Sorry, I thought NL in his remembrance of his meeting with TB is that TB apologized to NL for lying to his Mom about what happened that night he had "a discussion with TB. I recall NL saying something about a gun being pulled..?????
Found Deceased TX - Thomas Brown, 18, Hemphill County, 23 Nov 2016 #3
- Thread starter los2188
- Start date
- Status
<modsnip>
I think it can be said that no one is guilty of anything at this point in as there isn't enough proof of how/why TB died, or any proof that anyone did anything to him.
According to the investigation of the TX AG office.
I think it can be said that no one is guilty of anything at this point in as there isn't enough proof of how/why TB died, or any proof that anyone did anything to him.
According to the investigation of the TX AG office.
Last edited by a moderator:
I know I'm new to this discussion and was the one who brought up NL's bizarre account of how Tom supposedly just casually confessed to NL at a Rotary Club meeting that he'd made up the whole story that had caused his mother to lodge a complaint with NL's boss. Having read all these threads from beginning to end, I also understand that many here take everything from LE at face value.
My own default setting is pro-LE, so I get that. However, given all the ambiguities of this particular case, it doesn't actually sound like the AG "cleared" anyone definitively...just that although evidence pointed in certain directions, there wouldn't be enough evidence to successfully prosecute anyone. The evidence Rachel Kading seemed to be citing in the Tom Brown's Body podcast was the polygraphs of PM and CM, as well as the reappearance of Tom's phone.
But from my understanding, NL's own polygraph results indicated deception.
We know definitively that NL was fired for falsifying records (dishonesty).
At the very least, his inexperience led to some crucial errors early on. He seemed reluctant to treat it as the crime it almost had to have been. Until Tom's remains were found, NL was promoting the theory that Tom had run off with some older gay lover.
It was also apparently important to NL to have Skip Hollandsworth and the podcast audience believe Tom confessed to totally making up the story about NL's inappropriate harassment of the kids, even though the account of Tom's Rotary Club confession absolutely strains credibility.
I'd like to believe the best about NL, but of all the individuals involved, he's the one who comes across the sketchiest.
My own default setting is pro-LE, so I get that. However, given all the ambiguities of this particular case, it doesn't actually sound like the AG "cleared" anyone definitively...just that although evidence pointed in certain directions, there wouldn't be enough evidence to successfully prosecute anyone. The evidence Rachel Kading seemed to be citing in the Tom Brown's Body podcast was the polygraphs of PM and CM, as well as the reappearance of Tom's phone.
But from my understanding, NL's own polygraph results indicated deception.
We know definitively that NL was fired for falsifying records (dishonesty).
At the very least, his inexperience led to some crucial errors early on. He seemed reluctant to treat it as the crime it almost had to have been. Until Tom's remains were found, NL was promoting the theory that Tom had run off with some older gay lover.
It was also apparently important to NL to have Skip Hollandsworth and the podcast audience believe Tom confessed to totally making up the story about NL's inappropriate harassment of the kids, even though the account of Tom's Rotary Club confession absolutely strains credibility.
I'd like to believe the best about NL, but of all the individuals involved, he's the one who comes across the sketchiest.
Can you clear someone who hasn't been charged? With that rationale, no one has been cleared....because no one has been charged. But then you can ask, cleared or charged of what?! No one can say with any certainty what happened to TB other than he's deceased..
We can all guess or think we know but I think we need to deal in concrete evidence and at this point, the TX AG's office says there isn't any.
We can all guess or think we know but I think we need to deal in concrete evidence and at this point, the TX AG's office says there isn't any.
OutWest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,980
@KrisMum, I agree with all of your points 100%. Very well stated.
In addition to TCOLE findings there was the incident/investigation involving the juvenile probation officer. Not to mention that the alleged performance issues with Deputy PG should have been addressed directly by the Sheriff before they reached the point that they were escalated to the County Attorney, IMO.
But, the thing that stands out in my mind the most is Sheriff NL and associates' apparent reluctance to even seriously consider the possibility that homicide could be involved despite the presence of blood and a spent 25 ACP shell casing. For over two years there was no activity on Tom's cell phone, bank account, or social media accounts. His close friends were baffled. His vehicle was abandoned at a remote location with 3/4 tank of fuel remaining. Tom simply vanished under circumstances that were not typical of his normal behavior and habits. Such circumstances should raise a huge red flag. Yet somehow, for the better part of two years the HCSO investigation centered on chasing a ghost in Denver and/or an imaginary "older gay man". It just does not make sense at all.
I went back to make sure what I thought I'd heard was indeed in the Tom Brown's Body podcast. And yep, it's in Episode 2, "Tom's Loop." It doesn't appear in the Texas Monthly article version, but in the podcast NL definitely can be heard telling Skip Hollandsworth that,
I'm just so curious about this. I know it's a small detail, but it reveals a LOT. I'm curious, how many of you believe this, that high school teenager Tom approached NL at a club event, initiated a conversation, apologized, and confessed to having lied to his mother about something which caused her to file a complaint with NL's boss about him?
I'd love to ask others who were at this particular event if they recall seeing Tom and NL in conversation. I know it has now been a long time (probably close to 6 years?) since it happened, but I'd be willing to bet people would remember having heard Tom give a speech, considering what eventually happened to him. Those kinds of things take on a significance in people's memories in retrospect. Did anyone witness this conversation?
It is completely inconsistent with how NL comes across, that he would not have pursued justice for himself after this supposed confession. It is also completely inconsistent with the way even the most mature teenagers behave. Tom was not a dumb kid...it seems unimaginable that he would have admitted something like this to NL before admitting it to his mom. As I said before, Tom would have had no way of knowing what NL would do with this information. Any halfway smart kid (which Tom obviously was) would assume he'd be in for a world of hurt, at least from his mother and maybe even the legal system.
Not to mention - think about it. Why would Tom even need to explain to NL that he'd "fibbed" to Penny??? NL was there on the night of the incident. If Tom had lied to PM about it, both he and NL would already would have known this.
To me this whole thing seems like an obvious lie. The question is WHY? Why did NL make up a story and also bring in the detail about "pulling a gun" on Tom when that was never part of PM's complaint?
Also - I'm so curious what PM has to say about this supposed confession from Tom. Has anyone ever asked her?
...he [Tom] saw me in the Rotary Club and he approaches me and he said, “Man, I’m sorry for – for that night, um.” And he told me he told his mother a lie. He said, “Man, I fibbed to my mother.” Because he, he told his mother that I was rude, I cussed at him, pulled a gun, he said all kind of stuff to his mom, and he said, “Man, I’m sorry for doing all that stuff.” And I said, “Tom, the past’s the past, man, don’t worry about it. Just always tell the truth.” And that’s all I told him. And I didn’t see him – I’ve never dealt with him ever since.
I'm just so curious about this. I know it's a small detail, but it reveals a LOT. I'm curious, how many of you believe this, that high school teenager Tom approached NL at a club event, initiated a conversation, apologized, and confessed to having lied to his mother about something which caused her to file a complaint with NL's boss about him?
I'd love to ask others who were at this particular event if they recall seeing Tom and NL in conversation. I know it has now been a long time (probably close to 6 years?) since it happened, but I'd be willing to bet people would remember having heard Tom give a speech, considering what eventually happened to him. Those kinds of things take on a significance in people's memories in retrospect. Did anyone witness this conversation?
It is completely inconsistent with how NL comes across, that he would not have pursued justice for himself after this supposed confession. It is also completely inconsistent with the way even the most mature teenagers behave. Tom was not a dumb kid...it seems unimaginable that he would have admitted something like this to NL before admitting it to his mom. As I said before, Tom would have had no way of knowing what NL would do with this information. Any halfway smart kid (which Tom obviously was) would assume he'd be in for a world of hurt, at least from his mother and maybe even the legal system.
Not to mention - think about it. Why would Tom even need to explain to NL that he'd "fibbed" to Penny??? NL was there on the night of the incident. If Tom had lied to PM about it, both he and NL would already would have known this.
To me this whole thing seems like an obvious lie. The question is WHY? Why did NL make up a story and also bring in the detail about "pulling a gun" on Tom when that was never part of PM's complaint?
Also - I'm so curious what PM has to say about this supposed confession from Tom. Has anyone ever asked her?
It would be interesting to hear what Penny has to say, especially about the gun...HOWEVER, I don't believe TB ever lied to PM. I do think NL was covering his you know what by making this confession up. However, in my mind, NL made a mistake about mentioning the gun. If he did draw it and TB didn't mention it to his Mom, why the heck didn't he? If I was
TB 's mom I would want to know precisely what happened and why NL pulled his gun. However, in the podcast it sounded like she was mad that NL stopped her son out of his jurisdiction. I couldn't quite figure why that bothered her so much.
OutWest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,980
At the time, NL was working as a deputy in neighboring Ochiltree County while living in Canadian (Hemphill). So, while returning to his home most likely he was in "uniform" but not driving an Ochiltree patrol unit. Therefore, most likely the youths did not immediately recognize that the driver (in his personal vehicle) was a LE officer. IMO, I doubt that NL actually unholstered his weapon under those circumstances and I doubt that Tom said he did.
On the other hand ..... NL most assuredly remembered that Hemphill County Deputy Corky Guthrie was killed near that very spot on Canadian's Main Street in 1980 while answering a burglary call at the pharmacy. I absolutely understand that LE officers must always be ready for the unexpected.
jellybean96
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,635
- Reaction score
- 10,325
I do not believe that Nathan pulled a gun on Tom, on this night. I do not believe Tom confessed to anything, nor do I believe that Tom told his mom that Nathan pulled his gun. Having watched Penny for all this time now, there is no doubt in my mind that she would have been all over Nathan if she thought he had pulled a gun on her son. No way would she just let that go.
IMHO, Nathan was running his mouth and not thinking about what he was actually saying. I think this is all a big lie on Nathans part - the apology, the gun. I just don't believe it any of it actually happened.
OutWest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,980
For some time now, I have been thinking about the bizarre and strange story that CJ provided regarding his claim that then Sheriff NL forced him to wear blacked-out goggles. Then drove him to a location where Tom Brown was alive and tied to a chair, etc. etc. You know the rest. IMO, I do not believe the story at its face value, at all. Just my personal opinion.
However, I cannot help but wonder WHY CJ came up with such a bizarre story. Such a wild, bizarre story does not just happen “out of the blue” for no reason, I don’t think. There is some reason that CJ told the story. I do not believe that the “reason” is because the story is wholly true. No way, IMO. Maybe it was a sign of some sort of neurosis within his mental state at the time? I don’t know. Maybe it was a panic driven attempt to deflect the investigation away from himself; consciousness of guilt? I don’t know. Maybe he simply told a whopper just to humor himself? I don’t know.
Just some thoughts. The entire story seems far, far too "irregular". Something very strange there.
However, I cannot help but wonder WHY CJ came up with such a bizarre story. Such a wild, bizarre story does not just happen “out of the blue” for no reason, I don’t think. There is some reason that CJ told the story. I do not believe that the “reason” is because the story is wholly true. No way, IMO. Maybe it was a sign of some sort of neurosis within his mental state at the time? I don’t know. Maybe it was a panic driven attempt to deflect the investigation away from himself; consciousness of guilt? I don’t know. Maybe he simply told a whopper just to humor himself? I don’t know.
Just some thoughts. The entire story seems far, far too "irregular". Something very strange there.
OutWest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,980
The audio phone interview with CJ that Klein provided a during his "townhall meeting" in Canadian is poor quality and difficult to understand. I processed the audio to remove background noise and slowed the speed down to 80%. As a result, the audio is quite a bit improved.
There are several small things within the CJ statement that seem a bit odd to me. Two of them are:
1. It is not unusual in the State of Texas for parents of a star football athlete to move to a school district that is known to have a premier high school football program so that the player is much more exposed to college talent scouts. It happens fairly frequently among some top programs and is not against UIL rules. With that being said, it is very unusual is that in the case of CJ, his parents did not relocate to Canadian and that CJ lived with the head football coach. With no parents in town, it may have been required for somebody to assume official guardianship(?) Very unusual. Was CJ actually “recruited” by Sheriff NL and boosters to play at Canadian as he indicated in the audio phone interview that Klein recently provided?
2. In the CJ audio phone interview, CJ states that during a football practice on Thanksgiving morning the coach gathered players around him in a circle to tell them that Tom was missing. CJ states that the coach looked directly at him (CJ) for the time that he was talking to the team about Tom. If the coach was looking directly at DJ the entire time, why would he do that? Whether or not the statement is true, it seems very odd that CJ would add that particular comment to his tale.
Just a two of several points that I find interesting within CJ’s story.
There are several small things within the CJ statement that seem a bit odd to me. Two of them are:
1. It is not unusual in the State of Texas for parents of a star football athlete to move to a school district that is known to have a premier high school football program so that the player is much more exposed to college talent scouts. It happens fairly frequently among some top programs and is not against UIL rules. With that being said, it is very unusual is that in the case of CJ, his parents did not relocate to Canadian and that CJ lived with the head football coach. With no parents in town, it may have been required for somebody to assume official guardianship(?) Very unusual. Was CJ actually “recruited” by Sheriff NL and boosters to play at Canadian as he indicated in the audio phone interview that Klein recently provided?
2. In the CJ audio phone interview, CJ states that during a football practice on Thanksgiving morning the coach gathered players around him in a circle to tell them that Tom was missing. CJ states that the coach looked directly at him (CJ) for the time that he was talking to the team about Tom. If the coach was looking directly at DJ the entire time, why would he do that? Whether or not the statement is true, it seems very odd that CJ would add that particular comment to his tale.
Just a two of several points that I find interesting within CJ’s story.
In one of the TBBody podcasts, CJ said he was in bed at 10p.m. the night TB disappeared. As CJ lived with the coach, certainly he had an air tight alibi?
OutWest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,980
Yes, that's what he said.
evilwise
Former Member
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2020
- Messages
- 2,406
- Reaction score
- 17,224
I absolutely cannot follow this guy's podcast but at a glance it seems like Klein is compounding Johnson's narcisistic "I'm going to be a pro athlete" personality into a legitimate mental illness. Hopefully what he's actually trying to do is give him enough rope to hang himself by eventually making some kind of verifiable incriminating statement - but it might be hard to verify anything if local law enforcement had been complicit from the beginning in shielding their star. I continue to have doubts that this podcast wants to actually solve anything though.
OK. So was the coach lying or was he "covering" for CJ? That should be easy enough to prove. And now that CJ is in jail, why would the coach just not say," I don't know if he was in bed or not that night"
It's puzzling to me that a lot of people put so much stock into these various people's statements. People can lie or shade the truth for any number of reasons, some big (guilt) and some small (like simple forgetfulness). People can also think they know something but maybe can't actually be 100% positive yet state the thing positively anyway...perhaps like the coach who provided CJ with his alibi for the night of Tom's disappearance.
Like...I was thinking of what I'd say if asked if one of my kids was home last night. If it came up in casual conversation, of course I'd say "yes." But did I actually see my teenager in his bed all night long? No. I saw him go upstairs to his room and assumed he stayed there. Could he have slipped out at some point without my knowledge? Absolutely. But if I weren't thinking too deeply or taking the conversation as seriously as testimony in a court of law, I probably wouldn't qualify my statement. I'd just shrug and say yeah, he was at home all night after 10 p.m. or whatever.
It seems to me, when Tom initially went missing, the vibe from law enforcement in their investigation would have been pretty casual. They obviously did not share Tom's family's alarm and certainty that something bad had happened to him. Sheriff Lewis was going around for a long time suggesting Tom had gone off voluntarily.
In that context, I wonder how seriously the people took it when they were questioned. Most of them probably did not realize what a big and ongoing thing this situation was going to be. We say things like, "The coach said CJ was home all that night." But could anyone know with 100% certainty? I don't really think so.
Like...I was thinking of what I'd say if asked if one of my kids was home last night. If it came up in casual conversation, of course I'd say "yes." But did I actually see my teenager in his bed all night long? No. I saw him go upstairs to his room and assumed he stayed there. Could he have slipped out at some point without my knowledge? Absolutely. But if I weren't thinking too deeply or taking the conversation as seriously as testimony in a court of law, I probably wouldn't qualify my statement. I'd just shrug and say yeah, he was at home all night after 10 p.m. or whatever.
It seems to me, when Tom initially went missing, the vibe from law enforcement in their investigation would have been pretty casual. They obviously did not share Tom's family's alarm and certainty that something bad had happened to him. Sheriff Lewis was going around for a long time suggesting Tom had gone off voluntarily.
In that context, I wonder how seriously the people took it when they were questioned. Most of them probably did not realize what a big and ongoing thing this situation was going to be. We say things like, "The coach said CJ was home all that night." But could anyone know with 100% certainty? I don't really think so.
Last edited:
Well, if the Pd or State Attys office came to my house to interview me, you bet I'm going to tell the truth....unless coach is somehow involved too.
jellybean96
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2016
- Messages
- 2,635
- Reaction score
- 10,325
Or the coach told them that 'yeah, he was in bed'. Because that's all he knew. My kids are Tom's age and I found out at Christmas they had snuck out one night when they were freshman in High School and I didn't have any clue that they had. But they have a video on their phone of them riding our golf cart on the golf course at 3am, doing donuts. If someone had asked me if they were home I would have said yes. But apparently they weren't...I just didn't know it.
jellybean, that's how I think a lot of these early interviews might have gone. The only people truly alarmed about Tom's failure to come home that night were his family. No one being interviewed in the community would have realized at the time how serious the situation actually was. They wouldn't have known how important it was to carefully consider their words and make sure they were telling law enforcement only what they absolutely knew for sure was true.
There might not have been any sinister motives, at least initially. Later on, when the true gravity of what happened set in, it would be really hard to go back and suggest the alibi you'd provided for someone might not actually have been reliable.
There might not have been any sinister motives, at least initially. Later on, when the true gravity of what happened set in, it would be really hard to go back and suggest the alibi you'd provided for someone might not actually have been reliable.
OutWest
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2020
- Messages
- 269
- Reaction score
- 1,980
Very true; good points. If a teen was missing in Chicago, Baltimore, Houston, etc, foul play would immediately come to mind as a possibility. But, in rural small town Canadian, Texas homicide is not your first thought. IMO, the first thought would be either busted curfew or vehicle accident. Tom's history of being prompt pretty much negated "busted curfew", at least among those who were close to him. After "accident" was ruled out during the all-night search, the thought of potential suicide would naturally arise. The possibility of foul play pretty much only came to light after Tom's vehicle was found and additional evidence was discovered that day as well as over time.
Such a sad mystery as to why Sheriff NL apparently chose to not immediately consider all evidence and possibilities in the early stages of his "investigation".
- Status