810414 Boubede DOJ 'interview'- complete

case files, articles, etc

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Wed Sep 25, 2013 6:56 pm

Here are the scans of the transcript of Bo's 'interview' with the Crimley Pigtwins. Note the blue felt-tip used to make notes on some pages, including what's found on the back of page 5, which concerns Bo's story of asking about 'the young lady' (Sue).
You must be a member of the Keddie Forum with 15 approved posts to view the files attached to this post.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Fri Sep 27, 2013 5:28 pm

Obvious 100% cover up. So to me, what was being covered up? If Sue was the main target as a strong case can be made for, what could she be possibly involved in that would warrant LE ignoring a triple murder and 12 year old abduction?

And that is the kicker--Tina was abducted (as far as someone not involved knew), and yet it seems LE approached the case like they knew searching for Tina was a waste of time.

If this was all on the up and up--there would have been massive search parties for Tina and Marty and Bo would have been interviewed quickly, along with all other neighbors/friends---and the resulting transcript of the interviews would not make me want to puke in my mouth.
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Fri Sep 27, 2013 7:17 pm

Target and/or motive need not be remotely connected to the motive for the coverup. In this case, I believe they are separate- but not entirely exclusive- crimes. I believe who was involved in the killings is more relevant to the coverup than the victims or motive(s) themselves.

Who was involved in the murders? Who was involved in the coverup? What common threads do they share? That's how I approach the coverup as it's own entity. And it IS it's own entity.

As for the coverup, DOJ and elements of PCSO were definitely involved. And they each had their own reasons. Hell, if Bo was WPP and involved in a quad, DOJ were his minders and would have swooped in. But I don't think his handlers would have been stationed in SAC (Crimley). So the fact Crimley were dirty CA-DOJ involved in mafia doesn't mean they would have been in charge of cleaning up Bo's mess. I believe CA-DOJ already had their own messes to clean up that these murders (and any legitimate investigation) would have compromised. Same goes for PCSO. Obviously, one of the common threads would have been the drug trade and who controlled/profited from the flow through the Plumas market/corridor.

Look closer at the purely superficial 'differences' between DOJ and 'elements' of PCSO: Sheriff Doug Thomas bailed from Plumas and the Keddie Murders to head up POST (Peace Officer Standards and Training), a program for training law enforcement agencies who choose (pay) to participate in the program. That program, in California, is run by CA-DOJ in Sacramento. Rod DeCrona's dad (who Rod claims was an LA cop) helped put it together and run it, DOJ SA Harry Bradley (half of Team Crimley, who recently lied to Deb that he was FBI and never DOJ) used to head the program. Harry Bradley was replaced by Doug Thomas.

One must wonder how those DOJ/PCSO connections came about, and how one of the scummiest pigs I've ever researched, Rod DeCrona, landed in such a small town as Quincy, and how he came to wield such control and power for so long. It seems every wrong he did that was made public, every lawsuit rightfully paid out due to his misdeeds, he was never investigated, reprimanded, or fired for them. In fact, he was given more power, so there was a perverse reward system in place for him within PCSO.

To a man, everyone we've contacted willing to discuss PCSO corruption has offered that both Rod and Doug (and others) were dirty and involved in the drug flow. Rod was there for decades, so...
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 6:57 am

Makes sense. So if you are LE, there is a quad done by Bo et al who is either: 1) paying big money to protect and turn a blind eye to his (mafia) smuggling or 2) is simply a player in the smuggling that is ran by LE/mafia. Since the quad is not directly related, LE is probably pissed that they have to deal with Bo and his temper and four dead people.

LE tells Bo and Marty to get the hell out of Dodge, and they make adjustments to the smuggling operation and move on.
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:10 am

If the coverup is about Bo, the coverup CERTAINLY is NOT about BO. It's about LE's involvement with Bo.

Crim and Bradley were corrupt DOJ scum from Sac, involved in coverups. Bradley recently told Deborah that he was NEVER involved in DOJ, just FBI, but Bradley was in charge of a pet DOJ project that hired ex-Plumas Doug Thomas to replace him? In Sac?

I really do know this case is not normal, but the point is CA-DOJ are corrupt and PCSO are corrupt and to trust anything they say is stupid. Read this interview right from the start and you know Crim and Bradley are lying all the way thru. They lie more than Bo, and that's progress in this case?
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:22 am

That's what I was saying. Unless you are implying that LE did the quad--which would mean that there had to be motive in offing Sue.

I guess I am not totally grasping your theory. I have read your posts and agree with most--so dumb it down for me and I bet it will make sense to me.
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:26 am

Yeah the interviews are the most important single evidence in this whole thing to me. Obvious cover up--and I also think Crim/Bradley had already practiced answers with Bo prior to the official interview
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:36 am

There are 2 major crime events here. The quad and the cover up of the quad. There has to be motive for each. So, if we attribute the 1st major crime--the quad, to Bo et al, and the 2nd major crime to LE, how do they tie together?

1) LE in with organized crime operation which is why Bo is in Keddie anyway. The quad is done for a reason--for something the victims know or did.
2) LE in with organized crime operation which is why Bo is in Keddie anyway. The quad is unrelated to the operation, but LE has to cover because they can't risk Bo being investigated deeply and blowing the whole thing open.
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:40 am

hang on, I'm already saying the murders need not be part of the coverup. The reason for the coverup is those involved in the murders, NOT the murders themselves. I'm saying I believe LE were covering their asses because they knew the killers and didn't give one bit about the victims or the original murders.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 9:41 am

That would be my #2
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:05 am

And more to the point--LE protecting their own money making drug ring
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Sat Sep 28, 2013 10:33 am

Look at what happened. Sue was murdered, Dana and Johnny and Tina were murdered. Nobody investigated their deaths. The conclusions by ME quacks are 100% bullshit. That's a DOJ scam. I find the results not only assinine but premature and intentionally stupid (inconclusive)

I am calling the fact Sac DOJ had control of the case and made the most inept findings possible for 1981.

All evidence went from Keddie 28 to PCSO to Sac, & the results are DOJ BS.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:22 pm

100% agree. And to those involved in LE--I hope that extra boat or lake house was worth selling your soul. Its all fun and games when druggies get their drugs and you get your money--but you will answer to killing kids.
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby oksooner » Sat Sep 28, 2013 2:27 pm

And the cover up in this case is as good as murder in my book. Karma bitches.
oksooner
 
Posts: 19
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2012 11:15 am
Has thanked: 0 time
Been thanked: 8 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Sat Apr 26, 2014 12:58 pm

Here's a glimpse inside of the Keddie Lodge. Taken in the spring of 1982, this shows a large group dining inside, so this must be a photo of the very "banquet room" where Crimley 'interviewed' John Boubede and Marty Smartt.

<deleted>
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby sunnyday » Fri May 02, 2014 3:54 am

Yes I also believe that the officials, everyone of them are as guilty as the murders if they covered up any part of this murder.

Don't they ever think about those kids and Sue at all? Do they even have a concious (sp)? Is looking in the mirror ever hard for them?
Tamara
No child's murder should go unsolved.
sunnyday
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby sunnyday » Fri May 02, 2014 3:57 am

Dmac I also wanted to thank you for all the pictures.

I am a person that if I have pictures to go along with what I read it really brings everything together for me.
Tamara
No child's murder should go unsolved.
sunnyday
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 23, 2012 11:14 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 11 times

Re: 810414 Boubede DOJ 'interview'- complete

Postby dmac » Fri Apr 10, 2015 11:38 pm

Here's all the instances I found where Bo lies about knowing where 28 was:

    Bradley: No, I should rephrase that. When you guys didn't like the music, you left the bar, went home. Alright now, let's get that, when you came through the parking lot and up the street, did you pass the victims' house?

    John: Ah yes.

    Bradley: Three of you?

    John: 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?

    John: Ah, I didn't notice.

    Bradley: Didn't notice. Did you hear any noise from the, from within the house?

    John: No.

    Bradley: You didn't notice any lights or any noise?

    John: No.

-----------------------------------

    Bradley: Now that time when you went back, did you see any cars? Around that house up there?

    John: Not that I noticed.

    Bradley: Were there any lights on in the house or ay sign of a disturbance at all?

    John: 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?

    John: No.

    Bradley: Oh, I thought you'd know. Well, we'll point it out to you on the way back. It's the second one, you know where the Seabolts live on the corner?

    John: No sir.

    Bradley: Hum...

    John: Like I say, I've only been here about a month, I know very few people here. Relatively few.

    Bradley: Ya, do you know where Justin spent the night that night?

    John: Yes sir, ah, at a friend's, that's all.

    Bradley: Oh, you don't know what house it was?

    John: No, no.

    Bradley: Since Saturday, have you seen a lot of police cars there and?

    John: Oh yes, oh yes.

    Bradley: Going in and out of a house?

    John: Yes.

    Bradley: This house right up the street?

    John: Uh huh.

    Bradley: That's the house I'm talking about.

    John: Well, I saw them on the street but I didn't know ah, in which house.

    Bradley: O.K., should have pointed that out to you on the way down. I'll do that on the way up so you know what house I'm talking about to see if you recall any, was there lights on in any of the homes?

    John: Not that I recall.

-------------------------------------


And something I don't recall picking up on before, John contradicting himself about how long he was in Keddie. First he says he was there for a month, then he says this:

    Bradley: When were you in Reno in the hospital?

    John: Ah, well, two weeks prior to Tuesday.

    Bradley: Two weeks prior.

    John: Till Tuesday.

    Bradley: And that's in the Vets hospital? Is that because of the epilepsy?

    John: Yes.

    Bradley: How long were you in there?

    John: Also suicide attempt.

    Bradley: Hm. Were you in the hospital long?

    John: Ah, about two weeks actually.

    Bradley: In other words, you were living here in Keddie, when you went down there?

    John: No, no, I was in Reno.

    Bradley: Oh, were you?

Does he mean Tuesday, April 14, or April 7? I believe he means the 14th, A> because of how he phrased it: "Two weeks prior to Tuesday" instead of "two weeks before last Tuesday"; B> the 14th dovetails with Marty's movements between the VA and Keddie; C> my own calculation that Bo had been in Keddie for only 11 days prior to the murders, not a month as they claimed, when Marty came BACK from the Reno VA (Mar 30ish). Logically, Bo didn't arrive in Keddie prior to Marty's return. If Bo was in 26 before Marty bounced out of the Wacky Ward, that turns the whole Bo angle on it's ear.
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: Bo's interview with DOJ - transcript complete

Postby dmac » Mon Aug 17, 2015 10:36 am

Princess wrote:Bradley: Were you working for an officer paper over there?

John: No, I was doing my own public thing.

Crim: You a gram too, also?

John: No, no, I farm it out.



What does this mean?


I keep forgetting to explain this-

Crimley are asking if Marty worked for a paper / magazine associated with LE/Fire officers, and Bo explained he had his own 'public' paper/mag- meaning that it was independent from LE associations and groups. A 'gram', in this instance, is publishing terminology for being your own publisher/printer, to which Bo says he says he hires others for that.

It's a brief exchange where Bo explains he has his own independent paper/rag/magazine and runs the whole shebang, but isn't tied to an office or brick-and-mortar. When it comes to cranking out his product, he'd hire someone else to do the actual printing.

Today, that's easy as snot to do with the abundance of software... but in 1980, to create a publication where the bulk of printing work--- including layout, prepress, and the final job--- is "farmed out" is RIDICULOUS. In 81, there's no profit if you're "farming out" the most prohibitively expensive process. To anyone familiar with the publishing game, Bo's answers are as good as him saying, "No, I just sell advertisements and split town. There is no publication!"
"Back off, man. I'm a scientist."
reach me at
keddie28 AT gmail DOT com
User avatar
dmac
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 7:26 pm
Has thanked: 711 times
Been thanked: 2671 times

Re: 810414 Boubede DOJ 'interview'- complete

Postby nekogirrl » Mon Aug 24, 2015 8:38 pm

heh...just finished reading Bo's interview...i am just an innocent soul with a vivid imagination... :twisted: my observations are: Neither of the LE interviewers believed a word Bo was saying...i could see mental eye rolls with some of those responses. Both of the interviewers KNEW this was no ex-cop, wounded in the line of duty (gag), and for whatever reason, didn't see fit to call him out on it. Bo comes across as dumb as a box of rocks, who wouldn't have seen anything if the killer(s) danced past him naked down the street, dipped in day-glo paint and waving the murder weapons over their heads. (unless of course, they were dancing to ROCK music). He couldn't, for some reason, keep his lies straight, which I find odd, as lying was what he did for a living. That is the one thing that strikes me as odd in the interview, or should I say, odder than the rest of the oddities. Bo was a con man and a liar, but he couldn't keep his lies straight. He contradicted himself over and over. A good con man (and he was good, if his record is to be believed) can always keep his lies straight. Wouldn't do for the mark to catch him out. So, can somebody tell me what that interview was all about? He didn't need to pass a coded message to anybody. He could have told his interviewers flat out what he wanted to say, before they turned the tape on. They could carry the message back to the powers-that-be, or whoever it needed to go to....
nekogirrl
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2015 6:00 pm
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 32 times

PreviousNext

Return to keddie files

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests