Lawyer Couple Claims Ex-Law Partner was Behind Bombing - Greedy Associates
Greedy Associates - The FindLaw Legal Lifestyle and Career Blog

Lawyer Couple Claims Ex-Law Partner was Behind Bombing

Law partnerships don't always last but this one ended so badly that Beth and Thomas Darin Boggs believe their ex-law partner is behind a bomb that was detonated at their home.

The lawyer couple had a small firm called Boggs, Boggs, and Bates with Mark Bates until they allegedly found him forging documents and stealing from the firm. They claim there was some animosity between them when the law partners had to go their separate ways.

Then on October 1, 2010, two pipe bombs exploded at the Boggs's. Something led them to suspect Bates and now they've filed a civil suit against him.

There were no criminal charges in the 2010 bombing which broke windows and caused significant damages to the Boggs's house. The couple had more than $10,000 in damage to their home, car, and other personal property, reports the St. Louis Post-Dispatch.

It's unclear how they connected the incident to Bates but they do have some degree of evidence for their case.

As part of an ongoing investigation into Bates, federal officials obtained a video of him shopping in Home Depot in the weeks before the bombing, according to the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The clip, which the plaintiffs are using in their suit, shows Bates purchasing lacquer thinner, a pipe, and end caps.

There's also more. A year ago the Boggs attempted to get a protective order against Bates based on their suspicions

A judge refused the request but the hearing turned up some interesting information. When asked whether he was involved in the bombing, Bates took the Fifth instead of defending himself, reports the ABA Journal.

While that isn't necessarily evidence against him, it does raise some questions about his potential involvement.

The federal investigation may still produce a case against Bates, but the Boggs are going ahead with their suit now to avoid being cut off by the statute of limitations. The couple is seeking unspecified damages for battery, assault, and infliction of emotional distress.

Related Resources: