Boubede states, “There were several cars parked right here in the immediate area.” He clarifies the location of the parked cars by stating they were “towards the cabin area.” He then goes on to say, “The only one I could tell you was a Corvair.”
Boubede does not state this was the only car he saw or he remembers being parked near the cabins. He tells the investigator this is the only car “I could tell you.” This type of language allows for the possibility that he saw another car but is choosing not to tell the police about the other car.
There is also the chance he is making up the story about seeing a Corvair. Since people do not want to lie, it is hard for him to say, “I remember seeing a Corvair.” Therefore, he states, “The only one I could tell you was a Corvair.”
In regards to the Corvair, we find the following exchange:
Bradley: “Had you see that around here before?”
Boubede: “Ah, well, I’ve only been here a short time, ah, about a month.”
Crim: “About a month you’ve been here?”
Boubede: “About a month. So I wouldn’t be able to say.”
Boubede’s answer, “I wouldn’t be able to say” makes no sense. Even if he had only been living there a short time he could still answer this question by saying, “No, I have not seen that car before.”
He does not tell the investigators that he has not seen the Corvair before. He only states that he is not “able to say.” Why is he not able to say? Is it because he has not seen it or is it because of something else.
Bradley: “Were there any lights on in the house or any sign of a disturbance at all?”
Boubede: “I wouldn’t even know the house, unless you pointed it out to me.”
Bradley: “You don’t know the house, which one we’re talking about?”
First, if Boubede did not know what house they were talking about, we would expect him to say, “I don’t know what house you are talking about.” That is a definitive statement. His statement, “I wouldn’t even know” is a weak denial.
Secondly, his uncertainty of which house the crime occurred in contradicts his earlier statements as seen below.
Bradley: “When you came through the parking lot and up the street, did you pass the victims’ house?”
Boubede: “Ah yes.”
Bradley: “Now did you see any, what was the condition of the house? Were there any lights on in there, do you recall?
Boubede: “Ah, I didn’t notice.”
Bradley: “Didn’t notice. Did you hear any noise from the, from within the house?”
Earlier in the interview, Boubede acts as if he knows what house the police are talking about.
In talking about Boubede and Smartt leaving the bar and walking home, we find the following:
Bradley: “Did you see any activity at that time?”
Boubede: “Nothing unusual.”
Boubede does not state that he did not see any activity while walking home. He qualified his answer by saying he saw nothing “unusual.”
First Impression from FBI profiler, John Douglas
Summary: The triple homicide appears to be without motive. Neither sex nor money was a motivating factor. The crime scene reflects anger and rage on one hand and remorse and guilt on the other. It appears at this point there is more than one murderer involved in this triple homicide.
The offender responsible for this triple homicide did not initially plan on killing. It was an afterthought as evident by the weapons he selected. All weapons can be referred to as weapons of opportunity. This offender knew his victims, particularly John and Sue.
These homicides were motivated by his commitment and love for Tina Sharp. He loves her like a father in all probability. Tina was planning on running away with him. She had nothing left at home, and it was obvious, according to witnesses, that Sue no longer had control of the household.
It was Tina Sharp who probably went to the bedroom and got a blanket to cover her mother’s dead body. Tina, at age 12, may have had conflicts with her mother, like so many adolescents at that age do. However, since the homicide she has probably dealt with a great deal of remorse and guilt. Her feelings will be in direct contract to her abductor and may lend to her own death if her abductor feels she may go to the police.
If Tina Sharp is still alive she will find that she will become increasingly depressed especially around holiday and significant anniversary dates (i.e. mother’s birthday, her own birthday, Christmas, Thanksgiving). Her depression will cause her to seek out her father and the gravesite of her mother and brother.
It should be noted here that the Behavioral Science Unit has found that the father…..[illegible]…..and is not considered a suspect.
There are many inconsistencies surrounding this case. The two detectives dispatched to the scene, Crim and Bradley, specialized in mob-related issues. Why didn’t they send homicide detectives? Could it be because Boubede’s step-father, who raised him, was a prominent member of the mob? Also, the sheriff at the time resigned shortly after the murders, admitting to child molestation. Could he have had a hand in Tina’s disappearance to satisfy his sick obsession?
We’ll continue this series, but with a short interruption for Go Set A Watchman blog tour. I’d love to dive deeper into this today, but my editor sent my track edits early and I only have a few days left before the deadline.
What are your thoughts? Do you think the profiler nailed it in his initial evaluation, or was he way off?