Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #8

SteveS said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Chainsaw385 said:

#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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Tugela said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

SteveS said:

4 The judge declined the lawsuit and RO request, citing improper venue.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

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!

IIRC, the next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for early March.

SteveS said:

IIRC, the next pre-trial hearing is scheduled for early March.

Click to expand...

:seeya: Yes, early March ... but, according to 2 different MSM articles, there are 2 different dates :gaah:


From the Court Case Thread:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...case-dates-Holly-Bobo&p=12196220#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/next-status-hearing-set-for-holly-bobo-case#ixzz3wPAZ0l8X


:gaah: The misinformation in this case is :scared:

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

:seeya:

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."

From article dog.gone.cute posted above -
http://www.wsmv.com/story/30549788/next-status-hearing-set-for-holly-bobo-case#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.

Click to expand...

OMG! - a potential witness list of more than 600 :judge:

Tugela said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

OldSteve said:

From article dog.gone.cute posted above -
http://www.wsmv.com/story/30549788/next-status-hearing-set-for-holly-bobo-case#ixzz3wPAZ0l8X


OMG! - a potential witness list of more than 600 :judge:

Click to expand...

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

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

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 :dunno: ... 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!

:moo:

dog.gone.cute said:

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

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

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 :dunno: ... 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!

:moo:

Click to expand...

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 ½ and tails is ½. And ½ plus ½ = 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!

:seeya:

Wow ... interesting, Mr. Noatak !

:thinking: 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 !

:hilarious::hilarious::hilarious:

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?

Just marking my spot. Still nothing to add still hanging on praying for justice!

dog.gone.cute said:

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

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

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 :dunno: ... 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!

:moo:

Click to expand...

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

oceanblueeyes said:

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

Click to expand...

Scott Peterson was on trial a year later...........fyi

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.