|
Post by Hamel on Dec 10, 2017 0:41:37 GMT -6
I'm German sorry for my spelling.
Yes. Maybe all the PCSOs are lying and showing Marty's lies that Tina's body was brought over a bridge and hidden outside of Keddie. Did not Marty say that a car would be obvious? Yes.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 10, 2017 10:14:41 GMT -6
Hamel:
First of all, I moved this to the appropriate thread. Second, I edited your "post" ONCE. I'm not doing it again. IF you want to discuss the case, fine, but THAT'S IT. If you don't like my rules, go back to David Craig McNarie's circle jerk. Period. No argument.
Well, one problem with "all the cops are lying" is that that would be really, really, really, really hard to keep together for 35 years. And if they wanted to "lie," all they had to do was do it in their own reports. Secondly, there is a MUCH simpler explanation: Martin Smartt, Marylin Smartt, and Justin Eason [Smartt] are the ones who've told some lies. There is ZERO doubt that those three are lifelong habitual liars. They've proven that every day.
Why would Martin lie? Well, supposedly, he was "willing to kill" to get Marylin back. Soooooooo, he'd be willing to LIE, too, right? Lie enough to take the heat of Justin? And we KNOW he and Marylin are incurable compulsive liars. So far as we know, Justin never, ever told the same story twice himself. So, how does that make "every single cop from DOJ down to dogcatcher" a liar?
What did ALL OF THESE COPS actually GET out of "covering up" for Martin Smartt and SJ Boubede for 40 years? We're talking about two NOBODIES. All that horseshit about Boubede being a "mob hit man" is pure horseshit. All that horseshit about Martin "confessing" is pure horseshit. And the claim that Crim and Bradley were "corrupt" is pure unadulterated horseshit.
Several other people "confessed." Happens all the time. But where's the corroborating evidence? That's the problem with the WHOLE "Martin and Boubede did it" claim. ALL of the evidence points away from them. For one thing, they have an ironclad alibi for the ACTUAL time of the murders. Did Martin assist in some other way? Mmmmmmmmmmmmaaaayyyyyybe. But someone else HAD to do the actual killing. For another thing, where are his fingerprints? DNA? Bloody clothes? Where's the MOTIVE? If ANYONE was "breaking up his marriage" it was WADE MEEKS, not Sue Sharp. If you're going lynch Boubede just for being a lowlife who happened to pass the night in Keddie that weekend, then you have to lynch 2/3 of the people living there at the time.
Now, was it Martin's FAULT that someone else may have wanted Johnny or Dana or whoever dead? Did Martin SCREW SOMEONE OVER and then BLAME it on the boys? That's more than a little plausible. It's also a good reason for him to 1. Feel guilty and 2. GET THE HELL OUT OF TOWN. But that doesn't prove that aaallll those cops have been sticking to the same lie for 35 years. And, of course, Martin may have simply ASSUMED it was somehow his fault. He had a well-established guilt complex.
Did Marylin have a MOTIVE to lie about Martin being "guilty?" Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup. Did the Meeks clan have a MOTIVE to lie about Martin being "guilty?" Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup. Does Gamberg have a MOTIVE to lie about Martin being guilty (and rivals at PCSO being "liars")? Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup. Do Hancock and McNarie have MOTIVES to gin up a frame around Martin and Bo? Yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyup. Have EVERY SINGLE ONE of those people been caught in lies?
Yup.
One last thing: Let's say that a significant number of cops in Plumas County had a motive to get together and LIE about who really committed the murders in Cabin 28. None of them were saints. But, if they were willing to lie to make Martin look "innocent," then why file any reports about a so-called HEARSAY "confession" that wouldn't have been admissible in court, anyway? I mean, if they lied about this case because they had dirty fingers, then they had a motive to FRAME somebody, RIGHT? I mean, the only way to REALLY cover for Martin and Bo--or ANYONE ELSE--would be to frame SOMEBODY, right? But, the only person who's been framed for this murder is Martin Smartt. Martin was supposedly "friends" with Doug Thomas, right? So, if Thomas needed a favor from someone to help him cover up for someone in this case, he cold ask Martin, right? I mean, IF you're going to claim that Thomas and others were willing to queer this case in favor of Martin (or anyone else,) then you have to believe they'd also be willing to queer the case AGAINST him (or anyone else.) RIGHT?
Because, according to ALL of the (available) evidence and reports, it sure looks like Doug Thomas got Martin to play along with framing MARTIN (and Bo) for the Cabin 28 murders and then let then "escape" to Oregon. You know. So they wouldn't have to investigate ANY OTHER SUSPECTS.
And that brings us back to Hancock and McNarie. Why are YOU (ooops. I mean, "they." Snicker) sooooooooo TERRIFIED that someone might figure out that someone else might turn out to be guilty? What if Martin and Bo DIDN'T do it? I mean, they're dead. Guilty or not, it's not like they're being "harassed." So, whom are you (ooops! Did it again! I mean, McNarie) and Gamberg protecting NOW?
|
|
|
Post by cancersucks on Dec 10, 2017 12:46:05 GMT -6
Great points! Instead of repeating everything you said, I just want to touch on 1 point. If the Marty, with or without Bo, are the killers, they've been dead for YEARS. So, in all those years, why in the world would PCSO, neighbors, friends, Justin, Ricky, etc. cover for them. That's absurd.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Dec 10, 2017 15:01:41 GMT -6
Yes, why would everyone continue to cover for a dead man - Marty was NOTHING to Ricky Sharp? The only reason Marty and BO's interviews have been analyzed to death is because those are the ONLY 2 interviews we have ever seen! Show us everyone else's interviews and I bet we would be more confused than ever. So it's easy to say Marty/Bo said some questionable things in their interviews because we really have no other full interview to compare them to. (But this was not Marty's only interview - just the only one we have been allowed to see).
As far as corruption and cover-up, I'd think that any and everything pointing to Marty Smartt (which amounts to nothing but hearsay) would have been destroyed. Isn't that what how you cover something up - get rid of it?
|
|
|
Post by cancersucks on Dec 10, 2017 15:08:28 GMT -6
Without all the interviews it's nearly impossible to draw a clear picture unfortunately. But, I do believe PCSO knew back then and even now who is the strongest suspect(s) and THAT is the information we don't have. Maybe it was one of their own. It certainly wasn't a nobody like Smartt and Bo. As far as people who speak now or change their stories now, I can't even believe a word of it. I sure don't remember things I saw or said all those years ago.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on Dec 10, 2017 18:23:13 GMT -6
The only thing that could even possibly link Marty to being involved in these murders would be the "therapist confession". The only problem with that is the therapist said the DOJ came to see him, seemed very excited, and took copious notes, yet we have never seen any interview they had with Marty after their talk with the therapist - which would have been around the end of April/first of May 1981. What we DO have is a statement Marty made to the DOJ about Phillip Shearer staying at the Sharps house (which could only have been made AFTER Phillip got himself involved which would have been in May 1981 - AFTER Marty's famous interview - which means the police had more than one interview with Marty Smartt.
Marty supposedly confessed to killing Tina and Sue but Henry Thompson confessed that he was in the cabin when the murders started - but when questioned by police admitted making the story up and everyone seems content with that. So I'm content that the police DID talk to Marty after the therapist confession and Marty had as good an excuse for telling the story as Henry did.
It's people like Kathy Beckley, and her mothers anonymous friend, that we see cover up - covering for themselves so as not to get involved. This same "anonymous" friend said Marty was seeing Sue, OH WAIT, was it a different witness who told that story? Too much mumbo jumbo lengthy rambling to be able to discern fact from fiction (which I'm guessing was the intent).
|
|
|
Post by cancersucks on Dec 10, 2017 19:53:09 GMT -6
I have a hard time with the therapist's confession. A - the therapist could have made it all up to get attention like so many others involved. B - Marty could have made it up to look tough. The only person who knows the truth is the therapist. It's just too weak-sounding to me.
The interviews drive me nuts - so long. I get too annoyed reading them.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on Dec 11, 2017 13:17:10 GMT -6
It seems that Marty fit the stereotype of the compulsive confessor. Someone who carries around a lot of guilt (or whatever) but can't talk about what's really bothering them (they may not even know themselves) and so they confess to other things. Or they may compulsively punish themselves by gambling, drinking, etc. He may have felt guilty about what happened to Johnny and Dana without actually being directly responsible. Or, maybe he just liked the attention. At best, he seems to have had trouble keeping both oars in the water. Extended unemployment, substance abuse, and another failed relationship (with a person as screwed up as himself) would have not doubt put him in a deep, chronic depression, which often leads to delusional behavior. The biggest problem with the "confession" is that it is flat contradicted by the evidence.
|
|
|
Post by Michele on May 25, 2018 21:51:44 GMT -6
Your logic is impeccable. IF Glenna Meeks thinks Marty might have killed a woman and her kid, then why MAKE him stay in HER house with HER kids? Let him go, for the love of Pete. This is soooo accurate. Glenna had to beg him to stay? If she even thought for a second that Martin was responsible, why volunteer your home to him?! I have always felt there was a Meeks connection to the Keddie murders. How I don’t know...something seems very off.
|
|
|
Post by karis on May 26, 2018 7:33:03 GMT -6
Michele I agree. Why make him stay in her house with HER family if she honestly thought he was a killer. I don't think she really did. I think she was probably scared of what would look like her own families motive or involvement (the baby). She was upset with Sue's decision to give the baby up. Accusing Marty would solve two problems, (1) throw the focus off her family, (2)Wade would be able to have Marilyn.
Why did Sue make that short trip to the Meeks house that Saturday morning? Why didn't Sheila go with her? Why didn't Sheila ask Laronda to spend the night with her instead of Alice (or did she)? Why not tell the forum (the old forum) when they were discussing the Phillip story (you know the one that said he was at the cabin that night) that he was her nephew?
None of this makes them guilty of anything but they DID have more of a motive than Marty.
|
|
|
Post by Michele on May 26, 2018 16:10:03 GMT -6
I do find the Therapist to be credible. Then again, I’m just not sure of anything. He really doesn’t gain anything by lying? He seemed to have a lot of details. He also went on to become a Police Officer.
Karis, Good point. I don’t think that the private meeting between Sue & Glenna the morning of the murders was a positive one. It’s clear that Glenna was angry that Sheila and Richards baby had been put up for adoption by Sue. I’m not saying The Meeks clan was involved, but it is a strong motive. I remember the photo of the knife and denim shirt with blood spatter. Someone put Sheila’s flute case right next to it. It looks like someone purposely placed it there.
Glenna didn’t have a problem with Marty staying at her house? So, either she isnt very bright, or she already knew that he didn’t do it.
|
|
|
Post by kmik on May 26, 2018 17:43:03 GMT -6
Michele, I don't think the therapist lied about Marty telling his this story. The problem is this therapist (on the documentary) was repeating conversations he had with a patient 25 years after he had them (and Marty was not his only patient). He was completely going from memory (many weekly sessions) and had absolutely no documentation to back up what he said nor the context in which this conversation actually came up (very important). We also do not have any report from the DOJ as to what Marty said when they reinterviewed him after talking with the therapist (they were chasing down leads all over so I'm pretty sure they saw this one through).
The therapist made it appear that when DOJ left his office he expected the arrest of Marty immediately but that's not the way it works. If you've read the report the therapist's neighbor is the one who actually called the PCSO because according to him the therapist was not going to. Now we can assume the therapist did not want to report what his patient had told him in confidence or we can assume the therapist knew Marty was full of bull but enjoyed sharing the story with his neighbor (who was also a therapist). Either way Dr. Cheeseman reported it so apparently the therapist felt obligated to tell it. I'm still not clear if he finally called the DOJ himself before or after Dr. Cheeseman reported this to the PCSO or if he called anybody at all. He never mentioned if he placed calls to the PCSO or DOJ afterwards to see if anything had been done so I'm assuming he did not. If the therapist was living in or near Reno and (from what he said about a year later) took a job in law enforcement it seems crazy he did not stay in touch with the case. Tina was missing for 3 years.
|
|
|
Post by karis on May 26, 2018 18:37:26 GMT -6
What a great memory he had!! He seemed to remember details of a session that took place years before. But the most important question he should have asked was "where is the little girl"? After all Marty had just told him, "i killed the women and her daughter". If this man had just confessed a double murder to him why didn't he ask the most important question?
|
|
|
Post by raemen2 on May 26, 2018 18:52:50 GMT -6
Famous confession of murder(s) to a therapist that was false - Sture Bergwall. Famous confession of murder(s) to a therapist that resulted in a conviction of first degree murder - Erik Menendez.
|
|
|
Post by Admin Horan on May 27, 2018 8:17:11 GMT -6
Sture Bergwall! Raemen! Wanna be on the podcast?
|
|