I posted that about a month ago. The main reason I have changed my mind has to do with not knowing the DUI had been processed at the time. I have about a hundred reasons, but I will outline the main ones here...
1) If I'm 18 years old and I get pulled over for a DUI and possession of marijuana the first thing I want off my record is the DUI. It's way more expensive, and most importantly, I would have to tell my parents about the DUI. I could just pay a fine and attend a few classes to makes the drug charge go away. Would never have to tell my parents. But just about every 18 year old in college is still on their parents car insurance so his parents would have found out about the DUI. And having to tell your parents you got a DUI would be a life-shattering event for an 18 year old. He wouldn't never agree to become a CI if the DUI wasn't removed from his record.
2) He received the normal punishment for the DUI. No break whatsoever.
3) I was (and still am) assuming he wasn't a drug dealer. To me it would be a bigger assumption to assume that he was a dealer. I have a hard time believing he just moved to town, started college, and became a dealer in the matter of 4 weeks.
4) If he were a CI the police would have known who he was dealing with. They would have found a killer by now.
5) If he were wearing a special backpack that had video or sound attached the police would already know who did it.
Those are the main ones, but what it boils down to is that I had not seen his arrest record when I posted that. Notice that every time time anyone brings up the CI theory there are like five IFs (capitalized on purpose) attached to it. When you have that many major IFs it's just too far-fetched to put much stake in. I haven't changed my opinion that drugs could have played a role, but the CI thing is just too far out there to be believable. To get there you have to skip over tons of theories that are way more probable. And as I have said before (I wasn't the first to say it) -- the most likely theory is often the most accurate theory.
Ok. I will give my opinion on this because I can't sleep.
1.) DUI VS. MARIJUANA.. Really? You'd take a marijuana conviction in which you'd possibly get jail time? The charges for marijuana are much steeper than a DUI. To Tom's parents? I'm guessing they are conservative Catholics who equate marijuana to serious drugs. In all honesty, a DUI is socially acceptable. Lots of people have gotten them. Besides, it's not like LE would give him a choice. He didn't have a choice to get the DUI taken off of his record. Besides, people saw him get arrested. There is no way the DUI can disappear without people wondering how/why.
2.) Why would he get a break on the DUI? Again, that would appear suspicious. He received the MINIMUM that is REQUIRED when you are arrested for AGGRAVATED DUI despite also having alcohol with him in the car -- which, technically, should make penalty worse. But he got the minimum that the judge could possibly give him.
You said: "He would never agree to be a CI unless the DUI was taken off of his record." You are implying that TB held all of the cards. Listen to that SEMCA video someone just posted.
3.) Who said he was a drug dealer? I didn't. The cops could make him a CI simply as a person wanting to buy marijuana. So.. "Lead me to a marijuana supplier and you won't be serving a year in jail."
Tom could have been attempting to do that. Who knows.. Maybe that's why he went to JW's house in the first place that night - someone he did not normally hang with but knew had connections to some suppliers.
4.) If he got killed while making a drug deal for LE, that makes LE responsible for the murder! It's my point that they (LE) aren't going to take responsibility for that. Obviously, if he was a CI that ended up being murdered, the supplier discovered he was wired & got rid of the listening devices so it's conceivable that LE lost his trail. Could be how TB wound up in Moorhead. Plus if LE was on their trail or they thought LE might be on the trail, suppliers probably know to cross the state border to make it harder to follow for jurisdictional purposes & complicate matters.
5.) Same response as #4.
Please look up the case of Rachel Hoffman.
I'm really not a cynical or skeptical person typically. I promise. But I'm saying this CI angle could be a real possibility. Drug deal gone bad? The only way that happens is if Tom is a CI. Otherwise, why would a dealer murder someone buying drugs from them? That's a potential "customer" for the future. I would guess the only people drug dealers kill are snitches. The rest are all clients or potential clients.
