1148 users online (214 members and 934 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 567
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    -Metro NYC
    Posts
    4,902
    From article dog.gone.cute posted above -
    http://www.wsmv.com/story/30549788/n...#ixzz3wPAZ0l8X

    Judge Creed McGinley said the case will not be heard in 2016 due to a voluminous amount of discovery, including a potential witness list of more than 600.
    OMG! - a potential witness list of more than 600

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
    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.
    Circumstantial evidence is not linked by rhetoric. They are existing facts in evidence when they are entered during any trial.

    The only ones I have ever seen be dismissive of CE cases are defense attorneys. Imo, that is where the myth started that somehow it is weaker than direct.

    Most of the cases tried in our court system are CE cases. The higher courts have longed upheld that CE carries as much weight and even more so than direct evidence in some cases. In fact most cases tried are CE cases and Prosecutors win about 90% of the case they try, iirc. CE cases aren't overturned nearly as much as direct evidence cases have been.

    As a prior juror on several criminal cases I would much rather prefer to sit on a CE case than one which has direct evidence and very little CE..(i.e eye witness testimony.) CE case are much clearer and easy for the jury to understand as the Prosecutor enters them piece by piece. It is not necessary for all of the puzzle pieces to be filled in but the jury must feel enough of the puzzle pieces shows the defendant. The jury doesn't have to believe all of the CE facts entered to be able to determine guilt BARD. After all we know a rope is made of many twined threads but if one or two or more fray off and break.... the thick rope itself is still strong and unbreakable in its totality.

    With over 600 witnesses on the witness list for the state I do believe this case will be another case which is chocked full of an overwhelming amount of CE. Of course the state will not call all 600 for it isn't necessary but this case may have a higher number of witnesses than we normally see in other cases.

    The Myths of Circumstantial Evidence


    Circumstantial evidence has a reputation for generally being weaker and less valid evidence than direct evidence. It is interesting and necessary, however, to emphasize that it is simply incorrect to assume that direct evidence is always stronger or more convincing than circumstantial evidence.

    Aside from scientific evidence, other examples of circumstantial evidence that may imply guilt include the defendant’s motive or opportunity to commit the crime, whether the defendant had resisted arrest, or if any suspicious behaviors were demonstrated. Unlike the incorrect examples perpetuated by television shows, movies, and novels, a majority of convictions are based solely on circumstantial evidence if for no other reason than this type of evidence is more commonly encountered at crime scenes than direct evidence.


    http://www.theforensicteacher.com/Evidence.html
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by OldSteve View Post
    From article dog.gone.cute posted above -
    http://www.wsmv.com/story/30549788/n...#ixzz3wPAZ0l8X


    OMG! - a potential witness list of more than 600

    Yep ... that is just an unbelievable amount of witnesses.

    And more than 600 is about what, half the town there ?

    No doubt there will be a lot of witnesses for this case considering the number of perps = 3, and the 2 brothers who were charged but then those charges were dropped ... Oh, and the perp who is now deceased, but had an immunity deal. Then add in the LE witnesses, TBI, local LE, FBI, etc., the forensic experts, the two men who found the remains, friends, family, etc., so lots of witnesses ...

    JMO but I will not be surprised if this case does not go to trial ... now, will they plea ... but there's been so much hink in this case that nothing will surprise me.

    Oh, and btw, I will be pizzed IF this case does not go to trial because I want to hear and see all the evidence -- I want to know the truth of what happened to Holly !

    And IF there is no trial, IMO, there will be no real justice for Holly !

    They need to get this show on the road ... it's been way too long!

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    530
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    Yep ... that is just an unbelievable amount of witnesses.

    And more than 600 is about what, half the town there ?

    No doubt there will be a lot of witnesses for this case considering the number of perps = 3, and the 2 brothers who were charged but then those charges were dropped ... Oh, and the perp who is now deceased, but had an immunity deal. Then add in the LE witnesses, TBI, local LE, FBI, etc., the forensic experts, the two men who found the remains, friends, family, etc., so lots of witnesses ...

    JMO but I will not be surprised if this case does not go to trial ... now, will they plea ... but there's been so much hink in this case that nothing will surprise me.

    Oh, and btw, I will be pizzed IF this case does not go to trial because I want to hear and see all the evidence -- I want to know the truth of what happened to Holly !

    And IF there is no trial, IMO, there will be no real justice for Holly !

    They need to get this show on the road ... it's been way too long!

    My opinions only, no facts here:

    No disagreement with your fine post; let me expand in a way to support my future posts:

    There is an old problem. You are on the “Let’s Make a Deal” game show from the 1970’s and Monte Hall asks you to pick from one of three closed doors. Behind one of the three doors is a big honking prize. There are goats behind the other two doors. You pick Door #1. Then, Monte Hall opens Door #2, and there is a goat behind it, and Monte Hall asks you: “do you want to stick with Door #1 or change your pick to Door #3”? What do you do?

    If you believe in JUSTICE, you stick with your original decision of picking Door #1. After all, first-picked suspects are always the most guilty in the public’s eye. In effect, you the juror are assuming that the first-picked door (first suspects) is most relevant because it was picked first. This philosophy is the ‘endowment effect’ or the ‘status quo bias’ OR you are confusing errors of omission with commission. BUT, if you believe in science and not JUSTICE, you must now switch your original pick from Door #1 to Door #3. Why? BECAUSE YOU DOUBLE YOUR ODDS OF WINNING THE BIG PRIZE BY SWITCHING YOUR PICK FROM DOOR #1 TO DOOR #3!!

    This question baffled many of the finest mathematical minds in the U.S. when it was first posed. This is a veridical paradox; where you the sleuther must abandon their inborn intuitive logic (opinions) to comprehend it and pick the correct door (science) to better understand the truth that lies behind the correct door.

    Here is how it works, scientifically:

    1) all odds of a single event must sum to one; for example the odds of a flipped coin coming up heads is ˝ and tails is ˝. And ˝ plus ˝ = one.
    2) initial odds can never change. Every solvent poker player knows this. The poker players that do not know this are broke.
    3) when you originally picked Door #1 from the three available doors, your odds of winning the big prize were 1/3. Initial odds can never change- again remember this.
    4) then, Monte Hall shows you Door #2 has a goat behind it. It is not a winning door.
    5) now you know that Door #2 has a zero (0/0) chance of a big prize behind it.
    6) since your initial pick of Door #1 still maintains a 1/3 chance of hiding the big prize and that the odds of an event must sum to one, the odds that Door #3 is hiding the big prize MUST now be 2/3 (1/3 + 2/3 = 1). So, you double your chances of winning the big prize by switching your choice to Door #3.

    Facts are troublesome things.

    Motive (1/3), means (1/3), and opportunity (1/3) must also sum to one (1). Please think about this.

    Comedy is tragedy.....plus time (Carol Burnett). When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth (Sherlock Holmes).

    Sleuth On!
    Last edited by Mr. Noatak; 01-08-2016 at 06:10 AM.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410


    Wow ... interesting, Mr. Noatak !

    Now, how does that apply to this case ? Can you help ? TIA !

    Oh, and btw ... luv the reference to the "Let's Make a Deal Show" as that was one of my favorite game shows to watch when I was a child ... LOL !

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  6. #36
    SteveS is online now Attention: All my comments are IMO JMO MOO AFAIK etc
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    3,092
    MrNoatak, I am well aware that the LEGAL burden of proof is not on a defendant. But if there appears to be some degree of evidence one direction, so that people are thinking certain ones are guilty, it will typically take affirmative evidence in a different direction to change the thinking, not just questions.

    So given the fact that there is likely some (and perhaps layers of) evidence available to point to these guys, do you think you see affirmative evidence to indicate one or more of these defendants were NOT the ones who abducted and killed Holly? If so, what actual EVIDENCE (not doubts about the evidence against them, or assumptions) do you see that you think would tend to exonerate one or more of them?
    Last edited by SteveS; 01-08-2016 at 04:43 PM.
    REMINDER: All my comments are IMO AFAIK
    All posts are offered imo and to the best of my knowledge.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    2,658
    Just marking my spot. Still nothing to add still hanging on praying for justice!
    'Every life has a measure of sorrow, and sometimes this is what awakens us.' - Steven Tyler

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,911
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    Yep ... that is just an unbelievable amount of witnesses.

    And more than 600 is about what, half the town there ?

    No doubt there will be a lot of witnesses for this case considering the number of perps = 3, and the 2 brothers who were charged but then those charges were dropped ... Oh, and the perp who is now deceased, but had an immunity deal. Then add in the LE witnesses, TBI, local LE, FBI, etc., the forensic experts, the two men who found the remains, friends, family, etc., so lots of witnesses ...

    JMO but I will not be surprised if this case does not go to trial ... now, will they plea ... but there's been so much hink in this case that nothing will surprise me.

    Oh, and btw, I will be pizzed IF this case does not go to trial because I want to hear and see all the evidence -- I want to know the truth of what happened to Holly !

    And IF there is no trial, IMO, there will be no real justice for Holly !

    They need to get this show on the road ... it's been way too long!

    Morning Cutie!

    Unfortunately this case will not happen any faster than other death penalty cases. Death penalty cases always take many years to come to trial. On average they come to trial in about three or four years after the arrests have been made, and some take even longer stretching it out to even six years+ after the arrest of the suspect/s. So this one is pretty much on track and inline with other death penalty cases. It may happen in 2017 or at least one of the suspects could have his trial then but it may take even longer for all to go to trial.

    I don't believe any plea deals will be offered even if one or more of the defendants attorneys are trying to plea the case concerning their client. I certainly don't believe the ADA has offered any of these suspects a chance to plea.

    Sometimes the criminal acts are so heinous the State will refuse to plea the case, and feel it should be taken to a jury to decide the just punishment, if, and when the three suspects are convicted. With this being the most high profile case in TN's history I do not see any plea being offered by the State nor accepted by them even if one or more of the suspects wants to make a plea deal.

    All three will eventually stand trial on the maximum charges and they will remain death penalty cases, imo.

    BUT if anyone does get a plea deal it may be DA and they will take the death penalty off the table giving him LWOP instead if he agrees to testify against the other two but that may not happen either.

    IMO
    Last edited by oceanblueeyes; 01-13-2016 at 10:36 AM.
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,673
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    Morning Cutie!

    Unfortunately this case will not happen any faster than other death penalty cases. Death penalty cases always take many years to come to trial. On average they come to trial in about three or four years after the arrests have been made, and some take even longer stretching it out to even six years+ after the arrest of the suspect/s. So this one is pretty much on track and inline with other death penalty cases. It may happen in 2017 or at least one of the suspects could have his trial then but it may take even longer for all to go to trial.

    I don't believe any plea deals will be offered even if one or more of the defendants attorneys are trying to plea the case concerning their client. I certainly don't believe the ADA has offered any of these suspects a chance to plea.

    Sometimes the criminal acts are so heinous the State will refuse to plea the case, and feel it should be taken to a jury to decide the just punishment, if, and when the three suspects are convicted. With this being the most high profile case in TN's history I do not see any plea being offered by the State nor accepted by them even if one or more of the suspects wants to make a plea deal.

    All three will eventually stand trial on the maximum charges and they will remain death penalty cases, imo.

    BUT if anyone does get a plea deal it may be DA and they will take the death penalty off the table giving him LWOP instead if he agrees to testify against the other two but that may not happen either.

    IMO
    Scott Peterson was on trial a year later...........fyi
    Justice for Holly Bobo🎀

  10. #40
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    67
    I do not have the slightest idea why anyone would say things about the death penalty in a State they know nothing about. There has not been one single motion indicating otherwise except oral indications by the Judicial district-that again, are an attempt to force confessions by threats.

    This whole case is wrapped up in an attempt to save face by the Judaical district, investigators at the state, local and national levels who have turned this into a sad, very sad magnum opus of malfeasance.

    Why are they continuing to lie about how 'isolated' the recovery scene was. I have been there and this entire thing stinks to high heaven. So, according to the state the few remains were 'moved' to the recovery scene because dozens of people would have tripped over them the last 2 years as it is no where near as isolated as they make out. If that is the case then where in the land of Goshen had the remains been for the last 28 months?

    The standard excuse is 'we will work that out at trial'.One thing is for sure: John Herbison will tear the state a new ******* and stuff their head into it if they try to pawn this off on a jury.


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,911
    Quote Originally Posted by ~n/t~ View Post
    Scott Peterson was on trial a year later...........fyi
    True, but his case is an anomaly, and rarely happens.

    Guy Heinz Jr went to trial four years later. Arrested in 2009-convicted in 2013.
    Jodi Arias murdered Travis Alexander in 2008 but the trial was held many years later in 2013 or 2014? I have forgotten the exact year, sorry.

    You can find all sorts of death penalty cases by googling on line that took at least 3-4 years after an arrest was made to finally come to trial. You can also find some that took even longer.......up to 6 or 7 years. You will also find there are hardly any death penalty cases that came to trial a year after an arrest had been made.

    Most defendants don't opt for a speedy trial in a death penalty case and what we usually see happen is the defense attorneys will put in many motions to delay the trial.
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    325
    I respect and always read your posts Oceanblueeyes. This is off topic but what is your take on the McStay trial.
    http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20...lose-attorneys
    I have to admit this surprised me.

    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    Morning Cutie!

    Unfortunately this case will not happen any faster than other death penalty cases. Death penalty cases always take many years to come to trial. On average they come to trial in about three or four years after the arrests have been made, and some take even longer stretching it out to even six years+ after the arrest of the suspect/s. So this one is pretty much on track and inline with other death penalty cases. It may happen in 2017 or at least one of the suspects could have his trial then but it may take even longer for all to go to trial.

    I don't believe any plea deals will be offered even if one or more of the defendants attorneys are trying to plea the case concerning their client. I certainly don't believe the ADA has offered any of these suspects a chance to plea.

    Sometimes the criminal acts are so heinous the State will refuse to plea the case, and feel it should be taken to a jury to decide the just punishment, if, and when the three suspects are convicted. With this being the most high profile case in TN's history I do not see any plea being offered by the State nor accepted by them even if one or more of the suspects wants to make a plea deal.

    All three will eventually stand trial on the maximum charges and they will remain death penalty cases, imo.

    BUT if anyone does get a plea deal it may be DA and they will take the death penalty off the table giving him LWOP instead if he agrees to testify against the other two but that may not happen either.

    IMO
    “Hope is the state which promotes the belief in a good outcome related to events and circumstances in one's life.”

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    530
    Quote Originally Posted by SteveS View Post
    MrNoatak, I am well aware that the LEGAL burden of proof is not on a defendant. But if there appears to be some degree of evidence one direction, so that people are thinking certain ones are guilty, it will typically take affirmative evidence in a different direction to change the thinking, not just questions.

    So given the fact that there is likely some (and perhaps layers of) evidence available to point to these guys, do you think you see affirmative evidence to indicate one or more of these defendants were NOT the ones who abducted and killed Holly? If so, what actual EVIDENCE (not doubts about the evidence against them, or assumptions) do you see that you think would tend to exonerate one or more of them?
    My opinions only, no facts here:

    What do I really know? What does anyone here really know when the authorities possess ALL of the factual, or at least the ‘legally-admissible’ evidence and have been unusually tight-lipped for three years? I have talked about most of this before on Websleuths, so let me try to refer to previous posts by me and expand a bit.

    Look, the authorities may have iron-clad DNA for all we know and all three incarcerated suspects may plead guilty tomorrow. I find it remarkable that in a potential death-penalty case, that the three incarcerated suspects have not already made a guilty-plea for a life sentence to avoid the “chair”. If this case makes it to trial in mid-2017, I will assume that the three incarcerated suspects actually believe that they are not guilty. I want to clear up some misconceptions here, in the spirit of discussion. The idea that Prosecutors seek ultimate revenge (including the death penalty) for its own sake flies in the face of reality. Prosecutors make ‘deal-deals’, as per the recommendation of Don Rickles near the end of the movie “Kelly’s Heroes”. In 2013, 97% of non-dismissed Federal criminal charges were settled with plea-deals (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014...-plead-guilty/). I have every reason to believe that the three incarcerated suspects in the Holly Bobo case have been offered deals to plead guilty. Prosecutors are VERY practical. They rarely, if ever, pursue the death penalty if a suspect will make a plea of guilty, even in egregious cases: http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/justice/ohio-castro/. In fact, if the death penalty is allowed in a trial, there is an almost 400% increase in plea deals for murder vs. murder trials where the death penalty is not allowed (e.g. the scientific study at www.cjlf.org/publications/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf). Prosecutors are very aware of this situation and commonly seek a plea-deal from suspects to avoid the death penalty and quickly close the case. This is the Prosecutors’ hole-card. Unfortunately, innocent people also may plead guilty to avoid a potential death-penalty. This is one drawback.

    In some criminal cases, a tipping-point is reached, where the prosecutors cannot turn back. One possible example of this phenomenon can be found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Cruz_case, eventually involving three men, Cruz, Hernandez and Buckley. This case has all of the elements- prior criminal record, usual suspects, pressured confession, attempts to get the reward, desperate authorities, etc. Anyway, all three men were INNOCENT, as history has proved. You might conclude, OK, the Rolando Cruz case is an exceptional rarity; an example of abuse that can never be exceeded. Well, then remember my excerpt from 8-01-2014: “Well in the Wenatchee child abuse case, different grand juries had to approve of or at least generally sympathize with 43 indictments of citizens and 29,726 charges on behalf of 60 victims. This goes infinitely beyond indicting a ham sandwich, when you consider how history has exonerated the whole kit-and-kaboodle of suspects in this case. And now the state is paying millions to settle lawsuits, with many more to come.”

    OK, back to the main issues at hand. Either after the Jan. 28, 2014 FBI state-wide drug sweep or after the Feb. 26, 2014 Camden incident that followed the earlier fresh-water pearl-heist (see my timeline for more details), somebody arrested may have began singing like a canary, maybe to get a better deal for themselves. This is when the older brother suspect (the “main suspect”) could have become a primary investigative target in the Holly Bobo case. There was an immediate need to put him ‘on ice’ and this led to his arrest on an unrelated assault charge (of his then-girlfriend) by March, 2014 (charges later dropped!). Since the bond was set at a MILLION DOLLARS for a simple aggravated assault charge (possibly an all-time record), it seems clear to me that the authorities wished to keep the “main suspect” on ice until they were ready to charge him with the murder of Holly Bobo. The excessive-bail clause of the 8th amendment to the Constitution is worth a read. See http://www.wsmv.com/story/24871331/b...search-warrant to show that the million-dollar bond PRECEDED the later murder charge. My gut-feeling about all of these developments is that while on drugs, the “main suspect” bragged (truthfully or untruthfully) to someone (in late 2013 through early 2014) about involvement with the Holly Bobo murder case. And that ‘someone’ made a deal with the police to avoid a longer potential sentence for their own unrelated criminal offenses.

    The Dec. 16, 2013 announcement of a consolidated $250,000 reward in the Holly Bobo case may have had unintended consequences (after all, the road-to-Hell is paved with good intentions). For example, we have a guy who claimed to know where the body was but could not deliver (and later committed suicide). In my opinion, he had no association with, or meaningful inside knowledge about the crime. There was a claim by a woman that she had seen an incriminating cell-phone video of Holly being abused after her kidnapping and thus enter the potential tragedies of the un-indicted “cell-phone brothers”. The cell-phone story does not work for me. Besides, if authorities have located this cell-phone video, they will certainly not need 200,000 pages of evidence OR 600 witnesses. And who knows how many other “tips” authorities had to sift through from people looking for attention or hoping to win the lottery or buy a shorter sentence for themselves? Voluntary false confessions (http://www.jaapl.org/content/37/3/332.long) are recognized, if not expected in high-profile criminal cases. I have studied these types of confessions and opine that the false confessors are seeking rewards, attention, recognition, evidence of power, or to fulfill a fantasy of committing a crime that they strongly desire to do but lack the will to do.

    The land of the two incarcerated brothers was said (by neighbors?) to have been searched very early on after Holly’s disappearance and nothing was found at that time that would lead to an arrest. This, if true, cannot be ignored. It may indicate that authorities were on the correct track from day one. But remember, NOTHING justifying an arrest was found on their land at that time AND authorities also investigated a boatload of other local POI’s around the same early time period. What about these other guys? Who are these guys? Why were they excluded?

    Of the three currently-incarcerated suspects, I believe that the big guy may be able to show that he was out-of-town when the crime occurred. And frankly, as one man looking at another man, he does not turn my crank as a good solid suspect. Like when you drag a net for minnows and you accidentally snag a whale, and call the whale a minnow. At this very late date in time, even if the authorities feel he is definitely uninvolved, releasing him could jeopardize their entire case. He is along for the ride at this point, regardless. It is what it is. The younger of the two incarcerated suspect brothers is said by his relatives to have learning disabilities (I believe this, from my research) and could theoretically be coerced into making many sorts of claims in a high-pressure police interview (particularly in prison without counsel present). This is probably why the police went after him first- he was viewed as the weakest link in all ways. In many aspects, he could ironically be the worst nightmare for the prosecution at a trial during cross-examination by the Defense. I have posted previously about the possibility that his stories have changed with time (he said some things under pressure during a police-interview to get out of prison, and then would not ‘play ball’ with authorities and was unceremoniously dumped back into the system as punishment).

    The older of the two arrested brothers (the kingpin and “main and original suspect”) supposedly posted a seemingly-incriminating photo and caption of himself on-line (around Dec. 2013), many months before he was arrested. Is this really what guilty people (who are not yet named-suspects) do? I personally saw this post as a cruel joke in very poor-taste, but not as a valid-claim of true guilt OR future evidence of guilt. Regardless, if he actually made this post, to say it was a huge mistake on his part would be an equally huge understatement. Mistakes like this get you ‘hung’, regardless of guilt or innocence. Naivety, driven by ego, bravado, and drug-use is the worst mistake of all, and commonly results in conviction. Better to be a fool and keep your mouth shut, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!

    OK, I love everyone here at Websleuths all to death, but let us move on in an impassive Mr. Spock-like fashion. The ONLY potential material witness to the kidnapping in this case who is not a suspect (Holly’s brother) described the kidnapper in this fashion: “Well, I stated originally and never wavered from the description of the man being approximately 5`10 and 200 pounds”, at http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/04/ijvm.01.html
    Please do not get hung up on whether Holly’s brother made an incorrect estimation of the actual kidnapping suspect (maybe the suspect was actually 7 foot tall and weighed 500 pounds or was 4 feet tall and weighed 80 pounds and Holly’s brother could not determine the difference). I prefer not to insult this material witness by implying that he cannot determine the height/weight-difference between his own sister and a person who is shoulder-to-shoulder with her outside his own window. I must take Holly’s brother at his word (if the CNN transcript is correct) and regardless, prior statements can be entered in a future trial as EVIDENCE. This IS the internet age, and all juries know that. I previously posted an image corrected for scale of the incarcerated “big guy” and the “older brother suspect” and the “mystery man” at: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/att...6&d=1409900036 Note that in this image, the actual described (by the only material witness-Holly’s brother) suspect is on the far right (the “mystery man”). I have based the “mystery man” upon a real-life active non-obese male of the described height and weight, relative to Holly Bobo. Of the three incarcerated suspects, only the younger brother may be of the approximate height of the “mystery man”, BUT in my opinion alone, he is much too skinny to fit the weight-profile of the “mystery man”. The “mystery man” as described by the material witness does not soundly or convincingly fit ANY of the three incarcerated suspects in the Holly Bobo case (and it does not matter if you agree- the Defense will likely point this out to a jury). BUT, there are other young local men the police should think about who could easily fit the right-hand “mystery man” profile in my previously-posted image, above. I have names; the police have names. And the Defense can pursue these names in a trial-setting to cast reasonable doubts. Also, if I were working for the Defense, I would point out that whomever grabbed Holly knew well the habits, timing, and manners of the Bobo household far better than any of the three incarcerated suspects could possibly know. However, let us pretend that the three incarcerated suspects are factually guilty, but did not know the manners of the Bobo household. This would indicate a fourth conspirator, a mastermind; someone well-acquainted with the manners of the Bobo household, who possessed a true motive and convinced the suspects to carry out the crime. But now we would be up to FOUR potential suspects. Simple snatch-and-grab crimes should not involve a potential conspiracy larger than the JFK assassination! I would prefer two suspects. For example, what if there was a troubled woman who felt slighted by Holly or was insanely jealous of her, and played a part in promoting the kidnapping scheme to another male who knew the manners of the Bobo household? Then we would only have the hypothetical troubled woman and the single witnessed male kidnapper. Two people only. Again, I am not saying that this is my favored theory, but this represents the kind of story a clever Defense could and should propose in court, with names.

    The grandfather of the two incarcerated brothers lives full-time on the same property where Holly Bobo was purportedly held for a time. From my post of 6-11-2015, I excerpt: “My problem is that the Adams’ family Grandfather (who seems sincere, cooperative, and sharp) LIVES ON THE SAME PROPERTY and apparently saw nothing unusual going on after Holly was kidnapped. The Grandfather is naturally supportive of his younger relatives, BUT also was the first to call the police whenever they got out-of-hand. He could represent a problem for the prosecution if he did not witness a single anomaly on the property in the days after Holly disappeared.” The Defense could expand upon this detail, right? In fact, you should definitely read my entire post at http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ests*-7/page33, post #487. I try to keep my posts entertaining and RELEVANT, and this is a sensible and representative example. This post also refers to the incarcerated younger brother’s initial release from prison and return to jail for not ‘playing ball’.

    There is something odd about the timing of the discovery of Holly Bobo’s remains. This would require an entire new post to explain, so let me simply repost what I have earlier said on Websleuths about the discovery of her remains:

    “I have previously acknowledged that it is possible that Holly's remains were moved (once). If this happened, I still doubt that she was originally in a well on the main suspect's property. Even a fool would not put, for example, a deer in their own water supply. Another problem is that after three years in a well, the ability to recover 100% of the remains (for removal to another location) is quite unlikely. The pertinent wells were searched by authorities, and if the authorities are to be believed, they did not initially find partial remains in those wells. But, let us pretend that the suspects in 2014 got scared that the authorities would discover the remains and moved them to a "SAFER" place. Yeah, a much safer place, right on top of the ground with a plastic bucket too! (remember that if the remains were recently moved, we cannot talk about them having been buried at the new location). This is crazy- suspects do not move damning evidence to more conspicuous locations! Even barely-rational suspects would have re-buried the remains at least 3 feet down (maybe 15-20 minutes of shovel work) and the remains would have never been found. In my opinion, if Holly's remains were dug-up and moved to the discovery location with the intent to hide them better, this did not happen in 2014. This is unfortunately, NOT a Sherlock Holmes moment, where all but one possibility has been eliminated. Based upon what I said above, here are some of the avenues that I would explore further:
    1) Holly was placed there on or about the day of the abduction, shallowly buried, and skeletal remains were later dug up by animals. The bucket was coincidentally left there by a ginseng hunter when the remains were not yet visible at the surface.
    2) Holly was placed there on or about the day of the abduction, shallowly buried, and skeletal remains were later dug up by animals. The bucket was placed there so the location could be found again to move the remains OR the bucket represented a "headstone monument" because of remorse by the perpetrator(s).
    3) skeletal remains (from an earlier burial location) and a bucket were placed at the same time; the bucket was added as a visual clue in the hopes that the remains would be more quickly found by ginseng hunters or another outdoorsman. The convenient and serendipitous timing of the discovery of the remains could suggest that a clever unnamed lone-wolf perpetrator took advantage of all the arrests and disinterred the remains and placed them where they could be discovered and strengthen the authorities' present cases.
    4) skeletal remains IN a bucket (collected from another location) were placed there as a deliberate taunt. In this scenario, the remains could have been placed not long after the abduction (remains from a fire pit) OR re-transported there from another burial location, years after the abduction. The bucket was then knocked over and skeletal contents scattered by animals.
    5) just to keep you thinking, the skeletal remains (from a fire pit around the time of the abduction, or years later from an original grave site) were placed UNDER an overturned bucket to protect them from the elements. This tenuous scenario would imply some sort of remorse by the perpetrator(s).
    6) or maybe, our understanding of the true details of the discovery of Holly's remains is flawed.
    But, as Richard Nixon would say, let me make one thing perfectly clear: if Holly's remains were placed upon the surface so as to be deliberately discovered by another, it is either a taunt, a false-flag (by the true suspect), or remorse and guilt by the perpetrator(s).”

    I received considerable flak from some internet friends after previously posting the above analysis, and I still puzzle about why this occurred. That is to say- I think I covered most of the rational interpretations about her remains, based upon the scant information about the discovery of Holly’s remains.

    Look, this post could quickly become larger than my previously-posted detailed timeline for this important case if I do not shut up pretty soon! For the purposes of my research, this may all come down to the cell-phone evidence. If the cell-phone evidence exists as un-officially reported, there could be a real problem with everything we think that we know. If not, there is no problem and we all can move on to watching the three incarcerated suspects face trial with poorly-funded public Defense and with a very modest chance of winning a scientifically-based verdict. Case-closed and we can all slap each other on the back and move on. So, what is it about the cell phone evidence that confuses me? Every other detail of this case, including the snatch-and-grab aspect of the kidnapping, the location of the remains (could have been placed on the morning of the crime), and the quick disposal of the Gooch Road evidence, suggests a somewhat-intelligent very fast-paced strategy for the perpetrators. The perpetrators do the evil job and go home. Now the perpetrators are home-free and can disappear into the shadows (or under a rock where they belong). Then, out of the blue, possibly many days later, we supposedly have Holly’s cell-phone magically appearing near her College, as if intended to implicate another student attending there. I have tried to explain this conundrum before here, and I feel that I have not explained it properly. So let me try again: in the old days the most damning evidence was a gun or knife or club. In the modern era, the most dangerous evidence by far is the cell phone (or tablet). So, as damning evidence goes, a gun, knife, or club of the past = a cell phone or tablet in the present. Moving on, pretend that the perpetrators have successfully covered their tracks within two hours regarding the victim and her lunch-purse, books, etc. But her cell phone, the size of 1/3 of a sandwich stops the perpetrators in their tracks. How can we get rid of this immense object? We have successfully hidden the victim, her lunch, books and whatever, but this damning and super-giant cell phone has ruined our scheme! It cannot be hidden or destroyed! Thus, we must NOT burn this phone in a wood-stove, throw it in a river, smash it into tiny bits and eat it, bury it a foot deep underground at some random location, or dump it in a lake or into the storm drains. NO, we must place this un-damaged cell phone close to Holly’s college and upon the ground surface where it will absolutely and most certainly be found. I hope that readers now understand why I am uneasy about the claims that Holly’s cell phone was recovered at all, let alone near her College. If Holly’s cell phone was NOT recovered near her College, this could be an outside job by crazed amateurs and one insider. If Holly’s cell phone WAS actually recovered near her college, there is something rotten about the whole story, something more sinister. Potentially, very sinister.

    Everything above represents my opinions only and is not prejudiced towards any particular person or persons, named or unnamed.

    What a fascinating case.

    Sleuth On!
    Last edited by Mr. Noatak; 01-17-2016 at 06:07 AM.

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Nestled Deep in Southern Hospitality
    Posts
    21,911
    Quote Originally Posted by Soulsad View Post
    I respect and always read your posts Oceanblueeyes. This is off topic but what is your take on the McStay trial.
    http://www.sbsun.com/general-news/20...lose-attorneys
    I have to admit this surprised me.
    What a nice compliment, thank you.

    I haven't been able to keep up to date with that case lately due to real life stuff.

    Its an interesting situation whether he will get his wish to go to trial in April. He evidently waived his right to a speedy trial at first and I am not sure now if he can set a time limit after waiving that right but we will see.

    I have to laugh at defense attorneys sometime. They are always so predictable.

    Maline said it is highly unusual for a capital murder case to go to trial within 17 months of the defendant’s arrest and being charged, and even more unusual when the case is built on mainly circumstantial evidence.

    I do agree with Maline that it is highly unusual for a death penalty case to go to trial in 17 months of the arrest but there they go again, lol, trying to always be dismissive of circumstantial evidence. Every death penalty case I have kept up with through the years was mainly CE cases.

    Merritt may be sly like an old fox. If the Judge does grant the requests, and the attorneys are no longer representing him then he knows the clock stops once again, and really it will cause more delay rather than speed up the trial.

    I will have to check out the Merritt case when I have time. Thank you for bringing it back to my attention.

    Sorry for the o/t guys.
    "Pardon Our Noise, It's the Sound of Freedom" USMC New River Air Station, Jacksonville, North Carolina

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    530
    Quote Originally Posted by oceanblueeyes View Post
    What a nice compliment, thank you.

    I haven't been able to keep up to date with that case lately due to real life stuff.

    Its an interesting situation whether he will get his wish to go to trial in April. He evidently waived his right to a speedy trial at first and I am not sure now if he can set a time limit after waiving that right but we will see.

    I have to laugh at defense attorneys sometime. They are always so predictable.

    Maline said it is highly unusual for a capital murder case to go to trial within 17 months of the defendant’s arrest and being charged, and even more unusual when the case is built on mainly circumstantial evidence.

    I do agree with Maline that it is highly unusual for a death penalty case to go to trial in 17 months of the arrest but there they go again, lol, trying to always be dismissive of circumstantial evidence. Every death penalty case I have kept up with through the years was mainly CE cases.

    Merritt may be sly like an old fox. If the Judge does grant the requests, and the attorneys are no longer representing him then he knows the clock stops once again, and really it will cause more delay rather than speed up the trial.

    I will have to check out the Merritt case when I have time. Thank you for bringing it back to my attention.

    Sorry for the o/t guys.
    My opinions only, no facts here:

    As I can best recall, I developed, downloaded to Websleuths, and extensively-discussed the detailed McStay Family timeline. I have searched for my previous detailed timeline post many times on Websleuths and can no longer locate it, to link-to here. It seems to have gone away. I plead with the mods here; kindly tell me where my previous timeline-post is or tell me where to repost my McStay Family timeline on Websleuths.

    In my judgment, it took at least two men to carry out the McStay crime. The actual hitman, or at least the co-conspirator, may well have passed back into Mexico. The lone arrested suspect in the McStay case is a very-usual suspect, but he may be innocent. I understand fully why he was arrested and why he demands a speedy trial, but that is neither here nor there.

    There is a lot more I wish to say; the factual nature of the homicides: head-blows, vs. the requirements for the initial kidnapping of the entire family (a gun); but I am already way off-topic on this thread, so I must leave it at this.

    Sleuth On!
    Last edited by Mr. Noatak; 01-29-2016 at 04:30 AM.

Page 3 of 38 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 13 ... 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