Traveontaye Berry Trial Revisited: The Questions Raised Before Closing Arguments

June 23, 2026 | Freeport, IL

As closing arguments approached in the 2015 murder trial of Traveontaye Berry, reporting from the Journal-Standard highlighted several key pieces of evidence presented to the jury. More than a decade later, those same details continue to raise questions that deserve careful examination.

It is important to remember that Carl Green Jr. lost his life on October 16, 2013. Every discussion surrounding this case must begin with that fact. A young man was killed, a family was forever changed, and the ultimate goal should always be the pursuit of truth and justice.

According to reporting at the time, forensic testing established that two bullets, one bullet fragment, and three shell casings recovered from 1242 S. Float Avenue and 1411 E. Prospect Terrace had been fired from a Ruger pistol later recovered beneath a porch at 1242 S. Float Avenue.

At first glance, that may appear straightforward.

However, when compared to witness statements obtained by Fighting4Freeport, several important questions emerge.

The Shell Casings Problem

According to the Journal-Standard article, Myleka Avery testified that she saw Traveontaye Berry shoot out the back door of her residence.

If that testimony is accurate, it raises an obvious question.

How did shell casings connected to that shooting end up on other properties?

Semi-automatic pistols eject shell casings near the location where they are fired. If someone was standing—or, as described in some versions of the witness statements, laying—inside the kitchen shooting out the back door, one would reasonably expect shell casings to be found inside the residence or immediately near the doorway.

Yet the article reports that shell casings were recovered from 1242 S. Float Avenue and 1411 E. Prospect Terrace.

That question becomes even more significant when considering Myleka's various statements to investigators.

According to those statements, after a man allegedly fell through the back door, Myleka picked up shell casings from inside the apartment and hid them in an air vent located in the living room near the television. Avery further told investigators that one casing came from the kitchen and another came from the living room.

If any version of those statements is true, investigators should have been able to determine:

• How many shell casings were found inside the apartment?

• How many were found outside?

• Were the shell casings allegedly hidden in the air vent ever recovered?

• If they were recovered, why do they appear to be absent from the evidence discussed at trial?

• If they were not recovered, what happened to them?

Most importantly:

If Berry was laying inside the apartment shooting out the back door, how do shell casings associated with that shooting end up on neighboring properties?

The Ruger Pistol

The article also reports that testing showed the bullets and shell casings were fired from a Ruger pistol recovered beneath the porch at 1242 S. Float Avenue.

Again, this raises questions when compared to the eyewitness accounts.

According to portions of Myleka Avery's statements, a man fell through the back door while shots were being fired, got up from the kitchen floor, and ultimately fled through the front door.

Berry was arrested south of the apartment.

The Ruger pistol was reportedly found north of the apartment underneath a neighboring porch.

If that sequence of events occurred as described, how did the gun travel from the apartment to a location north of the residence?

Who placed it there?

When was it placed there?

Was it ever established who physically hid the weapon?

How could Berry have hidden the gun while simultaneously fleeing south toward police officers?

The Testimony of Patricia McGee

The defense's first witness, Patricia McGee, testified that after hearing gunshots she looked outside and saw Carl Green Jr. falling in a yard across Empire Street.

She also reportedly saw someone jump from the porch of 334 E. Empire Street.

The prosecution attempted to challenge her testimony by presenting police video footage and testimony from officers who stated they did not recall seeing McGee outside.

However, there may be additional context worth considering that Berry’s Public Defender failed to address.

The home at 1303 S. Float Avenue has a porch on the north side of the residence and another on the west side. The home also contains windows facing both directions.

At this point, it remains unclear exactly where McGee was positioned when making her observations.

That distinction matters.

Berry was arrested south of the scene.

If McGee was observing events from the north side of her residence, she may have been able to see Green fall and observe someone leaving the front porch of 334 E. Empire Street.

At the same time, she would not have been able to see police officers located west or southwest of her position.

Likewise, officers positioned on Float Avenue would not have been able to see someone looking through a north-facing window or standing on a north-facing porch.

Without knowing her exact vantage point, determining what she should or should not have been able to observe becomes difficult.

The State's Only Eyewitness

Perhaps one of the most interesting details contained in the article is the statement that Myleka Avery provided the only eyewitness testimony presented by the prosecution.

This raises an obvious question.

Why only one eyewitness?

Based on witness statements reviewed by Fighting4Freeport, both Myleka Avery and Mikelle Brown were present inside the apartment that night.

In many criminal trials, multiple eyewitnesses telling the same story can strengthen a case.

Yet only one was called.

After reviewing the various statements provided over time, one possible explanation becomes apparent. The accounts contain significant inconsistencies, contradictions, and differing descriptions of what occurred during what should have been only a matter of seconds.

Reasonable people can debate what those inconsistencies mean.

What is difficult to debate is that they exist.

If two witnesses observed the same event, why was only one called to testify before the jury?

Was the second witness unable to support the prosecution's theory of events?

Did portions of her account conflict with the testimony being presented?

Or was there another reason entirely?

The Bigger Question

Ultimately, the questions raised by this article go far beyond shell casings, witness locations, or the recovery of a firearm.

They go to the heart of what every homicide investigation is supposed to accomplish.

Finding the truth.

After reviewing witness statements, police reports, and trial testimony, one question continues to linger.

The purpose of every homicide investigation should be to identify the person responsible for the crime and present the evidence wherever it leads.

Was the objective to identify and convict the person who actually murdered Carl Green Jr.?

Or was the objective simply to secure a conviction for the murder?

Those are two very different goals.

Justice demands the first.

As Fighting4Freeport continues its review of witness statements, police reports, and court records, our focus remains the same: following the facts wherever they lead and encouraging the public to examine the evidence for themselves.

Because before anyone can decide whether justice was served, we must first understand what actually happened during those critical moments on October 16, 2013.