Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr.

There are certain things that are so commonly heard in murder cases that they sometimes seem so routine and mundane. One of the biggest things you will hear is the argument about “ineffective counsel.” I have actually read an appeal in which a judge discusses his disdain for this phrase as that seems to be a “given” in an appeal after a conviction. He is not wrong but the sadder part about that is that there are cases in which ineffective counsel is very valid but it can get lost in the shuffle because so many make this claim. Now, let me be clear that while Bowling would basically make this claim after his conviction, personally to the judge and not necessarily through an appeal, I have to say I agreed with the judge on this point, one of the very few it seems, when it was denied.

Another thing you hear a lot, if not more than the claim of ineffective counsel, is that the defendant is innocent. More often than not state prosecutors (or federal attorney generals if it applies) prove differently either by a guilty verdict, or sometimes it can be argued through the evidence. But, just as I mentioned earlier, that is not always the case.

A third thing you hear a lot about is “circumstantial evidence” (sometimes this is called indirect evidence). You will hear an attorney argue that the case is “solely circumstantial” and a lay person would maybe believe that to mean there was not evidence to be found. That is not always the case. There are two types of evidence, direct and circumstantial. Direct evidence is that in which there is no refuting what happened. If you were to look up examples of direct evidence in murder cases one of the things you will see is a statement that someone physically seeing someone commit a murder is considered direct evidence. I agree with this but only in situations in which the person who testifies to seeing the murder is not directly involved with the murderer or associated with them. A statement from a passerby or a victim would be a better example. Circumstantial evidence is generally something or a combination of things that one has to infer that the person was involved. For example, someone identifies seeing a defendant running from a scene of a murder. You add that to other things like ballistic evidence, fingerprints, a license plate number... etc..and you have a PILE of circumstantial evidence that when combined allows the average person to believe that the defendant is guilty. So, when an attorney states things about a case being “purely circumstantial” at the attorney's in this case claimed the words alone mean very little. In fact, when I first came across the phrase in my research I am sure I rolled my eyes a bit as it seems as routine as the argument of ineffective counsel. But, just as I stated in the other two things, sometimes the attorney's do have a point.

I have often talked about here how when I start researching a case I go in with the belief that the jury got it right, no matter the verdict. As I research the case I either affirm that opinion in my mind or there are times that the research leads me to believe otherwise. Even in those cases I still try to remind myself that there was likely something that the jury heard that I had not found. This is often why I find interviews with jurors after a case so interesting. I have done cases here where former jury members have even commented. In one particular case the jury acquitted a person and while I believed the person was more than likely guilty I did not feel the state had proven their case and stated why. A juror commented on the case and confirmed my suspicions and why they came to that conclusion.

As you may have already suspected this is a case where all of these things were directly or indirectly claimed either by the defendant in this case or by his attorney's. But, this is also a case in which I have been left to wonder if the jury really did get it right and one in which I believe if the death penalty that was imposed would have been carried out that there may have been an injustice on more than one level. Let me be clear in saying that the defendant was never removed from death row either by a new sentence or through execution but by an illness that took his life.

On the morning of April 9, 1990 a car containing twenty-five year old Eddie Earley was in his vehicle with his twenty-two year old wife, Tina and two year old son, Christopher outside a dry cleaning business that they owned in Lexington Kentucky. Their car was rammed by another and then a man shot all three of them. Christopher would live, but both of his parents would die from their wounds.

There were several witnesses near the scene who would give law enforcement information about what they saw. It was said that at the scene authorities had determined that the car that rammed the Earley's car was a 1981 Chevrolet Malibu and they knew the color. They also knew a man by the name of Thomas Clyde Bowling Jr. but it was said they did not seek him out and followed some other leads. But, I am going to say right here and now, that while this was said to be the case, after doing my research on this case I have to wonder if that was really what happened. I find it extremely odd that authorities would say they knew the make, model and even the color of the car that allegedly rammed the car where three people were shot, two died and they knew someone that owned just such a car but did not go looking for him. I am left believing that that did not have as much information as quickly as was reported. They may have had a description of a car but as far as make and model I am not so sure. It does seem clear that they released information about what the car “looked” like at the very least.

The following morning Bowling's sister called the Lexington police. She told them that she had not seen her brother since about six the morning before and while she lived in Knoxville, her family owned property in the nearby county of Powell. She stated that she and her mother had seen the description of the vehicle they were looking for and had driven to the property in Powell county where they found Bowling's car. They had then driven back to her home in Knoxville where they found Bowling sleeping on her couch. Within hours authorities would pick up Bowling and also the car. They also found a .357 gun buried nearby. The Earley's had been shot with a .357. I will state here that initially my information stated that Bowling was arrested on the 11^th, two days after the crime, but it appears the following day seem to be more accurate. As always if that date is wrong, I apologize but in fairness the one day difference makes little difference. The only thing that I think it really affects is going back to what the authorities allegedly knew so early. If that is to be believed and in fact the arrest did not happen until the 11^th that would mean they still had not reached out to Bowling for two days despite supposedly knowing the make/model/color/year of a vehicle in the chrime and knowing Bowling owned such a car.

Ultimately authorities would charge Bowling with the crime and his trial began in December of 1990. The state provided three “eye witnesses.” One was a man named Larry Turner who apparently came up on the scene as the car was driving away and never personally saw the shooter. The second was a man named David Boyd. He did see the shooter and described him as about six foot tall, medium build, wearing a black jacket and a brimmed hat. But he never positively identified that person as being Bowling. The defense cross examined him but I will get to that in a minute. The third witness was said to be a man named Norman Pullins but he did not physically testify at the trial. My information said that he could not be found by either side but he had given an interview the morning of the crime. He had been in a building across the street from the shooting. It is not exactly clear what information he had or if it matched the description of Bowling. To be fair I am going to guess that his interview may have been just as important to the defense as it was the prosecution because I cannot imagine an attorney allowing this to be entered without some sort of benefit. A man by the last name of Brackett testified that he had sold Bowling a

.357 just a few days before the crime. A ballistics expert testified that the Earley's were in fact shot with a .357. There were others such as police officers and even apparently it seems his sister was called by the prosecution.

Now, it was said that the defense called no witness when it was their time. In fact between the conviction (you know this happened, I already said this was a death penalty case) and the sentencing phase Bowling file a pro-se (meaning without an attorney) motion asking to fire his attorney's saying they had not properly defended him. The judge denied this. That being said the defense did in fact cross examine witnesses and was able to get a lot of information out that way. When it came to David Boyd, the witness who made a description of the shooter they were able to show that his initial description stated the shooter had long hair, a dark complexion and quite possibly a mustache, none of which described Bowling. They were able to get Brackett to say that while he apparently sold and traded guns regularly that he kept no records and had a very poor memory. This was to show they could not be sure when the Bowling actually got the gun or even if the gun found was the one he claimed to have sold him.

I became a bit confused when it came to the testimony of the ballistics expert. I got the impression that it was possible that while the ballistics expert stated the Earley's were murdered with a .357 that they were unable without a doubt to say the gun found was the gun used. The defense was able to get the expert to say that the gun was one of hundreds, maybe more, that could have been used.

The defense was able to get out that there had been no blood found on any of Bowlings possessions, no prints on gun or the crime scene matching him. The only gunshot residue found had been on the inside left pocket of a jacket they had found of his (that was black) at his sisters home but no one could say where that came from. They were able to get out to the jury that Bowling had a low IQ and had been tested at the age of twelve or thirteen as having an IQ of 74, which is in the range of mentally challenged. The Supreme Court would rule several years later, in 2002, that such people could not be subject to execution. I will touch on this again in a bit considering at the time of the trial this was not yet a law. But, within all of this they were able to show that he had a history of being a “follower” and was easily manipulated.

They would never argue that Bowlings car had not been used at the crime but they did argue that no one could prove he was driving it. In fact, they made another very good point in my opinion. They were able to show that Bowling did not know, nor had he ever met the Earley's and while they are not required to provide a motive, the prosecution absolutely could not come up with one. More importantly the defense claimed that there had been a local family in which Eddie Earley had recently gone to the police about and reported drug actively. Some family members were arrested for that and were allegedly holding a grudge against Eddie. It was later said that Bowling claimed he was intoxicated on the day of the crime and remembers very little but that he was told by members of the family mentioned earlier late that afternoon to take his car out of town. I did find it interesting that I found nothing that indicated if his car was in Powell County Kentucky how he got to Knoxville Tennessee more than two hours away.

At the end of the trial the jury asked that the judge include in jury instructions things about extreme emotional disturbance, explain circumstantial evidence and instructions on reckless homicide but once again the judge denied this. They had also asked for other things like explaining what mitigating circumstances were. These are things such as mental illness, lack of intelligence, as well as the fact that he had apparently been a model citizen while behind bars. The judge denied this too.

The jury agreed with the prosecution and found him guilty. He was ultimately given the death penalty. Bowling joined with another inmate in a filing that challenged the constitutionality of the death penalty in Kentucky and they lost. As I stated, in 2002 the United States Supreme Court ruled in was unconstitutional to execute someone who had what they called “mental retardation” based on their IQ scores. According to the research most individuals have an IQ of between eighty and one hundred and twenty. The average person has an IQ of one hundred. The Supreme Court ruled that basically anything under seventy-five was considered to be “mental retardation.” It appears that the defense had shown back in 1990 that Bowling fell into this range and yet, by the time of his death in 2015 he was still on death row. On March 21, 2015, after spending time in a prison medical facility for cancer Bowling was taken to a hospital where it was said he was pronounced dead at the age of sixty-two.

I have so many questions about this case! We could sit here and argue for days about how in 1990 there was not the forensic testing available that we have now. And this would be very true but I found nothing in this case that would indicate that modern technology would have changed the evidence. All of the technology they needed they already had. There was ballistic testing; there was fingerprint testing; there was GSR testing. They even had what I would consider primitive DNA testing in 1990. But the problem is that there did not seem to be anything there. They argued, and the defense did not dispute, that Bowlings car had been involved. This only proved that it was his car that rammed the Earley's car. This did not prove that he was driving or that he was the shooter. Even those who saw the shooter made a description that did not match Bowling. I can only assume that there were fingerprints in Bowling's car that matched him, but it was his car, but it was said that there were none matching his at the scene. I got the impression that there was no GSR on his hands or his clothes, other than the pocket of a black jacket. The authorities apparently scoured the crime scene, the area in which his car was located and his sisters home and they found no evidence of blood connecting him. Presumably after shooting three people the shooter would have been covered in blood. Ballistic testing apparently could not say that the gun that was found near his car apparently buried was the gun used in the shooting and even if it did there were apparently no fingerprints to say he had used that gun and since it was with the car, and not with him and they could not prove that he had driven the car, then they could not prove he fired the gun.

As I stated earlier a prosecutor does not have to prove motive but in general juries still like to hear one. There was not one here. Sure, Bowling, who claimed to be intoxicated that could have rammed the car while drinking and driving but if he had been so drunk to ram the car, then he likely could not have functioned enough to not only get out and shoot the victims but leave the scene quickly, hide his car, bury the gun and get to his sisters house, which again I found no reference to how he got there. And, driving drunk and wrecking a car is a far cry from getting out of the vehicle and shooting three people.

I told you in the beginning that it was alleged that investigators knew literally at the crime scene, the make/model/year and color of the vehicle that had allegedly rammed the Earley's car and that they allegedly knew that Thomas Bowling owned just such a car. But, they alleged they did not go searching for him because they followed other leads. What other leads? Obviously the defense brought up one when they mentioned the family that Eddie Earley had reported but are you going to tell me that there was not enough investigators.... in Lexington Kentucky.... a far cry from a small town, to send one or more investigators to investigate the family and one or two to go look for and find Thomas Bowling? A mother and father had been gunned down in their car in the parking lot of their business and their two year old son had also been shot. You cannot tell me that there was not outrage about this and that they did not put MANY, if not all investigators on this case in the initial hours tracking down every single lead there was. Does that mean that they did not ever know exactly what type of car was used? No, it does not. But I absolutely do not believe they knew at the crime scene, or maybe even before Bowlings sister called the following day that he owned the car used. Sure, they had a description from eye witnesses and they released that which is what allegedly prompted his sister to look for his car and check out land owned by the family. In my opinion this was released and said to make it look like the investigators did not have tunnel vision and focused on Bowling in the initial stages. There is a complete difference in following ALL the evidence and leads in a case and focusing on one person. Having a vehicle description is a far cry from knowing everything about a vehicle and knowing a particular person owns such a vehicle, as they claimed, and then NOT following that lead is also bad investigating. So no, I do not believe that they knew this information early on and decided to “look at other leads first.” Does this mean that they looked into the family that the defense mentioned? I would hope so but I heard nothing more about it.

Taking that line is it possible that the family members involved in the other case could have manipulated Bowling into doing the deed for them? Maybe, but again where is the evidence? Is it possible that someone obtained Bowlings vehicle without his knowledge or even with his knowledge? Sure. While I did not see any real evidence presented that the other family was involved, in my opinion there was not enough evidence to prove that Bowling committed this crime. Then again, that is just my opinion.