Whether you are a believer in a Creator or a skeptic, you should challenge your position with doubts.  It is interesting that atheists expend great energy doubting that there is a God, but spend little time doubting their arguments.  It is not logical to require more proof that there is a God than finding evidence that there is no God.

Quite frankly, it requires a leap of faith to justify either belief.  Such a leap by either side requires reasonable doubts.  Doubting is not being a traitor to your belief system.  It actually strengthens your beliefs because it forces you to think about why you believe what you believe and requires you to overcome the doubts.

Unfortunately, the world is becoming polarized by fundamental believers and radical non-believers.  The moderates are being pulled to one side or the other.  The press may indicate that religion is falling by the wayside, but it is not the new religion… it is old traditional religion that is dying out.  The neo-religion embraces groups that are radicalized.  Emotional religion is replacing moderate religion.  The fundamentalists will never doubt their beliefs.  And that is emotional garbage.

Doubting is a form of thinking.  Whenever you have a leap of faith without evidence to support your belief, you should always doubt that leap and constantly challenge it, thus reinforcing your belief.  If you go through life just accepting that belief based on emotion without any thought behind it, there may be a problem when you reach a crisis mode, whether in this world or the next.

If you end up standing before a Creator after being a suicide bomber that killed 50 innocent people, I wonder if the emotion that precipitated that act will please the Creator.  Did you have any doubts before you killed those people?  You probably did not, because your emotions drove you down this path.  Emotions mask doubt.  Emotions destroy thinking.  Emotions lead to bad choices.  Emotions also lead to consequences.  Emotions may make you a martyr who will accept those consequences… unless, of course, they are consequences provided in the afterlife.  Emotions hide those postmortem consequences.  But you killed those innocent people for God, so God should reward you.  The only problem is that God you served is the God of emotion, who some call the Devil.

I believe that the one true God does not countenance murder of innocent people for any reason.  And I want you to doubt that.  But you must also doubt that God wants you to kill for His sake.  I remember when soldiers in Vietnam said, “Kill a Gook for God.”  There may be a God who wants you to kill for Him, but, if so, I believe there is another God who does not want you to kill for Him.  There may be difficult times when I doubt the existence of a good God and think there must be only an evil God, but it is good to examine your doubts.  For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Thus, I believe for every evil deed attributed to an evil God, there is a good deed supported by a good God.

Will the evil God protect you?  Probably not, because He is evil.  Some argue that if there were a good God, He would make everybody safe and secure now.  However, if you believe in a Creator outside our universe, He may be testing us for entry into His universe.  If you don’t gain admission, you will remain in this universe with the Devil himself in control.  I want you to doubt that too.  However, if you are wrong, the consequences will be forever and ever.

Love and Hate

Love and hate are both four-letter words.  Sometimes they have other similarities.  Love can turn into hate and hate can return to love.  How can this be?

Well, both of them are extreme emotions that many times spring from relationships.  The most basic explanation is that love occurs when the relationship is good and hate develops when the relationship sours.  So are we talking about the same emotion, distinguished by whether things are going well or not?

It’s not quite that simple.  Some people love and hate from afar.  A stalker may be initially attracted to a beautiful lady, thinking of his feelings as love for her.  But the stalker may eventually realize that he can never have her, so his feelings turn to hate.  The poor lady may never even know anything about this guy until he appears out of the dark and kills her.

Some people hate others based on race, creed, or religion.  If you are poor, you can hate the rich without knowing them.  Thus, these forms of hate are not based on personal relationships that have gone bad.  Many times, hate is a way for the oppressed to compensate for their positions in life.  Hate also can become a super-glue for political parties, gangs, and peer groups.  What better way to cement individuals together than by hating another group?  Hitler understood this very well.

Love and hate, although very powerful initially, typically are very temporal emotions, because extreme emotions can burn out fairly quickly.  They can disappear as quickly as they appear.  But there are exceptions to this.  The hate between Arabs and Jews has been going on for hundreds of years.  This is not going away because the Bible makes the Jewish people the chosen ones and the Koran does not.  The hate leads to terrorist acts that beget more violence.  It has become a “never-ending story” of hate.

However, these problems can be resolved over time when reasonable leaders are in charge of Arab countries and Israel.  An example of this was Northern Ireland and England.  The terrorist killings had gone on for decades without any end in sight until the leadership of those countries recognized how the acts of terrorism were tearing the economy of the two countries apart.  Reasonable leaders found an economic compromise that has held the peace for many years.

Does that mean that the leadership in the Middle East is unreasonable?  Well of course it does.  But which comes first:  reasonable leadership or stopping the terrorist attacks?  The leaders say that they must respond to the terrorist attacks, and since the terrorists are not reasonable, they cannot be reasonable.

There is a problem with extremist thinking.  It is important for moderates to exert more control in the world.  Generally, moderates do not choose to get involved with extremists.  They patiently wait for the extreme positions to dissipate.  But moderates must take a stand against terrorists and extremists before they polarize the world.  The thing that makes moderates apathetic is that they believe that since terrorists and extremists are in the minority, they can never take over the world.  Hitler is the ultimate example of why this is the wrong way to think.  Many extremist minorities have taken over countries throughout history.  Stalin just killed millions of people who didn’t do what he demanded.

There are many countries in the world who do not want terrorism to expand into their areas, so they should be willing to form a worldwide coalition to eradicate terrorists and extremists throughout the world.  The terrorists and extremists cannot stand up to a worldwide force that joins hands to crush them.

Perhaps we would be better off by not emphasizing extreme emotions like love and hate and instead by becoming a more thoughtful, moderate world.

Who Commits Murders and Why?

Murders are committed daily.  There are murders for hire; there are murders for revenge; there are murders for money; there are murders for love; there are murders for hate… the list goes on for quite a distance.  So, who commits all these murders?

We all do.  All of us are fully capable of committing murder.  Anybody will commit murder under the right circumstances.  It is foolish to deny it.  If you had to protect your family, wouldn’t you kill an armed burglar?  If you were in the military, wouldn’t you kill the enemy before they killed you?  I could provide hundreds of scenarios where even the most ethical and highly religious individuals would still kill.

I suppose that legally, not all killings would be adjudged murders.  If you kill somebody in self defense or you are serving in the military, you typically would not be charged with murder.  However, for the purposes of our discussion, we are defining murder as the killing of another human being, no matter what the reason.  In other words, there is no defense for killing a human being.  Taking another’s life, no matter what the reason, is considered murder in this article.

So why do we murder?  Is it because we had a bad childhood?  Is it because we were sexually molested when we were in grade school?  Is it because we were socially deprived?  Is it because we were poor?  Is it because we got hooked on drugs?  Is it because we mentally deficient?  Some or all of these things may be ingredients leading up to the final recipe of committing murder, but the final decision to kill is very intentional.  It is quite possible that your murder was a crime of passion, but you still decided to kill.  It doesn’t matter that you made the choice to murder two months ago or two seconds ago.  It still was your decision.

When murderers were interviewed by a writer whom the convicts trusted, he discovered that all of the killers made a conscious decision to murder.  None of them denied that murder was a choice that they made.  It is possible that you could be in a drug or alcohol stupor and not know what you were doing at the time of the murder, but you intentionally put yourself in that condition and must accept the consequences.  Even drunks make choices… just usually bad ones.

The only difficult area is somebody who has a mental illness who commits murder.  If they do not have the ability to understand what they are doing, do they decide to murder?  My answer may be controversial, but I believe those who are mentally incapacitated also choose to murder.  The mental deficiency may impair their decision making process, but it does not stop it.  They still decide to kill.  A mental patient may think that he is killing the devil when he shoots a priest, but he still makes a conscious decision to pull the trigger.

So, like I said earlier:  all of us are capable of committing murder.  And we commit murders after we decide to take a life.  The reasons for murder vary from individual to individual.  But all murders are committed because of choices that were made by these individuals.

What Is Sin?

Somebody asked me years ago what sin was, and I recall telling them that it was anything taken to extremes.  Back then, I thought moderation was the key to modifying all behavior.  Today, I’m not so sure that is the answer.  I still believe that moderation is very important in a social setting, but I wonder if there is a better definition of sin for the afterlife.

After you die and if you are still thinking, you would not want to carry any sins with you as baggage on your trip through the dark underworld.  So what is the definition of this type of sin?  Well, it must be anything you have done that causes you to feel guilty.  Thus, guilt could drag your after-life thoughts down into the depths of eternal depression.

We know that Christianity offers a way to avoid this.  By believing that Jesus died for your sins, then your sin debts are paid in full.  You don’t have to worry about your sins because Jesus erases them.  Of course, that’s assuming that you truly believe this.  If your belief is based on a selfish desire only to eliminate guilt from the sins that you never really stopped committing, then there may be a surprise waiting for you.

But what actions and inactions deserve to be called sins?  Could that vary from individual to individual?  A hardened criminal may not feel guilty about killing a dog, but I would feel that I committed a sin if I even hurt a dog.  Is it a sin if you think you committed a sin, but you actually didn’t?  If a man paid an assassin $200,000 to kill his neighbor; but instead, the criminal gave the neighbor $100,000 to flee to Mexico, would this be considered a sin?

Well, I guess it depends on what you take into the afterlife.  It is possible that you may feel guilty about things that never really happened and you only thought that they happened.  That would still be a sin in your mind.  And it is possible that hardened criminals will not feel guilty about some actions that you would feel guilty about, but those hardened criminals are going to have plenty of other things to hang on their guilty tree.  It is a mistake to compare your feelings of guilt with those of others.  The feelings of guilt in the afterlife are very personal.

The bottom line is what feelings of guilt do you take into the afterlife?  Those are your sins.  If you truly believe in Jesus, then He will remove these burdens, which will lighten your journey.  This is not to say that your trip through the afterlife will be easy.  Your belief in Jesus will only make it easier.  None of us knows what lies ahead, but we can expect that consequences await us for all the poor choices we made during life.

It is critical to have a tour guide and Jesus can be that guide.  We like to think that we can handle everything on our own, but that is certainly not true in what may be the chaotic, dark unknowns of the underworld.  You must truly believe in Jesus and allow Him to be inside you and become a part of you and your every thought.  However, if you are not thinking after death, then believing in Jesus and God only did two things: (1) it made it easier for you to accept mortality and (2) hopefully made you sin less often.  But if you are thinking after death…

Politicians Are More Dangerous than Terrorists

It is a very sad comment that today’s politicians are more dangerous than terrorists.  Politicians are much more likely to destroy the American system and our way of life than any terrorist organization.

One of my favorite jokes around springtime tells the rest of the story.  Towards the end of March, I would state that it was time to clean out the house… but don’t forget to also clean out the Senate.

So both Democrats and Republicans are guilty.  They may have good intentions early in their careers, but they get sucked into the corrupt system within a few months of arrival in Washington.  When I worked at the Pentagon and the Navy Yard as a fraud attorney, I had occasion to work with NCIS, the Department of Justice, and the FBI.

I was constantly bringing up good fraud cases against Senior Executive Service civilians and high ranking officers of the military, but these cases never went anywhere.  Why?  Because the culture in Washington was corrupt from middle management up to the top.  Everybody wanted to look the other way when federal managers did something unethical.  The only cases I successfully prosecuted were against lower managers and regular employees.  There is a double standard in Washington.

And this is even worse with politicians.  I asked an FBI agent why we never prosecuted Congressmen who were taking bribes every day.  He told me that it was difficult proving that the amounts given were not campaign contributions.  He also told me that there was a wicked culture in DC that was entrenched.  Anybody attempting to change that would lose their jobs or disappear.

It was difficult for me to watch all the politicians… and let me repeat… ALL the politicians accept compensation from special interest groups.  The real compensation for politicians is not their salaries, but it is the tremendous amount of money they receive from organizations who bribe them to do their bidding.

Several decades ago, Congressmen were only dangerous to our country because they did not represent Americans, but only their self interests.  However, today there is a new breed of politician who is even more dangerous.  These new politicians are interested in creating a world order that will be totalitarian in nature.  But don’t think for a second that it will be beneficial to you.  It will benefit these new leaders because they will rule the world.  They can then take anything they want and leave the rest of us in the cold or dead, which is very typical of all totalitarian leaders throughout history.

You can see the political posturing in the news, but please try to think what a politician’s real motivation is.  For example, when President Obama promised executive action that would give nearly five million illegal immigrants temporary work permits and amnesty, this really is designed to add more voters for a Democratic president who will continue pushing for a new world order.  The White House was spinning that Obama’s unilateral action was not “amnesty” and that it would “ensure that everyone plays by the same rules.”

Republicans are pushing for comprehensive amnesty legislation in order to avoid losing the next presidential election because of these potential voters.  Some of these five million immigrants may find ways to vote at the polls, but the real increase in voters who will support the Democrats are the families and friends of these immigrants.  Also, new Democratic supporters may rise exponentially in the next two years as Americans may become frustrated by the “gridlock” that could be caused by the actions of both parties.  The Republicans will take the greatest part of the blame.

Executive Agreements and Executive Orders have been used for decades and the Supreme Court has never ruled any of them unconstitutional.  The best option for Congress is to exercise its control of the power of the purse.  However, we have never had the executive branch so intent on using its agreements and orders for political purposes to create a new world order or worldwide totalitarian regime much like in Huxley’s and Orwell’s books.

Because of the nature of the political beast that exists in DC, it is not likely that America will avoid being drawn into the giant totalitarian whirlpool that awaits it.  I predict that millions of people will be sent to concentration camps and murdered until only weak-minded citizens remain behind to be enslaved by the new world order.

It is interesting to note that history has not been kind to the original leaders like Lenin, who might have had a genuine interest in helping the people.  The only survivors will be those who are completely evil and those who are completely dominated and offer no resistance.  Where will you fit in this new scheme of things?




What is freedom?  Does it mean that you can do anything that you want?  Does it mean that you can do anything you want as long as you don’t harm anybody else?  Well, actually freedom is the ability to do anything you want as long as you understand that there will be consequences that flow from your free choices.

We clearly have the freedom to choose.  We make decisions every day, some of which are minor, but others of which are major.  The freedom of choice is our freedom that God has given us.  We can even choose to give up that freedom.  However, there are consequences for every decision that we make.  You might say that you really aren’t free to commit murder because you can be punished by society’s laws, but you really are free to murder as long as you know there are consequences.

If you decide to give in to temptations and make choices that you know are morally wrong, then the consequences may be either a guilty feeling that remains after the deed is done or your heart may become hardened so that you refuse to allow any pangs of guilt inside.  Or you may rationalize what you have done in some manner.  But there always are consequences.

You have to examine the Bible to get a glimpse of what freedom really means.  If we start with the words of Jesus in John 8:31-36, we can build a foundation of what freedom really is.  “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.  Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free…  I tell you the truth, everyone who sins is a slave to sin. Now a slave has no permanent place in the family, but a son belongs to it forever.  So if the Son sets you free, you will be free indeed.”

The truth is imbedded in your conscience, which includes the Beatitudes that Jesus taught.  And as Jesus said, if you know the truth, it will make you free.  Some argue that if you have to always do the right thing, then you aren’t truly free, because being free would include being able to do the wrong thing.  What these non-believers don’t understand is that they are free to do the wrong thing.  But there are consequences for making these bad choices.

Jesus was telling us that those who do the wrong thing become servants of sin.  One of the consequences of sin is that you are enslaved by it.  Think of it as an addiction to sin.  Once you give in to these urges, it is like quicksand pulling you down further and further until you are completely covered by it.  You are addicted to the sin and are, in effect, enslaved by it.

Jesus went on to say that if you are a servant to sin, you are like a servant who must retire to the servant’s quarters with no protection of the family.  But by following the teachings of Jesus, the Son will set you free and you will be protected in His house forever.

Now, many people choose not to believe this, and that is their choice.  I support their right to choose, even wrongly.  But it is very important to remember that for every choice there is a consequence.  If your support group consists of peers who are making the same bad choices, they will assure you that there is no problem with these choices.  If you surround yourself with sinners, it is unlikely that you will ever escape your enslavement to sin.  However, when you are off by yourself in a dark corner, alone with your thoughts, there is something deep down inside you that will be nudging you to do otherwise.  But if you aren’t strong enough to break away from your friends and make your own decisions, then I support your freedom to choose incorrectly, but there will be consequences some day.

So, everybody has the full and absolute freedom to make choices.  As long as you are prepared to accept the consequences for those choices, then make your selections as you want.  But Jesus offers a path to freedom from sin.  It is a path that you do not have to take.  Again, it is a choice as your journey in life reaches two branches in the road with one going towards “the right thing to do” and the other road going left of “the right thing to do.”

You are free to choose.  But you are not free to refuse the consequences.

Twin Murders

See attached comments from reader at the end of this article.

Hugh “Pete” Bondurant Jr. and his brother, Kenneth Patterson “Pat” Bondurant, known as “The Bondurant Boys,” were over 300-pound twin-brothers from Lawrence County in southern Tennessee, who each committed two brutal murders.  The twins were equally brutal in the murders and both were convicted of double homicides, but Pete is scheduled for release in 2018 and Pat in 2070.  But why was there a 52 year difference in sentencing?

Pete and Pat were both convicted in 1991 and were sentenced to 25 years for the murder of Gwen Dugger after they drugged and raped her in 1986.  Gwen Dugger of Ardmore, Alabama, a 24 year-old mother of two, was an innocent victim.  After doping her up, Pat beat her unconscious with an ax handle and then Pete finished her off with two shots from a 22-pistol.  The initial arrest of the twins in 1990 shocked residents in Giles County, Tennessee, and Limestone County, Alabama.  The details of Gwen’s murder were horrific, and local citizens said that the twins had a “Manson-like” following of young people who came to Pat’s farmhouse in Elkton, Tennessee, for drugs.

Pat’s wife, Denise Bondurant, testified that the brothers raped, tortured and shot the young mother before burning her body in a 55-gallon drum and dumping the ashes in a creek near Pat’s rented farmhouse near the Shady Lawn Truck Stop.  The twins stuffed Gwen’s body upside down in a burn barrel and set it on fire.  Then they dumped her charred remains in the Elk River.  Gwen’s body was never recovered, which is one reason why the twins only received a 25-year sentence.

Pete is scheduled to be released in 2018 after serving his time for this murder, but Pat will probably spend the rest of his life in prison.  Both have been denied parole several times.  Why was there such a disparity in sentencing of twins with the same propensity for violence who committed similar crimes?  Did our judicial system fail again?

Once the twins had the taste of blood, they couldn’t stop with just a single murder.  They both committed another murder.  In 1986, Pat was convicted of beating his co-worker Ronnie Gaines to death, while Pete was charged with helping his brother dismember and burn Gaines’ body.  Charred bones were unearthed in the front yard of their parents’ Giles County home.  The brothers went to trial individually for the murder of Gaines with Pat being sentenced to death, while his brother only received a sentence of a few years because he didn’t actually commit the murder.

According to Denise Bondurant, who testified at trial, the defendant had confessed to her both the killing of Gaines and the burning of the victim’s house.  Denise testified that the defendant had been angry at Gaines for some time because the defendant suspected that Gaines had stolen his wallet containing money from the monthly social security disability check belonging to the Bondurants’ disabled son, Matthew.  During this time, the defendant had made veiled threats against anyone who stole “from him or little Matthew.”  The defendant told Denise that on the evening of October 17, while at Gaines’ house, he caught Gaines cheating while playing cards.   At this point, the defendant “just went off,” and beat Gaines to death with a small rocking chair because he “could not allow anyone to take anything from little Matthew.”  The beating, which continued for thirty minutes after Gaines had died, was of such force as to leave only a small piece of the rocking chair intact.  The defendant and his brother, Pete, dismembered the victim’s body, cleaned the house so that no trace of blood or hair remained, and transported the body to their parents’ home in Westpoint, Tennessee, where they burned the corpse.

In May of 1990, relying upon information provided by Denise Bondurant, law enforcement officials obtained a search warrant and returned to the Westpoint house where, with the help of a team of forensic anthropologists, they located seven burned human cranial fragments.  Dr. William Bass, the leader of the forensic anthropologists, testified that he was 100 percent certain that the bones were human, 75 percent certain that they came from a male, over 50 percent certain that blunt trauma had been applied to the skull before it had been burned, and 90 percent certain that the bones had been in the ground no less than one nor more than fifteen to twenty years.

Other proof also supported Denise’s testimony and the forensic evidence.   For example, a child’s rocking chair that had been in the front left bedroom of Gaines’ house was missing after the fire.  The defendant had also made several strange or incriminating statements around the time of Gaines’ disappearance.  These statements ranged from the defendant’s remark that Gaines had joined the Foreign Legion to the defendant’s outright admission to one co-worker that he had “killed the son-of-a-bitch.”

Pat Bondurant appealed his conviction of premeditated first degree murder and arson. Upon finding that Tennessee had proven two statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and that there were no mitigating circumstances sufficiently substantial to outweigh the aggravating circumstances, the jury sentenced the defendant to death by electrocution on the conviction for first degree murder. On the arson conviction, the trial court sentenced the defendant to ten years consecutive to the death penalty.  The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the trial court’s judgment.

The state Supreme Court concluded that the defendant’s convictions of first degree murder and arson should be reversed and the case remanded for a new trial. The defendant offered clear proof to establish that the statutory procedures governing selection of a special jury venire were totally disregarded and that the jury, which was required by law to remain sequestered, was allowed to separate twice daily to drive between their lodgings and the courthouse. No evidence was offered by the prosecution to refute the defendant’s claim regarding the selection of the special venire or to rebut the defendant’s prima facie showing of jury separation. Under clear and longstanding Tennessee precedent a new trial was required if the State did not offer proof to negate prejudice once the fact of jury separation has been established by the defense.

Furthermore, in a highly publicized capital murder case it is particularly important that trial courts scrupulously enforce the statutory directives governing selection of a special venire and the law requiring jury sequestration. Otherwise, the risk is great that a jury will base its decision on extraneous information. Here, the trial court failed to utilize the selection procedures prescribed by the statute and also allowed the jury to separate twice daily during the course of the trial. In the absence of countervailing proof from the State to show that the jury’s decision was not influenced by extraneous information, the court was unable to conclude that these serious errors were harmless.  Accordingly, the defendant’s convictions were reversed and the case was remanded for a new trial.

One of the problems with our judicial system is that it schizophrenic when it comes to dealing with really evil criminals.  In the lower court, the judges and prosecutors are emotionally and politically invested in ensuring that the hardened criminal gets the maximum sentence, usually the death penalty if available.  Then the higher court will find some reason to reverse the lower court.  In effect, the truly evil criminals many times end up getting a better deal than those criminals who got caught up in a passionate moment.

In the new trial, the jury sentenced Pat to life in prison amounting to about 50 years.  So, how did Pete, who also murdered a second person, receive such a light sentence?  Well, part of the problem was that Pat’s wife, who sealed his fate, was not able to testify in Pete’s case for the murder of his girlfriend.  And there was no body.  The evidence was skimpy in the beating of his girlfriend, Terry Lynn Clark, in 1986, but the lower court again was motivated to put away a callous criminal and sentenced Pete to 15 years in prison.  But he was able to get the sentence reduced through appeals.  There just wasn’t sufficient evidence to justify the sentence.

In our judicial system, sometimes emotion and politics interfere with the normal course of a trial.  When that happens, it can cause reversals by higher courts of verdicts and sentences.  If the cases are remanded back to the lower courts, it can make it difficult for the prosecutor, because the defense has a second chance, knowing exactly what the prosecution will do.  And many times, witnesses lose their resolve the second time around.

The lower courts should not only follow the judicial system rules carefully to prevent the sentence from being overturned by a higher court, but they also should take a moderate position even in extreme murder cases.  There is no reason to deviate from our judicial rules based on extreme emotions of the public or court  relating to the trial.

The Bondurant twins are serving their time at Riverbend Maximum Security Prison in Tennessee with different sentences even though they should be the same.

NOTE FROM READER:  Being from the area where these murders occurred, touring the home, and having correspondence with Pete Bondurant personally, I feel the need to clarify a few errors that you have made.
Terri Lynn Clark was not beaten, and her dead body was actually discovered in the Bondurant home by TBI investigator. He had an appointment with Clark to verify Pete’s alibi. Upon arriving at the Elkton farmhouse, Clark was found in Pete Bondurant’s bed dead of an apparent drug overdose. The reason he was sentenced to only 15 years is because he was convicted of manslaughter because prosecution couldn’t prove the drugs were injected by Bondurant, only obtained from him. The reason that Denise Bondurant didn’t testify in the murder trial of Ms. Clark was due to her not being present as she had moved from the residence at that time.
The brothers were originally incarcerated together at Riverbend, however Pete Bondurant was transferred to Northeast Correctional Complex in Johnson City, Tennessee. His release date is also 2017, not 2018.
The parents’ home in West Point, Tennessee is located in Lawrence County, not Giles county.
Lastly, while you are accurate that Pete Bondurant has been denied parole, Pat is serving a sentence without the possibility of parole. He will in fact die behind bars because he will not be released until 2070.
Please forgive my corrections, but as a fellow author, I would want the same courtesy extended to me should my publications contain errors.