Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #6

[jggordo]

One point I would like to make regarding this case has to do with FAITH in a system of Justice. I only joined WS about a year ago, mainly because of another case of a missing friend. It took a long time to research back to the beginning. Hard to understand all the "A's" and who they were because there were no verified suspects. Yet I found posters here that had been here on this case from day one even following the scanner traffic from that day and subsequent times of any possible findings.

Another point is that to posters here (myself included) every small step toward that Justice is a victory in that direction. It was nearly three long years of no progress at all. It has been the FAITH of many, many posters here and elsewhere who kept this case from hitting the "cold case" files. Beginning in February of this year there have been developments that thus far have at least taken career criminals off the streets to prevent harm to others. That's progress.

I know of at least two cases here on WS where the criminal was caught shortly after committing the killings. Yet one year later the motive not revealed, and no details of evidence revealed. Both held without bond. It's done all over the US everyday, not just this case.

To me having daily reminders of what we don't know and how much evidence has not been disclosed does not shake my FAITH in making Justice come true for this young lady. Further, if it is possible to get a BARD conviction without a video tape I'm all in. If there is a video recording of what transpired that day I hope it never sees the light of another day. No family should have to see their loved one for one last time in that scenario. You cannot unsee it.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

I'm going to try this again- I respectfully disagree with your statement "the fact that the DA is playing to the crowd, but it's all bravado".

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word bravado, and therefore my point was not clear to you.

"Bravado" means "a bold manner or a show of boldness intended to impress or intimidate." Once you understand the definition, isn't that exactly what you yourself are saying he's doing? He's playing to the crowd - some crowd somewhere. Maybe to the public, maybe to the defendants, but it's talk designed for effect rather than to convey info.

Perhaps you have confused the concept of bravado with that of false bravado, which is the same boldness but with nothing behind it. I didn't say that. We can't know whether the bravado is valid, or false, until we get to trial and see what he has.

My point was this: This DA is full of bravado - ie, lots of big talk - but so far there's nothing more, simply bold claims without actual substance. I'm cautioned by the memory of the legendary preacher whose sermon notes one Sunday included the reminder: "Scream loudly when talking about this. Point is weak." Talk is NOT proof.

With this DA, I don't know if he's full of confidence, or trying to bluff his way past weak stuff. Who is he trying to impress, and why? With bravado, there's an agenda at play, and it's not always what it looks like on the surface.

 

[Slab]

Perhaps you misunderstand the meaning of the word bravado, and therefore my point was not clear to you.

"Bravado" means "a bold manner or a show of boldness intended to impress or intimidate." Once you understand the definition, isn't that exactly what you yourself are saying he's doing? He's playing to the crowd - some crowd somewhere. Maybe to the public, maybe to the defendants, but it's talk designed for effect rather than to convey info.

Perhaps you have confused the concept of bravado with that of false bravado, which is the same boldness but with nothing behind it. I didn't say that. We can't know whether the bravado is valid, or false, until we get to trial and see what he has.

My point was this: This DA is full of bravado - ie, lots of big talk - but so far there's nothing more, simply bold claims without actual substance. I'm cautioned by the memory of the legendary preacher whose sermon notes one Sunday included the reminder: "Scream loudly when talking about this. Point is weak." Talk is NOT proof.

With this DA, I don't know if he's full of confidence, or trying to bluff his way past weak stuff. Who is he trying to impress, and why? With bravado, there's an agenda at play, and it's not always what it looks like on the surface.

I recognize that on the one hand you acknowledge the truth that we know nothing of the actual evidence. I wouldn't call what I've seen and read from the DA bravado at all or at least not any moreso than the talk of any other DA in a like situation. I would call it fairly typical DA speak.

My point in this fairly silly back and forth is regarding what we do know likely tells us. the situation is that we have a person in a position of authority stating the evidence is voluminous and that it is a potential death penalty case. I take that information and see no reason for him to be lying about that. On the contrary, I think he puts himself in a very bad position if when the case comes to trial, he has no evidence. In my opinion, the known facts (again scanty though they may be) lead me to believe it is much more likely the DA has a good case with lots of evidence than that he has no evidence and is just bluffing. I would argue if you could somehow run statistics of every case in the country you would find that the words and actions of this DA match much more often the words and actions of a DA that goes on to win the case with loads of evidence and only very rarely by comparison would you find a scenario where the DA had nothing and was bluffing. That's all. Same fact case different opinion. I know all we have is the grand jury indictment, no bail, career criminals, and the talk of a DA, but that fact case lends itself more logically, in my humble opinion, no disrespect intended, to taking the DA at his word.

 

[SteveS]

Slab, I differ with you in your continued attempts to redefine my use of the word "bravado" as not meaning what it means. This DA has spewed out one boastful claim after another, just because he has the microphone, and that's clearly the very epitome of bravado. As I said earlier, the bravado can be a demonstration that he's full of confidence, or trying to bluff his way past weak stuff, but the motive (whatever it is) doesn't change the fact that it's bravado.

I see you are impressed by the observations that he has stated the evidence is voluminous and that it is a potential death penalty case. I am neither impressed nor unimpressed, but I have to add that I can't see that either of those announcements was meaningful. Making a lot out of the obvious, which again reinforces my skepticism about the big talk.

To be specific: (a) The prior DA had said they had volumes. Now this one says the evidence is "voluminous." Well duh, neither news nor informative. At the end of the day, all that means is they've gathered a bunch o' stuff - - without any promise that it's any good. But hey, we've been told twice, it's a bunch! (b) Same with the DP. We've certainly known all along that the kidnap and murder could be a DP case. Now he announces to us (!!!) "This could be a DP case." Another "well duh" moment.

As for whether he has a case, your assumptions include (but aren't limited to) the following .....
* You assume he must have something solid. Because they just always do.
* You assume he intends to operate like other DA's.
* You assume his first big case as a DA won't alter the way he approaches things.
* You assume you know what his normal approach to a case would be.
* You assume what he would do if the case handed to him was weak.

I see a brand new DA, with no track record whatsoever, and dealing with a case that he inherited and is already ongoing. As a result, your guesses are as valid as any other. But, they are as likely to be as wrong too.

We don't know what we don't know, and the DA, the case, the evidence, and more all comprise huge unknowns here. Guess away, but who knows?

 

[Slab]

Slab, I differ with you in your continued attempts to redefine my use of the word "bravado" as not meaning what it means. This DA has spewed out one boastful claim after another, just because he has the microphone, and that's clearly the very epitome of bravado. As I said earlier, the bravado can be a demonstration that he's full of confidence, or trying to bluff his way past weak stuff, but the motive (whatever it is) doesn't change the fact that it's bravado.

I see you are impressed by the observations that he has stated the evidence is voluminous and that it is a potential death penalty case. I am neither impressed nor unimpressed, but I have to add that I can't see that either of those announcements was meaningful. Making a lot out of the obvious, which again reinforces my skepticism about the big talk.

To be specific: (a) The prior DA had said they had volumes. Now this one says the evidence is "voluminous." Well duh, neither news nor informative. At the end of the day, all that means is they've gathered a bunch o' stuff - - without any promise that it's any good. But hey, we've been told twice, it's a bunch! (b) Same with the DP. We've certainly known all along that the kidnap and murder could be a DP case. Now he announces to us (!!!) "This could be a DP case." Another "well duh" moment.

As for whether he has a case, your assumptions include (but aren't limited to) the following .....
* You assume he must have something solid. Because they just always do.
* You assume he intends to operate like other DA's.
* You assume his first big case as a DA won't alter the way he approaches things.
* You assume you know what his normal approach to a case would be.
* You assume what he would do if the case handed to him was weak.

I see a brand new DA, with no track record whatsoever, and dealing with a case that he inherited and is already ongoing. As a result, your guesses are as valid as any other. But, they are as likely to be as wrong too.

We don't know what we don't know, and the DA, the case, the evidence, and more all comprise huge unknowns here. Guess away, but who knows?

All thoughts below are only my opinion and not in any way meant to be personal or disrespectful- but this continues to be the same exact conversation. We are all looking at the same fact case. Some tend toward a pessimistic view of the case and the law enforcement side, some tend toward the optimistic view but it is the same fact case. Every time you say above "you assume" to those with an optimistic view, you could just as easily say "I assume" and then state the opposite. "I assume he must not have something solid", etc.

<modsnip>

 

[~Lyric~]

DA in Decatur County building team to focus on death penalty cases:
By Joseph Pleasant, Reporter

DA Stowe talked with Joseph Pleasant and it was reported on the 6pm newscast.
Very interesting....Among other things DA Stowe say's:

Decatur County's district attorney is building a first-of-its-kind Capital Litigation division for District 24 that will focus on death penalty murder cases.

He still hasn't made the decision if they will seek the death penalty, but he has hired at least one death qualified attorney.

his office are working 100 hour weeks on the Bobo case and working closely with the Bobo family to determine if prosecutors will seek the death penalty.

The Bobo case is still very active and more arrests are expected, according to Stowe.

"Every week as I work on this case, I am surprised at something that is uncovered," he explained. "I will try this case in court and expect there to be a number of twists and turns as we seek justice."

Quite a bit more talking about how dangerous it is in the area he is DA. Mostly due to meth and the sort.


http://www.wkrn.com/story/27346803/...building-team-to-focus-on-death-penalty-cases

 

[Irish_Eyes]

I am glad you brought this up as I have posted on this issue a couple of times. As a former teacher, I am very familiar with IDEA requirements. With an IQ in the low 70s, Dylan would not have been eligible for special education services in public school. Also, a special education status would not protect him from any prosecution for crimes that he commits. If the family or a defense attorney wants to claim in a court of law that Dylan is mentally challenged, he/she will have to provide verifiable testing information. If his tested IQ doesn't meet IDEA requirements, then he is not mentally challenged. As teachers, many times we fought long and hard to obtain special education services for a students that doesn't meet the requirements only to be told just that. This cousin is quick to point out that, supposedly, Dylan hasn't had a lawyer present during his interrogations. If this is such a concern of the family, then they should raise hell and insist he have a lawyer. It seems to me they are throwing Dylan under the bus as the instigator of the legal problems for the family ensuing from the abduction, rape, and death of Holly. This is a mindset that could have helped create the monster, IMO, that ZA became.

Added:
Also, I have experienced many parents of IDEA identified special education students go to court before the student turns 18 years of age to become the guardians of the student. This is to insure that these students/children are protected from making decisions of which they are not capable of making an informed decision themselves. Maybe this is what should have been done for Dylan, if he in fact is mentally challenged, instead of leaving him on his own within the sphere of influence of his brother.

This is slightly different than the requirements for special education. This is a potential death penalty case, yes?
SCOTUS addressed a case that may end up being on point here last term. Here's a link to an article with more info:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...cda4f4-e5ab-11e3-8f90-73e071f3d637_story.html

It's possible this is why they are claiming an IQ of 70. Or that may really be his IQ. But IQ is not stable, it can change over time. IQ stands for intelligence quotient, quotient being the operative word. Your IQ is the quotient of your raw score on an intelligence test divided by your age.

 

[Tugela]

The issue regarding IQ is not whether or not he could be charged, but how accurate his account was and if he was manipulated or led into making incriminating statements. If the interviews were recorded then all of that will come out in court, but I have a strong suspicion (based on the wording in the arrest affidavits for him) that recordings were not made. And that will raise serious questions in a trial, particularly since it was his allegations that started all of this in the first place. A lack of recording combined with his low IQ will open the door for a defence argument that LE manipulated a vulnerable individual into making claims that were not true. That would be a reasonable argument if no recordings were made, particularly if recordings are standard operating procedure in this sort of situation.

IMO, this is the reason why corroboration is so critical and why the DA is so desperately looking for it (and apparently not finding any). They know the wheels are turning in the process and they are not ready.

 

[Mercurydime]

Question:

Does anyone know how strict judges normally are on scheduling orders?

According to the one the judge set for the two main defendants, a trial date should be set in mid January.

Is that something that could easily be postponed by motions, requests, etc...?

 

[~Lyric~]

Question:

Does anyone know how strict judges normally are on scheduling orders?

According to the one the judge set for the two main defendants, a trial date should be set in mid January.

Is that something that could easily be postponed by motions, requests, etc...?

Good Morning Mercury~
Judge McGinley specifically said that he is setting a strict guideline and he won't put up with any bull ( my word ) and everyone needs to be prepared.
I'd say when they all show up in Dec. we will get a better idea if things are proceeding in the way he wants.

 

[Mercurydime]

Hi Lyric :seeya:

I remember that. The judge made it clear that he didn't want any excuses.

I'm just wondering why District Attorney Stowe said it could be 18 months before a trial ever comes around.

I've heard from others here that death penalty cases always take years to ever go to trial. Where's the hold up? I guess after the judge sets the initial trial date, the attorneys keep finding reasons to push it back?

I can't imagine that the judge wouldn't want to set the trial for some time in the next year.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Didn't the judge say that the last day for a plea deal was Dec. 17th or there abouts or has that been changed? Sorry, missed the info if posted already. tia

 

[Mercurydime]

It is Dec 17 Dr. Know.

Both main suspects are due in court on that day. Then a trial date would be set by the judge in mid January.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Didn't the judge say that the last day for a plea deal was Dec. 17th or there abouts or has that been changed? Sorry, missed the info if posted already. tia

:seeya: Hi Dr. Know,

BBM: Correct ! I don't have the link handy but will try to find it.

I am still working on the expanded scorecard of the perps so please forgive me for the delay:

I've been following the unbelievable drama at the "circus" in Arizona [the CMJA sentencing trial], and there was an arrest last week in the McStay Family murders, which arrest shocked me !

 

[Mercurydime]

Here's a link to a pic of the scheduling order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JordanBuie/status/471725178712760321/photo/1

 

[~Lyric~]

Here's a link to a pic of the scheduling order.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JordanBuie/status/471725178712760321/photo/1

So this could very well take another 18 months before it goes to trial after Jan 14th, which is the settlement date. I don't see anyone pleading guilty.

 

[Mercurydime]

Looking at another case from Tennessee - the murders of Channon Christian and Chris Newsom, the one suspect who was sentenced to death was not actually sentenced until nearly 3 years after his initial arrest.

His original trial was set to occur earlier, but at the requests of attorneys, the date was pushed back.

Annoying.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murders_of_Channon_Christian_and_Christopher_Newsom

 

[OldSteve]

:seeya: Hi Dr. Know,

BBM: Correct ! I don't have the link handy but will try to find it.

I am still working on the expanded scorecard of the perps so please forgive me for the delay:

I've been following the unbelievable drama at the "circus" in Arizona [the CMJA sentencing trial], and there was an arrest last week in the McStay Family murders, which arrest shocked me !

:seeya: dog.gone.cute - appreciate the scoredcards you do, they help understanding who's who - thanks!

 

[~Lyric~]

Nick McFerron, The Jackson Sun:

Mark Pearcy pleaded guilty to one count of possessing a firearm as a convicted felon and one count of possessing ammunition as a convicted felon. Joe Pearcy pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly selling or disposing of a firearm to a convicted felon.

So, Mark and his Uncle both pleaded guilty of Federal Gun Charges and will be sentence Feb. 19th, if Judge J. Daniel Breen accepts the deal.

A news release at the time the charges against Mark Pearcy were dismissed said the decision was "based on a number of variables the state cannot discuss due to the ongoing investigation and active prosecution of those responsible for the murder of Holly Bobo."

However:

Jeffrey Pearcy is still charged in Henderson County with evidence tampering and accessory after the fact in connection to the alleged video, and authorities have said they're waiting to present those charges to a grand jury.

http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...ccept-plea-deal-federal-gun-charges/19206071/

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Nick McFerron, The Jackson Sun:

So, Mark and his Uncle both pleaded guilty of Federal Gun Charges and will be sentence Feb. 19th, if Judge J. Daniel Breen accepts the deal.

However:

http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...ccept-plea-deal-federal-gun-charges/19206071/

:seeya: Thanks, Lyric !

WOW ... interesting !

:thinking: Is it possible that the federal and state agencies are working together -- to get MP to "talk" about anything he knows in Holly's case ?

:moo: