1107 users online (236 members and 871 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 2 of 38 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 567
  1. #16
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    151
    You have often asked others to provide links......is my request for you to provide one where you found that DA's admission to rape is something that was overheard unreasonable?

    http://www.tennessean.com/story/news...case/17251013/

    Once again this link shows the tampering and rape were separate statements ........Sept 17th is the day he was arrested for tampering and also the day he admitted to rape.....here are the quotes again.

    "Adams admitted to TBI agents that he was involved in the forcible rape of Holly Bobo on April 13, 2011, at the address of 235 Adams Lane in Holladay, TN, in Decatur County."..........notice the word "AGENTS"

    "Sept. 17 also was the day Adams was arrested on a tampering with evidence charge after the TBI said Adams told an agent that he had disposed of evidence on the day Bobo was kidnapped."......notice the word ALSO indicating separate events

    "On September 17, 2014, this agent heard Dylan Adams tell other agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation that on April 13, 2011, Dylan Adams disposed of item(s) he knew possessed evidentiary value relating to Holly Bobo," a warrant said. "This offense did occur in Decatur County.".............notice the word AGENT

    I assume this was taken from the affidavit....which I can not find anywhere.And you are also apparently not able to link me to.....But even if you could it is going to be for his tampering charges and not rape.

    The tampering and rape admission are clearly two separate statements and at different times with different witnesses ....at least it certainly appears 1 heard the tampering and at least 2 the rape admission.

    What is logical is something was overheard regarding the tampering......he was then questioned further and at some point admitted to the rape

    If you can not provide a link to prove me wrong.....when I have supplied one that supports my thoughts ....let it go and lets move on.It will be known later which of us was correct but you are not going to change my mind without some proof.

    I have shown I will admit when I am wrong and will this time also but you simply have to back up what you are trying to convey especially that his rape charge was based on an overheard statement when nothing I have read state this at all.

  2. #17
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Chainsaw385 View Post
    is my request for you to provide one where you found that DA's admission to rape is something that was overheard unreasonable?

    -----

    I assume this was taken from the affidavit....which I can not find anywhere.And you are also apparently not able to link me to....
    You ask "is my request ....unreasonable?"

    Yep, imo it is, since I have responded to your query multiple times. I told you each time you asked that:
    a - in one case I have based my thinking on a logical deduction (and I explained my reasoning) rather than on someone's statement, and
    b - in the other case I don't have a bookmarked link providing what you ask for (so continued DEMANDS to me to spend hours searching for something that I don't have, or don't have on hand, and that I have no real interest in somehow proving to a greater degree than I already have, is silly and unreasonable. )

    If I had what you are wanting at my fingertips in the form you desire, I would certainly help you out. But if you want to more than I have already given, google is your friend and your best bet, I suspect.

    Both the tampering charge and the rape charge flowed from what DA said to TBI agents on 9/17. Period. While I follow the textual hair-splitting you have used to try to imagine 2 different conversations, I simply don't accept that as logical or likely. And since the tampering arrest was based on purely verbal allegations (per the affidavit used to get the tampering arrest), I find no reason to believe a rape charge that flowed from the same conversation would be any different. Instead, I see one conversation, which led to a warrant-arrest, which was then referred to a GJ, which then issued one or more indictments that included one for rape. (I didn't see any explicit statement, but suspect that the tampering charge was dropped when the rape indictment was granted.)

    Do I think you have it wrong, in asserting there was more than one conversation that day? Yep, absolutely. Am I willing to explain to you why I think differently? Sure, and I have. Do I feel any obligation to persuade you to change your mind? Not at all. This is not a court, and you are not a judge or juror, so I'm just here to share what I see.

    Anyhow, I don't mean any of the above disrespectfully, if I didn't word it the right way. We've both shared what we think and why. I'm moving on.
    Last edited by SteveS; 01-02-2016 at 12:52 AM.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    You ask "is my request ....unreasonable?"

    Yep, imo it is, since I have responded to your query multiple times. I told you each time you asked that:
    a - in one case I have based my thinking on a logical deduction (and I explained my reasoning) rather than on someone's statement, and
    b - in the other case I don't have a bookmarked link providing what you ask for (so continued DEMANDS to me to spend hours searching for something that I don't have, or don't have on hand, and that I have no real interest in somehow proving to a greater degree than I already have, is silly and unreasonable. )
    You also argued up and down that trying to indict SA were only idle threats.......and had no idea they had filled a restraining order to prevent any FUTURE attempts at getting an indictment against him.You thought the civil case was the extent of this ordeal.

    And get this .....you asked me for a link to prove myself correct when I posted this.
    I guess you are exempt for having to provide proof for you claims even when you expect others to take time to prove themselves

    I disagree with your thinking that they didn't interrogate DA further and more formally after overhearing his admission to tampering and that his rape confession didn't come from a scenario such as this but don't expect you to provide proof for this end of our argument.

    What I would like to see proof of is this document that you claimed to have read that states DA's rape admission was also something overheard.
    I have searched and searched ...... read article after article and can not find a single word anywhere that claim or states his rape charges were based on an overheard statement.Admittedly I can not find anything that states it was made during a formal interrogation or he signed that confession either.Which is why i am assuming what took place.

    My whole point is you are claiming my assumptions are wrong based off a document that you read......a document of which i don't believe exists.This is strengthened by the fact you have failed to produce the said document.

    The only thing I can imagine you might have read is the capias he was served after the rape indictment ....which AFAIK has not been released any wouldn't contain detailed evidence anyhow.

    http://www.dnj.com/story/news/2014/1...case/17252811/
    https://www.tncourts.gov/rules/rules...al-procedure/9

    * links provided for the serving of the capias ......and for Tenn. law regarding a capias since their purpose varies from state to state.

    **more then likely this capias contained the quotes from my previous links that once again do not state the rape charges came form an overheard statement like the charges for tampering did.

  4. #19
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    CA always, FL now
    Posts
    19,358
    Discuss the case and not each other please.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Chainsaw385 View Post
    You have often asked others to provide links......is my request for you to provide one where you found that DA's admission to rape is something that was overheard unreasonable?

    http://www.tennessean.com/story/news...case/17251013/

    Once again this link shows the tampering and rape were separate statements ........Sept 17th is the day he was arrested for tampering and also the day he admitted to rape.....here are the quotes again.

    "Adams admitted to TBI agents that he was involved in the forcible rape of Holly Bobo on April 13, 2011, at the address of 235 Adams Lane in Holladay, TN, in Decatur County."..........notice the word "AGENTS"

    "Sept. 17 also was the day Adams was arrested on a tampering with evidence charge after the TBI said Adams told an agent that he had disposed of evidence on the day Bobo was kidnapped."......notice the word ALSO indicating separate events

    "On September 17, 2014, this agent heard Dylan Adams tell other agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation that on April 13, 2011, Dylan Adams disposed of item(s) he knew possessed evidentiary value relating to Holly Bobo," a warrant said. "This offense did occur in Decatur County.".............notice the word AGENT

    I assume this was taken from the affidavit....which I can not find anywhere.And you are also apparently not able to link me to.....But even if you could it is going to be for his tampering charges and not rape.

    The tampering and rape admission are clearly two separate statements and at different times with different witnesses ....at least it certainly appears 1 heard the tampering and at least 2 the rape admission.

    What is logical is something was overheard regarding the tampering......he was then questioned further and at some point admitted to the rape

    If you can not provide a link to prove me wrong.....when I have supplied one that supports my thoughts ....let it go and lets move on.It will be known later which of us was correct but you are not going to change my mind without some proof.

    I have shown I will admit when I am wrong and will this time also but you simply have to back up what you are trying to convey especially that his rape charge was based on an overheard statement when nothing I have read state this at all.
    In the first highlighted part my reading is it was the opinion of the person who constructed the press release. It does not carry legal weight. Note that from a legal point of view, being "involved" does not necessarily mean that you were physically directly involved, just that you had a connection of some sort. Another example of that would be something like felony murder, where you can be charged with murder even if you had nothing to do with it, but it happened during the course of you being involved in a related felony. In this instance, knowingly disposing of evidence would satisfy that criteria. When he admitted to doing so, he opened himself up to the more serious charge as well.

    Initially he would have been charged with tampering because that would not require a grand jury due to his admission, and they would be able to arrest him right away. The second charge required a grand jury to establish probable cause and issue an indictment, so that came later. The evidence used to charge him is probably exactly the same however.

    The second highlighted part was quoted directly from the warrant and refers to a specific act that he claimed to have done. That is quite different from the first highlighted part.

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    Nope. You keep declaring that they can convict DA of a capital offense at their leisure, as if it is a certainty awaiting their arbitrary decision to accept it. But no one - not even LE - can definitively declare they have all they need for a conviction, with a smug self-assurance that it's a given as long as they argue it in this way or that.

    And imo you greatly overestimate the strength of a potential case against DA. It would be an extremely iffy case, if the only thing they can offer is his out-of-court statement, while his testimony in court under oath is that he was coerced and it wasn't as the state is saying, and the others the state is claiming he helped do such a crime have been exonerated in court. At that point they would be trying to tie him to acts by JA/ZA that the legal system says didn't happen.
    People get convicted on that basis routinely. It is called a circumstantial case. All that is really required that the jury believe that DA was more involved than he claimed. All the other dots are in place, as long as the prosecutor can connect them with rhetoric, and be convincing enough about it, then he will win the case, and connecting them is not a stretch.

    The argument the prosecution makes in the trial of JA/ZA doesn't necessarily have to be the same argument they use in DA's trial. They can change their view of the nature of his involvement if they want to, but the consequence will be that it would open a conviction of JA/ZA to appeal. If JA/ZA are acquitted, they can present a different theory at DA's trial, and the first theory will not be admitted as evidence at all. That is why I say, a conviction of JA/ZA will ensure that DA gets off the hook he currently is on, deal or no deal.

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    2,573
    Quote Originally Posted by Chainsaw385 View Post
    #1.....DA wasn't charged with murder until May of 2015,Not to say they hadn't planed on charging him with murder but were in no hurry since he was already in custody......he was indicted for rape Oct 2014.

    #2.....DA's family members have claimed he signed papers but didn't even know what he signed.I feel certain he has signed something but as stated I will not argue what.

    #3....Here is where I may be wrong but will need some proof before I admit it.This is also where we are reading completely different things out of what little information is available.

    DA was arrested for tampering charges......can you link to that arresting document so I can read it.
    He was indicted for rape....I wish you could link to the transcript but know you can't....LOL

    I am aware that those tampering charges stemmed from some type of overheard statement.I have read this numerous times from different sources.But have not read the actual document although I have searched for it and can't find it.

    Now is where we differ greatly...........I believe he was being questioned about the tampering charges when he admitted to the rape.Could have been the same date,doesn't matter.But I have not seen anywhere that claims the rape admission was something overheard.

    If all we have is his arrest report for tampering,which I do believe would contain the overheard statement evidence..........why should I assume he was indicted at a later date for rape based on the same statement or evidence as his tampering charges?

    I have enjoyed this little debate about this certain subject today but without something for me to read myself to change my mind.I am just going to disagree and move on until more information is released.
    It would not have worked that way. After the tampering charges were filed he would have had a lawyer, who would have had to be there when this hypothetical "later" interview took place. No doubt that lawyer would have refused to allow LE to see his client at all in the absence of formal deal. There is no way that things would have played out in the way you proposed at that point.

    Remember, he is denying he said this, and so is his lawyer, which would not be happening if there really was a direct confession regarding the later charges.

    So whatever the basis for the murder/rape charges was, it had to have been something that happened prior him being charged for tampering. The most likely conclusion is that the actual evidence being used for both charges is the same. The used the admission of tampering for the first charge, and then extrapolated that to use as grounds for getting indictments on the later charges. But it is all the same evidence.

  8. #23
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,094
    Chainsaw

    As far as SA's immunity and possible arrest, there was NO restraining order in effect at the time of SA's death to prevent LE from arresting him or bringing charges.

    The facts are:
    1 The immunity was granted in the spring.
    2 It was unilaterally cancelled by LE a few weeks later.
    3 At the end of May, SA went to court to get a ruling that the immunity was still in effect, with a request for a Restraining Order to prevent his arrest.
    4 The judge declined the lawsuit and RO request, citing improper venue.
    5 At some point thereafter he re-filed those actions in a different court (I don't know when, because afaik when it happened there was no report of that new lawsuit and RO request having been filed. But a report from his death said they had been filed.)
    6 In the spring of the following year, SA died.
    7 At that point, the lawsuit had not been heard, and there was no RO in effect.

    So at his death they had not been acted on in almost a year, and between the unilateral removal of immunity and his death, he could have been indicted and arrested at any time that they desired, if they had legal grounds. But he was not.

    It's also notable that LE had made an attempt to indict him multiple times, but was unable to do so (inferring that the GJ found insufficient evidence). We also learned of that after his death. It's quite possible that those attempts were on drug charges rather than related to Holly, but I haven't heard for sure. At this point it's moot.

    As far as DA's rape arrest, it was reported to be based on a conversation between LE and DA on Sep 17. That was the same day that the conversation occurred on which he was arrested for tampering. It was all said to be conversation, not a written statement, and one in which DA was talking to LE for whatever reason. It's logical and more than likely that it was all one and the same conversation.

    Hope that helps clear things up for you.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  9. #24
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,094
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    The most likely conclusion is that the actual evidence being used for both charges is the same. The used the admission of tampering for the first charge, and then extrapolated that to use as grounds for getting indictments on the later charges. But it is all the same evidence.
    That's how I see it as well, although I would call the basis of the first charge an "alleged" admission of tampering. We don't yet know what DA is claimed to have said, whether he admits he even said it, or how that indicates tampering with evidence.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  10. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2015
    Posts
    151
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    4 The judge declined the lawsuit and RO request, citing improper venue.
    This is not correct

    They filed for the RO after the judge said she did not have the jurisdiction to make a ruling in the obstruction case.The RO was never in front of the civil judge who heard the obstruction case.

    Please....... before you claim I am wrong yet again go back and look and see because SA's attorney clearly states this in the link I provided back then.


  11. #26
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,094
    A Restraining Order preventing the arrest of SA was never granted. That's the bottom line, and all that really matters. If you say his atty said they did not file for a RO in the civil court, that's fine, we'll take your word for it that they didn't file for a RO in the civil court.

    But knowing that really doesn't change the bottom line. Either way, a RO was never granted, so LE could have indicted and/or arrested him at any time, if they had legal cause to do so. They apparently did not..

    Anyhow, researching and further documenting how the SA case filings evolved step by step is a meaningless exercise, since he has deceased and it's all moot now, so please count me out.
    Last edited by SteveS; 01-04-2016 at 10:15 PM.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    360
    I'm really sorry to be this person, but I haven't kept up with this case as much as I used to. I'm probably asking something that is common knowledge here, but I honestly can't find it in the limited time I have to go back through the threads. What is happening in March? I've seen some mention of waiting until March. Is there a trial date set? I kept up with this case daily, even hourly in the beginning, until the last few months. I've been waiting for news of a trial. Thank you!

  13. #28
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,094
    IIRC, the next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for early March.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    IIRC, the next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for early March.
    Yes, early March ... but, according to 2 different MSM articles, there are 2 different dates


    From the Court Case Thread:
    http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...0#post12196220

    None of the accused suspects appeared in court Wednesday and
    another status hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2016 at 10 a.m.

    More at Link: http://wkrn.com/2015/11/18/status-he...ne-trial-date/



    From WSMV entitled: Trial for murder of Holly Bobo won't be heard in 2016

    None of the defendants appeared in court for the discussion.
    The next status hearing in the case has been set for 10 a.m. on March 3.

    Read more: http://www.wsmv.com/story/30549788/n...#ixzz3wPAZ0l8X


    The misinformation in this case is

    I will look for updates and post any updates I find ... I hope that helps!

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  15. #30
    SteveS is offline Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,094
    Illuminating snippets in one of those articles, that may provide better clarity for some of what has been specuiated here:

    "[Posted 11/18/2015]

    The state recently handed the evidence over to the defense. Attorneys must now read hundreds of thousands of pages one by one."

    IN THE SAME ARTICLE

    "The state also filed a motion Wednesday asking to try Dylan Adams separately from Zach Adams and Jason Autry.

    According to the state, Dylan Adams made five statements to law enforcement – three written, one oral and one recorded – where he implicated Autry and Zach Adams. The state cannot use those statements if the three are tried together."
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

Page 2 of 38 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 12 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 1057
    Last Post: 12-30-2015, 08:46 AM
  2. Replies: 1058
    Last Post: 04-15-2015, 08:38 AM
  3. Replies: 1501
    Last Post: 10-15-2014, 12:13 AM
  4. Replies: 970
    Last Post: 06-30-2014, 05:01 PM

Tags for this Thread