746 users online (86 members and 660 guests)  


Websleuths News


Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 91
  1. #31
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murfreesboro TN
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post


    I think it is "telling" that these items were found near SA's trailer and his grandmother's home ...

    BUT I am trying to think like a "perp" - LOL ...

    But why would the perp(s) throw items near their home or their buddy's home to throw suspicion on them ? Makes no sense, IMO.

    Also, I thought SA had a burn barrel going on that day -- why not throw it in the burn barrel ?

    I think it would be hard not to give these guys credit for more sense than they actually have. Maybe it was meant to be burned, but was dropped. Or maybe they took some meth and couldn't have organized their way out of a wet paper bag. ZA dropped out of school and had a suspended license, per his mother DA can't tell time or read, and SA's mother testified that he had basically been thrown out of his family's home and given the trailer but no wheels. He was more worried about getting them gone before the satellite tech got there. Much smarter people than this have planned the "perfect" crime and messed up.
    We will never forget the missing.

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    1,789
    Quote Originally Posted by 2Hope4 View Post
    Someone working in a nursing home, as a social worker would NOT have access to morphine prescribed for the patients. Nope. Social workers don't have access to any of the meds.

    Morphine can be prescribed for long term use. MSContin is a longer acting morphine and prescribed for chronic pain. Some patients are then given a short acting morphine for break through pain. Of course we know terminal ill patients are also prescribed morphine. Trauma patients as well. I'm not sure how much it's used in emergency rooms now, as from what I have heard from locals in my area, most ERs here aren't writing narcotic scripts.
    I only know from personal experience. Having many relatives both having been in nursing homes and hospice as well. Also some that have worked in them. What is suppose to happen in nursing homes is much different than what does in my experience.

    Clint testified that he was working for three different nursing homes while attending college. If he was attending college he was yet to be a social worker, IMO. Especially in small nursing homes and in rural areas workers do just about everything that is needed.

    JMO's

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    799
    Quote Originally Posted by jggordo View Post
    Especially in small nursing homes and in rural areas workers do just about everything that is needed.

    JMO's
    I have to disagree with this part of your quote. I have worked in a nursing home in a rural area and had family in various nursing homes and have never saw anyone but pharmacists and licensed nurses have access to scheduled drugs. Also I'm not saying it is unheard of for licensed personnel to mishandle meds - but just anyone working in a nursing home doesn't have access


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habits. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny.
    All posts by me reflect my opinion only and are not a statement of facts unless a source is provided. I am doing the best I can with the information available and my opinion is subject to change without notice.
    I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to. ~Author Unknown

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2016
    Posts
    2,638
    Just saw on 2020's FB page that they are having a special on Holly this coming Friday

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Hello Y'all !

    I have been very busy - real life ...

    I went back to review the Trial Timeline, videos of the trial, threads here at WS, MSM articles, etc ...

    And of course, I had to get caught up over at LaLa Land ... LOL

    First, I put the Trial Timeline in a word document so it would be easy to find who testified on what day, which makes it easier to search for the related trial video ... LaNewz and YouTube have the trial videos from each day.

    Next -- I finally went back and listened to the testimony about the "panties" - the "pink panties" ... I'll put the info and links in a separate post here.

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410



    I went back and re-listened to the testimony about the "panties" and "pink panties" -- and this is what I found:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    September 11, 2017: Karen Bobo on witness stand.

    Photos shown, and KB identifies a dirty clothes hamper in Holly's bathroom. JN asks KB if she was asked to retrieve something out Holly’s out of the dirty clothes basket by LE.

    KB stated that LE asked her to get a pair of Holly's “panties,” which KB provided to LE. JN passes a bag to KB and asks her if she recognizes what is in the bag, and KB states those are Holly’s panties that she provided to LE that morning.

    NOTE: These panties that are in this evidence bag are NOT shown to the jury.

    These panties were entered into evidence as Exhibit #26.

    Start at approximately 59:00 of the video link below. JN questioned by KB about Holly’s “panties” that she provided to LE.

    Link:



    September 15, 2017: Brent Booth, TBI Agent on witness stand.

    Start at approximately 10:10 of the video link below to see BB questioned by State about the physical evidence found: the receipt, the $1 bill, Holly’s note cards, 3 ring binder, etc.

    Link:


    At approximately 33:30 of the video above, JT passes Exhibit #16A to BB to open up and take a look at what’s in the sealed envelope.


    JT asks BB if there is a pink pair of underwear in the envelope, and BB states “it is.”

    BB states that the “pink panties” were laying in the middle of the road. JT questions further about the location, and BB testifies they were close to Shayne’s driveway.

    BB states that these “pink panties” did NOT belong to Holly.

    JT shows BB Exhibit #70, which is a photo of these “same underwear." JT asks BB to pull the underwear out the evidence bag, and BB shows these “pink panties” to the jury.

    BB states these “pink panties” that he just showed the jury were tested for Holly’s DNA, and no DNA belonging to Holly was found on them.

    JT asks BB if there was another woman’s DNA, and BB states “somebody’s DNA - a mixture of DNA.”

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    So from the above testimony given at trial:

    Exhibit #26
    There was a pair of panties that Karen was shown in an evidence bag, said were Holly's panties provided to LE on the day she was kidnapped, but were not shown to the jury.


    Exhibit #16A
    There was a pair of pink panties in the evidence envelope that was shown to Agent Booth, said there were found in the middle of road near SA's house, did NOT have Holly's DNA on it, but were shown to the jury.

    So ... two different exhibit #s - 2 different panties ... one pair was shown to the jury - the other pair not shown.


    I hope that made sense.

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    46,814
    Quote Originally Posted by lstiff View Post
    The thing about the pink underwear is, would she have been carrying the extra pair with her lunchbox and papers? I am not sure if a backpack was found or reported missing so my only problem is if these are her "extra" pair, why was she just walking around with them in her hand? If they were the ones she was wearing, could the lack of DNA be b/c she hadn't had them on for long? It's not vital that we source these back but obviously most of us are left with a few questions about the "pink panties".

    IMO
    My daughter used to carry a backpack to school that was full of all kinds of things. Her lunchbox, her schoolwork, and a small plastic bag with a pair of clean underwear and t-shirt/leggings, as a back up. Sometimes she would go to a gym or jog, OR she might have an accident that time of the month, and couldn't come home to change.

    I think a lot of 19 yr olds carry clean clothing in their packs for similar reasons. They have busy full days: work or gym then to school then maybe to boyfriends, then home, and having clean clothes to change into may come in handy.

    In a backpack, a pair of folded clean undies takes up no space. And it can be vital to have, under certain circumstances, as many young women wearing white on a summer day might know...LOL
    “Every day that they don’t find something is good for me.“ Billie Dunn

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murfreesboro TN
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post



    I went back and re-listened to the testimony about the "panties" and "pink panties" -- and this is what I found:

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    September 11, 2017: Karen Bobo on witness stand.

    Photos shown, and KB identifies a dirty clothes hamper in Holly's bathroom. JN asks KB if she was asked to retrieve something out Holly’s out of the dirty clothes basket by LE.

    KB stated that LE asked her to get a pair of Holly's “panties,” which KB provided to LE. JN passes a bag to KB and asks her if she recognizes what is in the bag, and KB states those are Holly’s panties that she provided to LE that morning.

    NOTE: These panties that are in this evidence bag are NOT shown to the jury.

    These panties were entered into evidence as Exhibit #26.

    Start at approximately 59:00 of the video link below. JN questioned by KB about Holly’s “panties” that she provided to LE.

    Link:



    September 15, 2017: Brent Booth, TBI Agent on witness stand.

    Start at approximately 10:10 of the video link below to see BB questioned by State about the physical evidence found: the receipt, the $1 bill, Holly’s note cards, 3 ring binder, etc.

    Link:


    At approximately 33:30 of the video above, JT passes Exhibit #16A to BB to open up and take a look at what’s in the sealed envelope.


    JT asks BB if there is a pink pair of underwear in the envelope, and BB states “it is.”

    BB states that the “pink panties” were laying in the middle of the road. JT questions further about the location, and BB testifies they were close to Shayne’s driveway.

    BB states that these “pink panties” did NOT belong to Holly.

    JT shows BB Exhibit #70, which is a photo of these “same underwear." JT asks BB to pull the underwear out the evidence bag, and BB shows these “pink panties” to the jury.

    BB states these “pink panties” that he just showed the jury were tested for Holly’s DNA, and no DNA belonging to Holly was found on them.

    JT asks BB if there was another woman’s DNA, and BB states “somebody’s DNA - a mixture of DNA.”

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    So from the above testimony given at trial:

    Exhibit #26
    There was a pair of panties that Karen was shown in an evidence bag, said were Holly's panties provided to LE on the day she was kidnapped, but were not shown to the jury.


    Exhibit #16A
    There was a pair of pink panties in the evidence envelope that was shown to Agent Booth, said there were found in the middle of road near SA's house, did NOT have Holly's DNA on it, but were shown to the jury.

    So ... two different exhibit #s - 2 different panties ... one pair was shown to the jury - the other pair not shown.


    I hope that made sense.

    Thank you so much for ironing that out! Now it all makes sense. Although I'm old enough to shake my head in disapproval at somebody's panties being left in the road , it sounds like we can safely say found them, tested them to be sure, and found they had no connection to Holly.
    We will never forget the missing.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Murfreesboro TN
    Posts
    847
    Quote Originally Posted by 2Hope4 View Post
    Someone working in a nursing home, as a social worker would NOT have access to morphine prescribed for the patients. Nope. Social workers don't have access to any of the meds.

    Morphine can be prescribed for long term use. MSContin is a longer acting morphine and prescribed for chronic pain. Some patients are then given a short acting morphine for break through pain. Of course we know terminal ill patients are also prescribed morphine. Trauma patients as well. I'm not sure how much it's used in emergency rooms now, as from what I have heard from locals in my area, most ERs here aren't writing narcotic scripts.
    I agree with you. Of course, it's still possible that the A's, the great drug-addled brain trust of Decatur County, thought he might be able to steal some morphine for them. I guess we'll never know why they "picked" her. Even if they told the stone cold truth about Why Holly, we probably wouldn't realize it, because the A's are all psychopaths and lie like most people breath.
    We will never forget the missing.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by maskedwoman View Post
    Thank you so much for ironing that out! Now it all makes sense. Although I'm old enough to shake my head in disapproval at somebody's panties being left in the road , it sounds like we can safely say found them, tested them to be sure, and found they had no connection to Holly.

    You're welcome !

    The whole "panties" evidence was confusing ... but what finally made sense was clarifying that there were 2 different Exhibits regarding panties. And of course, it was not necessary for the State to have KB take the panties out of the evidence bag and show them to the jury since these were the panties from the hamper in Holly's bathroom given to LE the day she was kidnapped.

    Now, IF the panties that Booth the TBI agent testified to were found in the road were Holly's, they would have been shown to Dana with the other items found, such as the note cards, binder, etc.

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion


  11. #41
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by katydid23 View Post
    I think they wanted to keep Vic's wife off the stand for a few reasons.

    One, someone tells you to throw an illegal weapon into the swamp because it might 'have a body on it'? Kind of immoral and irresponsible action and she would have to defend it, on the stand.

    Two, she was hubby's alibi. And I don't think they state wanted the defense to get the chance to attack his alibi by asking all kinds of scandalous questions, about past crimes, etc.

    So they might have been hiding some things, but not necessarily hiding anything about the discarded weapon.

    These are some great points. BBM: Bingo !

    JMO but I still find it puzzling why the person who actually disposed of the "alleged murder weapon" did not testify.

    So is it possible that VD's wife was not called to testify because she could have opened up a can for both the State and defense?

    JMO but obviously, she knew all the perps/defendant and she obviously knew this bunch were not "choir boys" ...

    So if she testified for the State, her testimony could have been detrimental to the State - especially if she said something about the State's "star witness" ? Yes, JA and the State admitted he was a felon, con., etc. ... But could she have said "something" that they did not want brought up? And naturally, the Defense would not have wanted her because no telling what she would have revealed about ZA.

    JMO but the State presented its very carefully and very cautiously ...

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  12. #42
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    These are some great points. BBM: Bingo !

    JMO but I still find it puzzling why the person who actually disposed of the "alleged murder weapon" did not testify.

    So is it possible that VD's wife was not called to testify because she could have opened up a can for both the State and defense?

    JMO but obviously, she knew all the perps/defendant and she obviously knew this bunch were not "choir boys" ...

    So if she testified for the State, her testimony could have been detrimental to the State - especially if she said something about the State's "star witness" ? Yes, JA and the State admitted he was a felon, con., etc. ... But could she have said "something" that they did not want brought up? And naturally, the Defense would not have wanted her because no telling what she would have revealed about ZA.

    JMO but the State presented its very carefully and very cautiously ...

    -Any comment on Natalie (cousin) not receiving a subpoena?

  13. #43
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    New Orleans
    Posts
    15,410
    Quote Originally Posted by Gooddeeds View Post
    -Any comment on Natalie (cousin) not receiving a subpoena?
    Now that is THE $64,000 question, IMO ! .

    Early in the investigation, Natalie did make a few statements to the MSM, and there are a few posts here at WS that go back to April and August 2011 referencing Natalie's statements. There may be some statements out there in the MSM but after 6+ years, sometimes news articles go poof !

    JMO but I was expecting Natalie to testify for the State because IMO, I think that she was THE connection to all the A perps and how they knew Holly. I don't believe for one minute that the A's did NOT know Holly - I believe they did at least know of her - not necessarily knew her personally.

    What I find "strange" is that Natalie did not even show up at her cousin's trial ... JMO but IF it were my cousin or relative who was kidnapped, raped and murdered, I would have been there with bells on ! JMO but NB's absence at her cousin's trial speaks volumes.

    So ... early in the investigation, Natalie made statements on behalf of the family ... then poof ... nothing from Natalie until her name just happens to be mentioned at the trial.

    ZA's ex-GF Rebecca testified she knew Holly through her cousin Natalie, and IIRC, it was from her place of work.

    Then you have JA who brought up NB's name when he testified ... JMO but I do NOT believe about 90% of what JA testified to on the stand - especially the part about a "3 way" ... but obviously, JA knew NB and knew where she worked.

    JMO but there was "something" missing from the trial ... actually, I have MORE questions 6+ years later than I did from day one ! The State's case was extremely disappointing and lacked significant evidence, in addition to the failure of LE early on.

    I think it would have been detrimental to both the State and Defense to put NB on the stand, and they did not want to open up that can of

    JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

  14. #44
    Join Date
    Sep 2017
    Posts
    893
    Quote Originally Posted by dog.gone.cute View Post
    Now that is THE $64,000 question, IMO ! .

    Early in the investigation, Natalie did make a few statements to the MSM, and there are a few posts here at WS that go back to April and August 2011 referencing Natalie's statements. There may be some statements out there in the MSM but after 6+ years, sometimes news articles go poof !

    JMO but I was expecting Natalie to testify for the State because IMO, I think that she was THE connection to all the A perps and how they knew Holly. I don't believe for one minute that the A's did NOT know Holly - I believe they did at least know of her - not necessarily knew her personally.

    What I find "strange" is that Natalie did not even show up at her cousin's trial ... JMO but IF it were my cousin or relative who was kidnapped, raped and murdered, I would have been there with bells on ! JMO but NB's absence at her cousin's trial speaks volumes.

    So ... early in the investigation, Natalie made statements on behalf of the family ... then poof ... nothing from Natalie until her name just happens to be mentioned at the trial.

    ZA's ex-GF Rebecca testified she knew Holly through her cousin Natalie, and IIRC, it was from her place of work.

    Then you have JA who brought up NB's name when he testified ... JMO but I do NOT believe about 90% of what JA testified to on the stand - especially the part about a "3 way" ... but obviously, JA knew NB and knew where she worked.

    JMO but there was "something" missing from the trial ... actually, I have MORE questions 6+ years later than I did from day one ! The State's case was extremely disappointing and lacked significant evidence, in addition to the failure of LE early on.

    I think it would have been detrimental to both the State and Defense to put NB on the stand, and they did not want to open up that can of


    -Agreed. I think it’s strange that she wasn’t present in any form during the trial. I also don’t know what to make of the statement regarding the subpoena arriving to her in enough time?

  15. #45
    Join Date
    Oct 2017
    Posts
    9
    I'm a newbie, so forgive me, if this post is not in the right place. I want to ask how far off the road was Holly's remains found, and is the terrain hard to get over?

Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast


Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 151
    Last Post: 09-12-2016, 04:48 PM
  2. Evidence that was not discussed during the trial
    By Kimster in forum Allison Baden-Clay of Australia
    Replies: 113
    Last Post: 07-15-2014, 09:26 PM
  3. Post verdict discussion of evidence
    By sunshine05 in forum Nancy Cooper
    Replies: 247
    Last Post: 05-22-2011, 08:07 PM

Tags for this Thread