after the murders of Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw, newly reviewed records are raising questions about additional human remains found in the area. The records also raise the possibility that investigators once considered whether another person played a role in the case.
Rhonda Johnson, 14, and Sharon Shaw, 13, disappeared from Galveston County in August 1971. Authorities later recovered their skeletal remains in and around Clear Lake along Galveston Bay.
The investigation continued for decades as detectives worked to identify remains, examine evidence and determine whether the discoveries connected to the two girls.
The records do not prove that another victim or another killer was connected to the murders. However, they show how much uncertainty investigators faced during the early stages of the case.
Remains of Sharon Shaw and Rhonda Johnson Identified
On January 3, 1972, two boys fishing in Clear Lake discovered a human skull floating in the water.
Authorities later identified the skull through dental records as belonging to Sharon Shaw. Investigators also reportedly found a crucifix around the jawbone that Sharon’s mother identified as her daughter’s.
About six weeks later, searchers recovered additional skeletal remains in a marsh near Clear Lake. Authorities identified one set of those remains as belonging to Rhonda Johnson.
The discoveries confirmed that both girls had died, but investigators could not determine their exact causes of death from the remains.
The identification resolved the girls’ missing-person cases, but other remains recovered during that period created additional questions.
Michael Lloyd Self Was Convicted
Investigators eventually focused on Michael Lloyd Self, who worked as a gas station attendant in the Webster/Clear Lake area. Authorities charged Self in connection with the murders of Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw
A jury convicted Self of murdering Sharon Shaw and sentenced him to life in prison. The court record confirms that his conviction involved Sharon’s murder; he was not convicted of Rhonda Johnson’s murder.
Self later said police had threatened and physically abused him until he confessed. Questions about whether investigators obtained a false or coerced confession followed the case for decades. A federal judge once recommended relief based on the confession issue, although a later appeals court decision allowed the conviction to stand.
Edward Harold Bell Became an Alternate Suspect
Michael Lloyd Self was convicted in Sharon Shaw’s murder, though questions later emerged about his confession and whether he was responsible.
In 1998, convicted killer Edward Harold Bell claimed responsibility for the murders of several young women and girls in the Galveston-area region. His statements included two girls from Webster who disappeared in August 1971, which investigators associated with Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw.
Bell became an alternate suspect in their murders, but authorities never charged him in the case. Investigators reportedly lacked physical or biological evidence that conclusively connected Bell to the girls’ deaths.
Bell’s claims increased doubts about Self’s conviction, but they did not officially resolve who killed Rhonda and Sharon.
Questions Surrounding Other Remains
Records reviewed by Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose indicate authorities recovered an unidentified torso in September 1971.
Investigators reportedly found clothing or personal items with or near the remains that they believed belonged to Phillip Manning. Those items initially led authorities to consider whether the torso might be Manning’s.
Authorities later located Manning alive in Louisiana. That confirmed the torso was not his.
The discovery still raised questions about the unidentified victim’s identity and whether another victim—or possibly another killer—may have been connected to the investigation. However, the records reviewed so far do not establish that the torso was connected to the murders of Rhonda Johnson or Sharon Shaw.
Records Detail Manning’s Background
The records also include criminal-history and case information connected to Phillip Manning. That material may help explain why investigators examined his possible connection to the case.
However, the records do not establish that Manning killed Rhonda Johnson, Sharon Shaw or anyone else. The information surrounding him remained circumstantial, and the records reviewed so far do not show that authorities filed a case against him in connection with the girls’ murders.
Investigators Faced Difficult Conditions
Galveston shoreline and Gulf waters at sunset
The discoveries occurred during a period when severe weather affected portions of the Texas Gulf Coast.
Tropical storms Edith and Fern moved through the region in September 1971, potentially complicating searches, recovery efforts and investigators’ ability to determine where remains had originally entered the water.
Water movement, weather conditions and the passage of time may have made it more difficult to connect separate remains to specific locations or victims.
Investigators in 1971 also did not have access to the DNA testing and modern forensic databases available today.
Identifications often depended heavily on dental comparisons, physical characteristics and other available medical evidence.
Was Another Killer Suspected?
The records raise an important question: Did investigators believe the additional remains pointed to another victim—or possibly another offender operating in the area?
The documents reviewed so far do not provide a definitive answer.
They instead show that authorities were dealing with several discoveries, uncertain identifications and incomplete information during the earliest stages of the investigation.
Any suggestion that another killer was involved should be treated as a theory unless additional police reports, forensic findings or official statements support it.
Questions That Still Need Answers
Several important questions remain:
Who exactly was Phillip Manning?
Why did investigators connect his name to the torso?
Was the torso ever conclusively identified?
Did Manning have any documented connection to Rhonda Johnson or Sharon Shaw?
What did investigators believe before the girls’ remains were fully identified?
Are additional reports or forensic records still available?
Those questions may be important in understanding not only what investigators knew, but also how the case evolved during its earliest months.
Investigation Continues to Draw Interest
Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw traveled from Webster to Galveston on August 4, 1971, before they disappeared.
The murders of Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw remain among the most discussed cases connected to the Texas Gulf Coast.
Decades later, old reports, forensic findings and previously overlooked names continue to generate new questions.
The records do not yet prove that another killer was involved. But they show that the investigation may have been more complex than the public understood—and that parts of the story may still be missing.
Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose will continue reviewing available records and seeking documentation that could clarify the identity of the additional remains and Phillip Manning’s possible connection to the investigation.
When reviewing decades-old police reports, newspaper clippings and case files, a waterproof document organizer can help protect important records from spills, moisture and damage.
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I may earn from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you.
Visitors researching Galveston County history or spending time along the Texas Gulf Coast can compare hotels and available accommodations through Hotels.com.
Disclosure: I may earn a commission from eligible bookings at no additional cost to you.
A closer look at the disappearance and murders of Rhonda Johnson and Sharon Shaw, the recovery of their remains and the questions that continue decades later.
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.
Paul Taylor’s former Clute residence, where investigators later focused much of the Rebecca Beard investigation as witness statements and the case timeline evolved over time.
Rebecca Beard Part 3: How Witness Statements Changed During the Investigation
By Investigative Reporter Tammy Rose
As I continued reviewing the original investigative file in the Rebecca Beard case, one pattern became impossible to ignore.
The earliest reports tell a very different story than the theory prosecutors ultimately presented years later.
During the first weeks of the investigation, detectives documented witnesses who said they did not know Paul Taylor or had never heard Becky mention him. At the same time, investigators pursued reports that Becky was seen after leaving the Excalibur Club, including at a Surfside beach party and an after-party.
Months later, investigators had assembled a very different timeline.
The records show how that evolution occurred.
⸻
Early Witnesses Did Not Connect Becky to Paul Taylor
A March 1986 police report documents early witness interviews in the Rebecca Beard investigation. Several witnesses told detectives they did not know Paul Taylor or had never heard Becky mention him, reflecting one of the investigation’s earliest lines of inquiry.
One of the strongest themes in the March 1986 reports is how often investigators documented witnesses saying they had no connection between Becky Beard and Paul Taylor.
Among those interviewed were:
Beaver Aplin, who investigators noted never mentioned Paul Taylor, and Taylor had never mentioned Becky.
Eric Timaeus, Becky’s friend, who said he did not know Paul Taylor and never recalled Becky mentioning his name.
Misty Wiley, who said she had never heard of Paul Taylor and Becky never mentioned him.
Linda Barnes (identified in some records as Linda Limke), who said she had never heard Becky mention Paul Taylor.
Mrs. Buchanan, who also said she did not know Taylor.
At this point in the investigation, detectives had not yet developed the theory that Paul Taylor was the last person with Becky.
⸻
Several Witnesses Reported Becky Alive After Leaving Excalibur
The earliest reports also show investigators pursuing multiple leads suggesting Becky continued socializing after leaving the Excalibur Club in Freeport.
Paula’s Surfside Account
One witness, Paula, told investigators she saw Becky at a Surfside beach party during the morning hours after she disappeared.
That account suggested Becky may have left the club and traveled elsewhere.
Jack Hamilton’s Statement
An April 28, 1986 police report documents interviews with Jack Hamilton and dancer Mel Scroggins. Both described seeing Becky Beard after she left the Excalibur Club, adding to the early investigative timeline detectives were working to reconstruct.
On April 28, 1986, Jack Hamilton told investigators he saw Becky outside the Excalibur Club.
Hamilton said:
Becky appeared happy. She was not intoxicated. The two greeted each other and hugged. He saw an unidentified white male walk out beside Becky who appeared to be with her. He never saw Becky get into a vehicle.
Importantly, Hamilton did not identify the man as Paul Taylor.
Hamilton also told investigators he knew Matt Cone, a longtime friend.
Dancer Reported Seeing Becky at an After-Party
A March 13, 1986 police report documents dancer Mel Scroggins’ statement that he saw Becky Beard at the Excalibur Club and later at an after-party around 1:00 a.m. The report also notes Beaver Aplin contacted investigators about posting a reward.
Another witness, Mel Scroggins, also described seeing Becky after she left Excalibur.
Scroggins told investigators he saw Becky around 12:30 a.m. at Excalibur before performing his dance routine.
He then reported seeing Becky again around 1:00 a.m. at an after-party.
According to Scroggins, Becky was accompanied by:
a white male, approximately 5’11” to 6’0”, slim build, no glasses, associated with a possible silver or gold Chevrolet.
Again, the man was not identified as Paul Taylor.
Scroggins said he never saw Becky after that.
When viewed together, these reports show detectives were actively investigating the possibility that Becky continued on to other locations after leaving Excalibur.
⸻
John Cone’s Statement Became a Turning Point
Police records show John Cone told investigators that Paul Taylor admitted Becky Beard died at his home. Cone also stated he personally entered the house, observed the mattress and carpet were missing, and reported those observations to Sheriff Joe King while offering a key to the residence.
Another major development came from John Cone.
Cone told investigators Paul Taylor admitted Becky died inside his Clute home after a gun discharged during an encounter.
However, Cone’s statement did not stop with the alleged confession.
He told investigators he personally:
entered Taylor’s home, observed the mattress missing, observed the carpet missing, reported those observations to Sheriff Joe King, and even offered the sheriff a key to the residence.
Those observations were based on what Cone said he personally witnessed, not simply what Taylor allegedly told him.
⸻
Matt Cone Appears to Corroborate Parts of the Story
April 16, 1986 police records include statements from Tina and Excalibur Club manager Willie Garcia. The documents also reference Matt Cone, John Cone’s brother, whose name appears multiple times in the investigation as detectives continued interviewing witnesses and following leads.
The records also repeatedly reference Matt Cone.
John Cone told investigators he discussed the situation with his brother, Matt Cone, and Corky Parker before going to Taylor’s house.
Jack Hamilton also identified Matt Cone as someone he knew.
If Matt Cone independently observed the missing mattress and carpet, that would provide additional corroboration of John’s observations.
Whether Matt entered the home himself or relied on John’s account remains an important question raised by the records.
⸻
Beaver Aplin Continued Contacting Investigators
Police records show Beaver Aplin remained in regular contact with investigators after Rebecca Beard disappeared. The reports document Aplin requesting case updates, asking about posting a reward, and continuing to communicate with detectives as the investigation progressed.
Another interesting pattern involves Beaver Aplin.
The investigative file documents that:
Beaver was interviewed during the early stages of the case. Investigators noted he did not connect Becky to Paul Taylor. He later left messages for investigators. Months later, he again contacted police requesting an update on Becky’s case.
Those records do not suggest wrongdoing.
However, they do show Beaver remained engaged with investigators long after Becky disappeared.
⸻
The Investigation Evolved
As the investigation continued, the documentary record began shifting.
Later reports increasingly connected Becky to Paul Taylor.
Among them were statements from:
Willie Garcia, Kevin King, John Cone, and other witnesses who later appeared on the prosecution’s witness list.
That witness list outlined how prosecutors intended to build their case, including testimony that Becky left with Taylor, statements that Taylor admitted killing her, and witnesses describing evidence allegedly observed inside Taylor’s home.
That later theory differs considerably from many of the earliest reports documenting possible Surfside sightings, after-party sightings, and witnesses who initially said they did not know Paul Taylor.
⸻
Questions That Remain
Reading these records chronologically reveals an investigation that changed significantly over time.
The documents show detectives initially pursued multiple leads, including reports that Becky was seen after leaving Excalibur and accounts from witnesses who did not connect her to Paul Taylor.
As additional interviews were conducted, investigators documented statements that increasingly focused on Taylor and ultimately formed the basis of the prosecution’s case.
The records do not fully explain how every conflicting witness account was evaluated before investigators settled on the final timeline presented in court.
Nearly four decades later, those documents continue to provide important insight into how the Rebecca Beard investigation developed—and why reviewing the original records remains essential.
⸻
Read More in This Series
Part 1: Rebecca Beard: John Cone’s Confession and the Early Investigation
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate, I earn from qualifying purchases at no additional cost to you. Your support helps fund my investigative reporting and allows me to continue researching and publishing stories like this one.
