Questions For A Criminologist

Imagine asking a criminologist to read through this case.  It would be interesting to ask them what they thought about Thomas's criminal record, his missing rifle, the lost corncob pipe, and the following details.  

"A defense investigator spoke with [Claus] von Wendel in 1986 and learned of this incident. The investigator's notes describe the uninvited visitor as a White male but do not include the name Bo; they also indicate von Wendel recalled the name on the license as Bryan or Bryant.

In the same interview, von Wendel also told the investigator of an incident in which Thomas had threatened to kill a woman and her dog. When von Wendel intervened, Thomas appeared to snap, left, and returned with a machete. When Thomas was distracted, von Wendel escaped unharmed. Chaffee made a tactical decision not to call von Wendel, reasoning that calling him would allow the prosecution to introduce this incident." (In Re Ralph International Thomas on Habeas Corpus, p. 14)

What would a criminologist make of this story about an instance of violent anger brought about by what apparently was a frustrating situation to Thomas?  And what would they have to say about the anger leading him to fetch a knife?

And there's this:

"The trial court permitted Tracy Scarborough and Thomas Medlin to testify that, months before the killings, defendant told them he liked to play a game that he called 'stalk.' The object of the game was to sneak up on people and then sneak away without them ever being aware of his presence. The court rejected defense counsel's hearsay and relevancy objections, ruling that under Evidence Code section 352, the probative value of the testimony was not outweighed by undue prejudice.* The court reasoned that it might have some relevance in a case 'where we have a darkened night area,' where there was contact between the killer and the victims and 'we don't know how it came about.' The court also observed that 'there was not any weapon involved, and he says he sneaks up on them and not hurt them, and it is a game playing of some sort, and nothing more than that.'" (People v. Thomas, pp. 15-6)

*"To minimize any prejudice, the trial court ordered Scarborough to omit from his testimony any reference to the fact that defendant played ‘stalk’ with a bayonet. He and Medlin complied with this prohibition." (People v. Thomas, p. 39)

Mindful of the fact that Thomas told Scarborough and Medlin about playing the game (hearsay), and remaining open to the possibility the two may in fact have witnessed him playing it, two words come to mind: ‘fantasy' and ‘practice.’  If Thomas didn’t really play ‘stalk’ then would it be unreasonable to infer he'd been fantasizing about stalking?  If he really did play it, then would it be unreasonable to infer he'd been practicing an ambush?

And what about the imagined or real bayonet?  Could Wendel have mistaken a bayonet for a machete?  By definition a bayonet is a blade that may be fixed to the muzzle of a rifle and used to stab an opponent in hand-to-hand fighting—something soldiers are trained to do.  If Thomas served in the military wouldn't he have been trained in hand-to-hand combat? Do the injuries and wounds suffered by Mary and Greg suggest that their killer was adept at hand-to-hand combat?

In the end, one might ask a criminologist about the likelihood that Thomas was the murderer.  One would have to concede that there wouldn’t be much of a story if the answer was, "Yeah, it's very likely the right person was convicted of the crime."