Martin Smartt's Interview
2016 Update
Return to the Cabin 28 main page

Here are some excerpts of John Boubede's interview with the police shortly after the murders.

Boubede stated, "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 did 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, less than 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 he is making up the story of seeing a Corvair?

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?"

Boubede: "No."

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, the word "even" is not needed. This word inciates a contrast of ideas. What is Boubede comparing? Knowing with not knowing?

Thirdly, 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: "The three of you?"

Boubede: "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 then? From the, from within the house?"

Boubede: "No."

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."

Boubede shows signs of being deceptive.

Return to the Famous Cases page