Crime Scene

The Local ‘Hang Out’ – CRIME SCENE

The statement of facts is quite clear, not by my words but by the words of the police department. It is quite obvious by reading ALL of my court transcripts that whomever killed the victim was obviously quite familiar with his home and all his habits. The victim was a very cautious man from what I have learned since this miscarriage of justice began. Throughout the investigation and trial I leant that Mr Bert Thomas  was a stickler for keeping all of his valuables hidden because of the constant traffic of neighbourhood teenagers that he knew coming in and out of his house. His house (from what I can gather from the information given at trial) was a local hang out for some of the youths in that neighbourhood.His home became the crime scene to his murder.  It showed in the discovery of the death of Mr Thomas that his house was NOT ransacked – not one item appeared out of place (bar the stolen items) no struggle seem to have occurred (no furniture moved or draws rifled through etc) which further illustrates that the person or persons involved in his murder knew the victim because nothing was disturbed. Mr Thomas must have willingly let his Killer into his home as no evidence of a break in was evident either. Therefore he must have known his killer well enough to have allowed them in his home. No struggle was mentioned either so I can only presume that fact should also go along way in proving the person who killed him knew him well and Mr Thomas trusted them. I have NEVER met Mr Thomas. I have NEVER been to this house and DNA testing of the crime scene backs up this fact – my DNA was NOT found in that home/crime scene). So doesn’t it stand to reason that whomever stole the victims rifle, checkbook, wallet (with credit cards) and the victims car and the garage door opener (which the victim was supposedly to have always kept hidden) frequented that house and must have known Mr Thomas and the layout of his home relatively well. They must have known exactly where the victims belongings were kept. The police found no evidence of anything being disturbed or ransacked. Whoever took those things knew what they were looking for and where to look. They could not have opened that garage door and stolen that car if they had not known where Mr Thomas hid the garage door opener. The 2 State Star Witnesses both admit to Mr Thomas being like ‘their uncle’. They both admit to having frequented Mr Thomas’s house on many occasions in the past (although we know now that isn’t strictly true because Mr Thomas had banned both boys from his home only 4 weeks prior to his murder due an ongoing dispute – see ‘Motive’ section of website). They both admit to even being in Mr Thomas’s home during the commission of the murder. I have NEVER been in that house or in that car (and DNA tests prove this).

Below are actual court transcripts. The 1st extract shows one witness (Terry) being questioned in court by the defence counsel. It clearly shows Terry has prior knowledge of where the victim kept the belongings that were stolen the night of the murder. Terry admits to knowing the exact table (in the exact room/floor of the victims house) these items were kept on (if they were not ‘hidden’ in the place Mr Thomas would usually put such items). Knowledge that only someone who frequented that house often would know. Knowledge needed to be able to steal items from a house without ransacking it in the process. Terry not only knew where the items that were stolen were placed on the night of the murder but also admitted to knowing  Mr Thomas ‘hid’ these items on the times he didn’t have them out on display. Knowledge that a frequent visitor to that house would only know and surely knowledge that should have indeed have raised suspicion to the police if the crime scene (house) had not been ransacked or disturbed when it was being robbed. Unfortunately the police didn’t seem to think this was relevant in anyway to the investigation.

crime scene 001


The below extracts are from the other State Star Witnesses testimony (Mike). In these extracts it clearly shows that Mike knew the exact whereabouts of Mr Thomas Garage Door Opener (which was stolen and also needed for the person who murdered Mr Thomas to access his car and steal that too). The Garage Door Opener would have been needed for the garage to be opened enabling the person/persons to steal and drive away in the victims car. This Garage Door Opener was ALWAYS hidden out of view. For someone to know the whereabouts of this door opener (its hidden place) they would have needed to be frequent visitors to Mr Thomas house. To steal this item without ransacking the house and disturbing anything (and in such a short window of opportunity to match the Timeline of events – Mike and Terry testified this was all done in 2 minutes!) the person would most assuredly need to have known the exact location of ALL these stolen items before entering that house and the exact lay out of the house. Remember I have NEVER been to this house or been in this car (and DNA TESTING PROVES THIS). Mike clearly knows the layout of the house, where the victim kept ALL the items that were stolen and even the victims ‘hiding’ places (for his valuables). I have NEVER been in that house and police found no traces of me in that house. Yet here are 2 boys who willingly admit to knowing where all the stolen items were kept, they even admit to knowing where Mr Thomas ‘hid’ his valuables AND DNA testing proves they were at the crime scene (and they both admit being there too). Remember this crime scene was not ransacked/disturbed in anyway or showed any signs of a break in. The person would have had to have acted quickly and swiftly knowing the exact location of all the items they wanted to steal to have done all of this in that short window of opportunity and without leaving any mess/disruption or disturbance to any of the surroundings in that house (or alerting neighbours by making any noise). Could someone who has never been in that house before do that?  Or would it take someone with prior knowledge of the house , its layout and its contents to manage this? Again the police felt none of this was relevant to their investigation.

Crime scene 002

Crime scene 003

What is more alarming here is Mike admitting he supposedly saw the garage door opener on the table as he fled the crime scene. Mike made a huge deal in his testimony  in court under questioning that he ‘ran scared’ fleeing the crime scene because he was ‘so frightened’ of me and what he had just seen (his friend shot). Now I ask you, would you in that panic situation that Mike claims he was in as he fled ‘as fast as I could’ notice something so insignificant as a key sitting on a table before he left that house? All that he claims he felt and all that he claims he just witnessed he had time to stop and notice if a key was on a table? And he remembered that very small little detail many weeks after being 1st questioned by police. Now I ask you IF you had witnessed something as disturbing as your very good friend being murdered and you ran as fast as you could fleeing from the scene away from the murderer ‘frightened’ (he claims) would you weeks later remember seeing a small key on a table before you fled the scene? Its such  minute detail and if you refer to Mikes testimonies they are full of inconsistencies and are not the most detailed most of time. He had on many occasions in court failed to remember very important facts and failed to answer some questions with a straight answer claiming he ‘couldn’t remember’ or he ‘didnt know’ yet he remembers seeing a key as he fled scared and quickly from a crime scene?

Also note the sentence in Mikes testimony where he states ‘Because when WE LEFT and GOT IN THE CAR and was going out the back door, it (the key) was on the table’. Now this is VERY interesting. To me reading this Mike is claiming WE left and we went out the back door and WE got in the car (as in straight in the car which was supposedly from reports parked in the locked garage connected to the house). Now this sentence DOES NOT match Mike and Terrys testimony of events in anyway. Mike and Terry both claim that they fled the crime scene (running down the steps and straight out the house) WITHOUT me and they both claim they ran up the street (running all the way and not stopping) and I met them 2 minutes later after supposedly robbing Mr Thomas of the stolen items and stealing his car – They claim I caught up with them both in that car 1 1/2 miles away from Mr Thomas home. But here Mike claims ‘WHEN WE LEFT and WE GOT IN THE CAR’ which totally contradicts their testimony of events. There is no mention here that Mike fled the crime scene on foot and that I had to point a gun at him to force him into that car 1 1/2 miles away from the house (which both Mike and Terry claimed happened). NO, in this statement he just gave in court states ‘ WHEN WE LEFT (out the back door) and WE GOT IN THE CAR’ that to me suggests Mike left that house via the back door, went into a garage and got straight into a car. He clearly states that when he left that house he went out the back door, seeing  the key on the table as he went past and got into a car. There is no mention here in this statement from him of this made up story they both testified as being true (and having taken place) of them running out the house ‘as fast I could’ due to being scared and wanting to run away from me – this statement suggests he left through the back door, into the garage and into that car. What’s more worrying is the Defence haven’t noticed this crystal clear slip up out of Mikes mouth and he was not questioned further about this huge discrepancy of events. I wasn’t there. I don’t know what happened in that house that night. My DNA was NOT found in that house and it was NOT found inside or on the outside of that car. They both claim that I pulled up in that car alongside them 1 1/2 miles away from that house and pointed a gun at them ordering them to get in the car. See below both Mike and Terry testifying in court that they both ran out of that house, up the street and didn’t stop until I pulled up in a car next to them. Does this version of events match what Mike has just said in the above statement? No it doesn’t. I know I didn’t kill Mr Thomas, I know I wasn’t in his home or car and I know none of what Mike and Terry claim in court about that night is true. I believe Mikes comment above ‘ because when we left and got in the car and was going out the back door, the key was on the table’ to be the truth. I believe he may well have seen the key right there on the table as he made his way out the back door enabling him and Terry to enter the garage and leave via Mr Thomas car. But one thing is very clear (and backed up by DNA evidence) I wasn’t with them running out that back door and nor was I ever in that car with them either.

Crime scene 004

Numerous neighbourhood boys (who also were regular visitors to Mr Thomas home) and a neighbour of his told police that they had NEVER seen me at Mr Thomas home before. They themselves help prove I had no knowledge of the layout or contents of Mr Thomas home. DNA testing proves I was never in his home and the only item of Mr Thomas found in my possession was his credit card. Whoever did this knew the crime scene, their DNA was at the crime scene and they would have been able to gain access to Mr Thomas home with his consent (there was no signs of a break in or a struggle) and they would have had to have known exactly what they wanted to steal and where those items were to enable them to do so without raising any alarm (noise) to alert the neighbours AND without disturbing/ransacking the house. Again, Springfield Police decided NONE of this was relevant to their investigation.