Latest Headlines
- Semi, Pickup Crash Closes Highway 29 For Hours In Cantonment
- Now That Matt Gaetz Has Resigned After Being Picked For Trump’s AG, Who Will Seek His Seat?
- Thursday Afternoon Update: CSX Railroad Crossing Closures
- Update: Northwest Florida Congressman Matt Gaetz Resigns From Congress After AG Nomination
- New ‘Wind Phone’ In Cantonment ‘Connects’ Grieving Families With Deceased Loved Ones
- Jay Couple Wins State Agriculture Competition, $45,000 Prize
- Century Paying $500 COVID-19 Stipend To Some Employees
- Escambia County Sheriff’s Office Creating Law Enforcement Memorial Plaza
- New Details Emerge In Fatal DUI Crash That Killed 14-Year-Old Cantonment Boy; Driver Released On Bond
- Cantonment Rotary Donates To Hurricane Relief
Trial Postponed For Private Investigator Murder Suspect
July 23, 2019
Trial was set to begin Monday in the case of a woman accused of killing private investigator and burying her body in Cantonment.
Ashley Britt McArthur, now 41, is facing a first-degree murder charge for the death of 33-year old Taylor Wright, a private investigator and former police officer. Wright’s body was found in 2017 off Britt Road, just west of County Road 97 near Muscogee Road in Cantonment. She also allegedly stole $34,000 from Wright.
Monday’s trial date was continued until August 26 due to new evidence in the case.
Earlier this year, McArthur received seven years in state prison for racketeering and organized fraud While employed by Pensacola Automatic Amusement, from 2015 to 2017, McArthur embezzled thousands of dollars from two clients, the Azalea Cocktail Lounge and Seville Quarter.
Pensacola Automatic Amusement serviced entertainment machines and jukeboxes for various clients in the Pensacola area for 40 years. McArthur falsified collection reports for jukeboxes at the Azalea Lounge and Seville Quarter while keeping the unreported proceeds.
Comments
5 Responses to “Trial Postponed For Private Investigator Murder Suspect”
What is “new” evidence?
When new evidence is located, the rules of discovery mandate it be shared with the defense. The defense has the right to ask for time to review the new evidence. Makes sense if the state plans on introducing the evidence at trial. It’s standard practice.
A delay? New evidence? I doubt it. Just a lawyer tactic. Isn’t it strange how “new evidence” always comes up just a day or two before a jury is sworn in?
…who is pulling all the strings in this case ?..starting to stink..
Is the “new evidence” under some sort of “Judicial Restriction”?
The suspense is killing me.