Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #4 ***ARRESTS***

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why wouldn't they have met? We are talking about a town whose population is in 2010 was 2,373. They were not friends or even acquaintances I am pretty sure, but again It Is Simply My Own Opinion that you cannot grow up in a town that size and not have bumped into in passing shopped at the same convenience store as or dated a relative of almost every single other person in a town that small.

When you are talking that small a population the degrees of separation it takes to "know" people are even smaller than in a wider population. And that too is simply My Own Opinion.

and as to why not target a guy, I think these mindsets resent girls who they themselves feel are "too good for them" greatly. Its not about what the girl gives off. Its about what these hopped up criminals THINK the girl is giving off. Plus I believe a girl is much easier in their opinions and much more fun to sadistically torment and sadly I think Holly suffered a lot of indignities that they might not have enjoyed perpetrating on a male they resented.

and that is also JMO
 
Regarding JA's recent televised interview, I am surprised that the authorities in charge of where ever he is being held actually allowed it. Surely every prisoner isn't permitted access to media to plead their innocence, even before they face trial??
 
~n/t~ said:
How would they have met?? Or how would they have known Holly was focused on her life and future? Was she stalked ? Targeted?

Sorry I'm not buying the " stuck up" as a possible motive. Wouldn't they target a guy instead if they were jealous of their careers or accomplishments, goals in life Etc. Why would they go after a petite woman?

I still think there is a huge piece missing.
Click to expand...

If HS is correct in her ID of ZA, that shows a pattern, like ZA was out to kidnap an attractive female...I may be grasping for straws, but what else is there motive wise that we know for sure?
 
~n/t~ said:
How would they have met?? Or how would they have known Holly was focused on her life and future? Was she stalked ? Targeted?

Sorry I'm not buying the " stuck up" as a possible motive. Wouldn't they target a guy instead if they were jealous of their careers or accomplishments, goals in life Etc. Why would they go after a petite woman?

I still think there is a huge piece missing.
Click to expand...

My opinions only, no facts here:

On the basis of "how good are our usual suspects?", the authorities have scored a home run. BUT, on the basis of any sensible personal association between the suspects and Holly or a sensible motive, the authorities struck out with three swings. That is not necessarily the authorities' fault; they could well have the right guys in lockup for undisclosed reasons.

I still personally feel that the authorities are not satisfied with their physical evidence and would prefer a plea deal. On the other side of the coin (considering the possibility of a death penalty), I am perplexed why one or more of the jailed suspects did not immediately plead guilty and make a deal. Are these suspects that brave in the face of death, or are these the wrong guys?

Look, I understand that the main perpetrator might remain in denial. But suspects who are more on the fringes of a crime should be singing like a jaybird to avoid a possible death penalty- if they are truly guilty.

If this case comes to trial, pay close attention to any hearings regarding the admissibility and inadmissibility of evidence. After listening to such hearings early in the Casey Anthony trial, I immediately concluded that she would be found not guilty.
 
Kimster said:
At some point in the near future, I'll be moving this case to the awaiting trials area. Just wanted to give you guys a head's up in case you come in this area and think everyone was abducted or somethin'. :kimsterwink:
Click to expand...


:tyou: . . . :kimsterwink:


I never thought I would see the day when Holly's case would be in the "awaiting trials" section here at WS !


:please: for Holly !

:please: for the Bobo Family !


:rose::rose::rose::rose::rose::rose:
 
~n/t~ said:
Why are you shocked? He's proclaiming his innocence. I don't believe there was anything in the interview that would incriminate him at trial. It will be whatever physical evidence found that will (if any)

1 - He said he didn't know Holly

2 - He said he and ZA were drug buddies

3 - He said Dylan hated his brother

Did I miss anything that you feel would sway the jury to a guilty verdict from that interview?

His attorney said he has an alibi. That, IMO, may be his downfall, if the alibi is weak.

Strange that JA didn't say he did in the interview.
Click to expand...


Well, for one thing, if it's proven that he DID know Holly, then his found Jesus credibility is blown.
 
~n/t~ said:
I think motive will be a big factor at trial. I still fail to see what possible motive 2 and possibly 3 or more would plan such a hideous, cruel crime against a beautiful young woman. Why was Holly their target?
Click to expand...

I think the jury will want to know why she was killed, certainly. But, unfortunately, horrific crimes committed for unfathomable reasons have become common enough that I don't think knowing motive would be a deal-breaker for conviction.
 
maskedwoman said:
I think the jury will want to know why she was killed, certainly. But, unfortunately, horrific crimes committed for unfathomable reasons have become common enough that I don't think knowing motive would be a deal-breaker for conviction.
Click to expand...

Depending on how strong the evidence is against the perp (s). IMO
 
maskedwoman said:
I think that's rather obvious for any trial. Not just this one.
Click to expand...

Exactly my point. Someone posted that some people are just mean and evil. That's not a good enough imo

The prosecution will need a strong case including motive in order to prevail especially if it's a DP case.
 
Wonless said:
If HS is correct in her ID of ZA, that shows a pattern, like ZA was out to kidnap an attractive female...I may be grasping for straws, but what else is there motive wise that we know for sure?
Click to expand...

I still believe it was revenge of some sort. I have nothing to back it up and I'm just going by gut feeling. If ZA acted alone, I'd be more inclined to believe it was of a sexual nature. But in this case we have 2 or 3 or more involved. Makes no sense to me.
 
~n/t~ said:
Exactly my point. Someone posted that some people are just mean and
evil. That's not a good enough imo

The prosecution will need a strong case including motive in order to prevail especially if it's a DP case.
Click to expand...

It seems like to me that the DA wouldn't have filed the charges if he didn't have sufficient evidence to convict. jmo. The DA only gets one chance at these bottom feeders, so IMO he does have a strong case. Does motive have to be proven to ensure a conviction? Not really. IMO, anyone who has followed this case knows what the motive was behind Holly's abduction and subsequent murder. They wanted to obtain that which was unobtainable. Holly would never had dated any of these guys, and they knew it. By abducting Holly, they were able to live out their drug fueled sexual fantasies. All is jmo, btw.
 
Suthrnqt said:
It seems like to me that the DA wouldn't have filed the charges if he didn't have sufficient evidence to convict. jmo. The DA only gets one chance at these bottom feeders, so IMO he does have a strong case. Does motive have to be proven to ensure a conviction? Not really. IMO, anyone who has followed this case knows what the motive was behind Holly's abduction and subsequent murder. They wanted to obtain that which was unobtainable. Holly would never had dated any of these guys, and they knew it. By abducting Holly, they were able to live out their drug fueled sexual fantasies. All is jmo, btw.
Click to expand...

I'll respectfully disagree with your opinion of motive. As for sufficient evidence, they may have enough to arrest. As for a conviction, we'll have to wait for trial.

We've been shocked many times.
 
~n/t~ said:
Exactly my point. Someone posted that some people are just mean and evil. That's not a good enough imo

The prosecution will need a strong case including motive in order to prevail especially if it's a DP case.
Click to expand...

Well, we don't yet know if they are going for the DP. They just said they are considering it. So, I don't think we're yet at the point where there's a debate to be effectively made for whether or not they can mount a DP case, since they clearly aren't yet sure either.

For a non-DP case, I believe motive is a "nice to have" rather than a "must have". If the evidence is strong enough, WHAT they did will be much more important to the jury than WHY they did it.

That is just my opinion based on my own time as a juror in a 1st degree murder trial. Proof of what the murderers did was much more important to us than why they did it. In fact, it was that lack of proof that caused us to deadlock on one defendant. He eventually pled guilty to a lesser offense, so I surmise he was also guilty, but they didn't have enough evidence against him to get 12 guilty votes.

The idea that some people are just mean and evil may be somewhat simplistic, but it's also true. In a time when people are killed for not letting someone merge into traffic, or a teacher is murdered for keeping someone after class, it isn't always possible for us to understand WHY the murderer did what they did.

Let me give you this example: let's say they have firm, irrefutable proof that Holly was at ZA's house, endured unspeakable horror, and was murdered there. Do you really need to know WHY in order to put the animal away? Because I sure wouldn't. Would I like to know why they did it? Sure, I would. Would I HAVE to know to vote guilty? Certainly not. And I think that part of it really is that simple.
 
maskedwoman said:
Well, we don't yet know if they are going for the DP. They just said they are considering it. So, I don't think we're yet at the point where there's a debate to be effectively made for whether or not they can mount a DP case, since they clearly aren't yet sure either.

For a non-DP case, I believe motive is a "nice to have" rather than a "must have". If the evidence is strong enough, WHAT they did will be much more important to the jury than WHY they did it.

That is just my opinion based on my own time as a juror in a 1st degree murder trial. Proof of what the murderers did was much more important to us than why they did it. In fact, it was that lack of proof that caused us to deadlock on one defendant. He eventually pled guilty to a lesser offense, so I surmise he was also guilty, but they didn't have enough evidence against him to get 12 guilty votes.

The idea that some people are just mean and evil may be somewhat simplistic, but it's also true. In a time when people are killed for not letting someone merge into traffic, or a teacher is murdered for keeping someone after class, it isn't always possible for us to understand WHY the murderer did what they did.

Let me give you this example: let's say they have firm, irrefutable proof that Holly was at ZA's house, endured unspeakable horror, and was murdered there. Do you really need to know WHY in order to put the animal away? Because I sure wouldn't. Would I like to know why they did it? Sure, I would. Would I HAVE to know to vote guilty? Certainly not. And I think that part of it really is that simple.
Click to expand...

BBM = motive

As for your example, motive would be required to prove who did it. If they have more than one suspect, it'll be the blame game.

Believe me when I say I'm playing devil's advocate here. I want these animals put away as much as anyone else here but as some of you know, I don't trust the authorities in this case. Never did from day 1.
 
~n/t~ said:
BBM = motive

As for your example, motive would be required to prove who did it. If they have more than one suspect, it'll be the blame game.

Believe me when I say I'm playing devil's advocate here. I want these animals put away as much as anyone else here but as some of you know, I don't trust the authorities in this case. Never did from day 1.
Click to expand...

I find it curious that you didn't speak to anything else I said, but okay. We'll call it a day and agree to disagree.
 
~n/t~ said:
Like what? DP? I agree we don't know yet
Click to expand...

The fact that in my experience as a juror, it was much more important to us to know that they did it, rather than why.

In fact, now that I think about it, I can recall quite a few juries finding someone not guilty because they didn't think the prosecution proved someone did what they were charged with, but I can't recall hearing a jury find someone not guilty because they didn't think the prosecution proved WHY the person did it.

Just something to think about.
 
maskedwoman said:
The fact that in my experience as a juror, it was much more important to us to know that they did it, rather than why.

In fact, now that I think about it, I can recall quite a few juries finding someone not guilty because they didn't think the prosecution proved someone did what they were charged with, but I can't recall hearing a jury find someone not guilty because they didn't think the prosecution proved WHY the person did it.

Just something to think about.
Click to expand...

The Role of "Motive" in Criminal Law
"Motive" generally refers to the reason behind an illegal act. For example, a person's need to raise money quickly to pay off a bookie may be the motive for a robbery, while revenge for a personal affront may be the motive for a physical attack. Prosecutors often offer motive evidence as circumstantial evidence that a defendant acted intentionally or knowingly. Judges and jurors are more likely to believe that a defendant had mens rea if they know that the defendant had a motive to commit an illegal act. By the same token, defendants may offer evidence showing that they had no motive to commit a crime and then argue that the lack of a motive demonstrates reasonable doubt of guilt.
Click to expand...

If the defendant had a motive to kill the victim, such evidence is relevant to prove that he did in fact kill the victim. The defense may point to others who also had possible motives. Or they may argue the defendant's motive was not sufficient to drive him to kill.

Even though it is not required to prove the defendant guilty, motive is often heavily debated at trial. That's because people have a strong need to know why. And in our jury system, people are the ones deciding guilt.

Killing is an extreme act, generally seen as outside the norm of human behavior. It is natural for a jury to want to know why someone would commit such an act. It is also natural for jurors to want to hear a good reason before they feel comfortable convicting someone of murder, potentially sentencing him to life in prison, or even death.

Opportunity to commit the crime is a little more obvious. Opportunity is also a basic thing that people want to see prove, even though it is not required.

Was the defendant in the area where the crime occurred? Was he familiar with the area? Did he have transportation, if necessary? Was there no alibi to verify the defendant was elsewhere? Or if the defendant did have an alibi, was it an alibi that could be challenged?

Although these questions are not technically required to be answered to prove a defendant guilty, they are things that any jury would want to know. The prosecution should therefore answer those questions if it wants to secure a conviction. And the defense would benefit from keeping such questions active in the jury's mind, if possible, raising doubt about whether the defendant could have committed the crime.

The questions of motive and opportunity show that criminal trials are often about something more than strictly determining whether the prosecution has proven the elements of the crime. They are also about answering the very human questions of why people commit crimes.



Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/6652179
Click to expand...

http://ezinearticles.com/?Motive-and-Opportunity:-Are-They-Necessary-to-Prove-Murder?&id=6652179

http://www.justia.com/criminal/docs/calcrim/300/370.html
 
~n/t~ said:
I still believe it was revenge of some sort. I have nothing to back it up and I'm just going by gut feeling. If ZA acted alone, I'd be more inclined to believe it was of a sexual nature. But in this case we have 2 or 3 or more involved. Makes no sense to me.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree with your entire post. 'Nuff said. :banghead:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 212 more.
Total: 3,387 (members: 213, guests: 3,174)

Online statistics

Members online
213
Guests online
3,174
Total visitors
3,387
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,826
Messages
17,959,647
Members
228,621
Latest member
MaryEllen77
Back
Top