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

[SteveS]

Tugela- You have a huge misunderstanding of TN law and the relationship between the prosecutor, local law enforcement, and the TBI.

Yep. Still. Sadly.

There are certain underlying legal principles that form the framework of the legal process in every state in this country, and those principles create lines that cannot be crossed. The idea that TBI is somehow crossing them repeatedly, in its basic structure and its ongoing operational procedures, is simply absurd. It would be a defense attorney's utopia if TBI was truly operating like Tugela envisions, because no criminal conviction would be able to survive the appeal process.

 

[OldSteve]

Oh no illowfight: as we become frustrated with the way things are going...

 

[tlcya]

this case continues to frustrate me. How long can this impasse continue? With each passing day I fear Justice for Holly becomes less and less a reality.

 

[shefner]

This case was screwed from day one by local authorities and the good old boy system...teamed up with something else, which none of us knows or understands. Definitely more going on than meets the eye.

So sickening and very sad for Holly and her family. This case will always plague me.

As I have said ad naseum...Please Lord, do not let me go missing in Tennessee.

 

[AmandaReckonwith]

Holly Bobo Case Archive:
http://s296.photobucket.com/user/crankycrankerson/library/Holly Bobo -TN-?sort=6&page=1


Sub-section: "Justice for Holly":
http://s296.photobucket.com/user/cr...ly Bobo -TN-/Justice for Holly?sort=6&page=1

 

[Chainsaw385]

SteveS has got hung up on the fact that they all are paid by TN and thinks somehow that they are all therefore part of the same organization.

They are all part of one organization which is called ............ "THE PROSECUTION"

I have no idea what makes you think if the FBI is called in to help with a State murder case any evidence the FBI discovers can be held back......I think you may have watched one too many crime dramas where the Feds and local LE are fighting over jurisdiction and sharing of evidence.

Post the law in which you claim to fully understand and of which "secondary" investigators are not required to turn over evidence relevant to normal discovery procedures.

If what you are saying is true...having a trial would be silly because there would be basically no way a person would stand a chance at getting an acquittal.No sense to have judges either because the "secondary" investigators would be deciding what evidence was going to be used and you might as well let them rule on all the other motions and objections as well.

Once again please post the law that no one else is able to understand .......it may help the rest of us to come to your understanding

 

[SteveS]

"They are all part of one organization which is called ............ "THE PROSECUTION"

Your broader point is correct, but if you want to be precise in your terminology, the affirmative side of a criminal prosecution is the entity whose law has been broken and who is trying the defendant for breaking their law - so, in this case, the State of Tennessee.

There can be multiple governmental agencies involved in the prosecution of a case, with cooperation between attorneys and prosecutors, and cooperation between city, state, county, and federal employees. If anyone wants to understand how they work together, the operative legal concept is precisely defined by case law but essentially mirrors the concepts in commercial transactions called the law of agency. You can look it up and it's something any attorney (in any legal sub-discipline) must be immensely knowledgeable about.

In a nutshell, the law of agency governs the concept of shared responsibility. In relation to a "client" (or in this case, to a defendant), the "helpers" bear the same restrictions that the primary person or agency bears, and the primary is responsible for the acts done by the helpers in relation to the clients, including the responsibility to ensure that the rights of the client/defendant are not infringed by any of them.

 

[~n/t~]

Just curious.. If, and when this trial/s take place. How many WS members plan to attend, either all or part of the trial/s?

If they move it to Canada, I'd be the first in line!!

 

[Mightymight]

I don't think I have a misunderstanding of the law at all. What you guys don't seem to grasp is that the TBI in the context of cases like this provides assistance to local authorities, they are not primary parties. The FBI does the same thing, while it is the primary investigative office in federal matters, at the state level it provides assistance and services where appropriate if the locals don't have them. They are at arms length and technically neutral in the case, that is why they could threaten to withdraw their services (and actually do it). They don't have the obligations that the county sheriff and county DA have, and it allows them to engage in tactics that the other two offices cannot as a result of that, including refusing to cooperate if they see fit. To overcome the latter you would need a court order, just as you would for any other agency or organization that was providing a service to the sheriff or prosecutor if the relationship broke down. SteveS has got hung up on the fact that they all are paid by TN and thinks somehow that they are all therefore part of the same organization. That is simply not true, the offices are independent of each other. He has confused the "state" with the "State". They are not the same thing.

The way it works is that the primary investigator gathers a file containing information and evidence regarding a crime, and at some point turns that file over to the local prosecutor who then decides to prosecute or not. If the prosecution happens then the primary investigator continues to gather information and add it to the file. When a secondary investigator or organization is involved who provides assistance to the primary investigator, they may maintain their own files on the case, all or some of which gets provided to the primary investigator at their discretion. They can do that without violating any constitutional obligations because they are at arms length to the investigation (in theory) and are under no obligation to do anything. In practice they might be doing a whole bunch of other stuff as well which they might or might not choose to share with the primaries. What can't happen is that once information is provided to the primary agency, it cannot be withheld from discovery. But that is an obligation for the primary agencies, not the secondary agencies.

This is the problem in this case - the investigation is being largely driven by the secondary agency, not the primary agency, so the normal flow of information you might expect is not necessarily happening. That appears to be what Stowe is frustrated about, because he was being cut out of the loop on some aspects as well. That setup might be desirable for some amoral prosecutors, because information that might be inconvenient for their cases does not end up with the primary investigators and consequently they don't "know" about it (and therefore can't turn it over for discovery). My guess is that Stowe knew that there was a bunch of other stuff out there based on personal conversations he had with TBI agents, but it was not in the sheriff's investigation files, and that is what caused the fight when he demanded to see the stuff that wasn't there. Essentially what appears to be happening is that the TBI are being cowboys and running their own thing outside of the proper jurisdictional responsibilities and using that to manipulate the direction investigations take.

Please cite some sources to back up this opinion.

 

[Bali]

I don't mean to make a fuss, but I feel like we're getting off topic a bit. Is anyone with me on this?

 

[SteveS]

I don't mean to make a fuss, but I feel like we're getting off topic a bit. Is anyone with me on this?

I dunno. The handling of evidence is crucial to any trial, and the "topic" here at this point is the legal case and trial of those accused of kidnapping and murdering Holly, isn't it? If you agree with that, then these recent discussion issues certainly impact Holly's trial, including the ability to even have one, the application of justice, the ability to get a conviction that would withstand appeals, and so on.

A claim (without any proof) that TBI is playing cowboy with cases, answering to no one, not bound by any laws, and burying evidence whenever they feel like it (and without any illegality or consequences), is huge. That imo makes it relevant - and even vital to understanding - to flesh out whether there's any merit to such claims, or if they are simply based on a pure lack of comprehension as to how a trial works. So far, it appears to be the latter.

 

[Tugela]

They are all part of one organization which is called ............ "THE PROSECUTION"

I have no idea what makes you think if the FBI is called in to help with a State murder case any evidence the FBI discovers can be held back......I think you may have watched one too many crime dramas where the Feds and local LE are fighting over jurisdiction and sharing of evidence.

Post the law in which you claim to fully understand and of which "secondary" investigators are not required to turn over evidence relevant to normal discovery procedures.

If what you are saying is true...having a trial would be silly because there would be basically no way a person would stand a chance at getting an acquittal.No sense to have judges either because the "secondary" investigators would be deciding what evidence was going to be used and you might as well let them rule on all the other motions and objections as well.

Once again please post the law that no one else is able to understand .......it may help the rest of us to come to your understanding

So is the forestry service also part of the prosecution? The state revenue service? What about the judges? They are part of the State...does that mean they are also part of the prosecution?

No it isn't.

The prosecution is the DA's office conducting the prosecution, no one else. It is their mandate to enforce the laws that are on the statute books within the area of their jurisdiction. The police investigate an alleged offence, and turn the results of the investigation over to the DA, who then decides if a prosecution is warranted or not. The police are supposed to be neutral and are not involved in the prosecution at all, but they do report to the DA. That is why they have to hand over everything in their investigation file. Agencies outside of the responsible police force may provide assistance, but have no obligations. They can assist the responsible police force, or they can choose not to. They do not report to either the DA or the local police force. In the case of the TBI they report to the state AG, and the state AG is not the prosecutor in the prosecution. The AG and DA may not even like each other and have fundamental disagreements about what and how things should be done. Information gathered by the TBI that is provided to the local LE cannot be concealed at that point, that is where the constitutional issues would start, not the actual gathering part. So, for example, if the TBI does a DNA analysis on request from local LE and hands it over to the sheriff, that cannot be concealed. But if they do a DNA analysis on their own initiative and keep it to themselves, it is not part of the official investigation or the body of evidence. And they can do this because they are at arms length to the whole process and do not report to the principals.

That is the problem in this case. Effectively most of the investigation is being done and run by the TBI, but they don't report to the DA. That means that not everything about the investigation is necessarily reaching the DA, what he receives is a second hand version, essentially only the information that they have chosen to provide to the local sheriff. IMO the TBI clearly has an agenda here and an opinion about how the case should progress, an opinion not necessarily shared by the local DA. The DA has to seek out any information that other agencies or organizations have, they are not obliged to proactively hand over anything they might have to him. And if he doesn't know what information they have, and they don't like the way he is doing things, he is going to have a hard time getting it. There is inter-department politics involved in these sorts of things, they are not all one big happy family working towards a common goal. And because they report to different people, who may have different agendas, cooperation is not a given. This is how things work in real life in government bureaucracy, like it or not.

That is what happens everywhere else in the country. Perhaps Tennessee is different.

 

[~n/t~]

So is the forestry service also part of the prosecution? The state revenue service? What about the judges? They are part of the State...does that mean they are also part of the prosecution?

No it isn't.

The prosecution is the DA's office conducting the prosecution, no one else. It is their mandate to enforce the laws that are on the statute books within the area of their jurisdiction. The police investigate an alleged offence, and turn the results of the investigation over to the DA, who then decides if a prosecution is warranted or not. The police are supposed to be neutral and are not involved in the prosecution at all, but they do report to the DA. That is why they have to hand over everything in their investigation file. Agencies outside of the responsible police force may provide assistance, but have no obligations. They can assist the responsible police force, or they can choose not to. They do not report to either the DA or the local police force. In the case of the TBI they report to the state AG, and the state AG is not the prosecutor in the prosecution. The AG and DA may not even like each other and have fundamental disagreements about what and how things should be done. Information gathered by the TBI that is provided to the local LE cannot be concealed at that point, that is where the constitutional issues would start, not the actual gathering part. So, for example, if the TBI does a DNA analysis on request from local LE and hands it over to the sheriff, that cannot be concealed. But if they do a DNA analysis on their own initiative and keep it to themselves, it is not part of the official investigation or the body of evidence. And they can do this because they are at arms length to the whole process and do not report to the principals.

That is the problem in this case. Effectively most of the investigation is being done and run by the TBI, but they don't report to the DA. That means that not everything about the investigation is necessarily reaching the DA, what he receives is a second hand version, essentially only the information that they have chosen to provide to the local sheriff. IMO the TBI clearly has an agenda here and an opinion about how the case should progress, an opinion not necessarily shared by the local DA. The DA has to seek out any information that other agencies or organizations have, they are not obliged to proactively hand over anything they might have to him. And if he doesn't know what information they have, and they don't like the way he is doing things, he is going to have a hard time getting it. There is inter-department politics involved in these sorts of things, they are not all one big happy family working towards a common goal. And because they report to different people, who may have different agendas, cooperation is not a given. This is how things work in real life in government bureaucracy, like it or not.

That is what happens everywhere else in the country. Perhaps Tennessee is different.

hmmmm I think you may be correct. I'll post Megan Sharpton's case. http://www.tullahomanews.com/?p=11792 Why is Holly's case so different??? Frustrating!

 

[Chainsaw385]

@Tugela

How about a link to this law?...a copy and paste ......something

This is your opinion and multiple people have told you that it is incorrect and also illegal......you still continue to argue it is legal in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.And have yet to produce any form of the law that even comes close to backing up what you are saying.

You also previously stated that any incriminating comments made by D.A couldn't be used at trial unless he took the stand and admitted to these comments.....then argued when told you were not correct.You have a bit of a track record of posting things that are not facts and then arguing when others point it out.....I am certainly no expert on criminal matters but know when many others state an opposing view .....I need to take a better look at mine.

Your whole argument started when an article was posted about TBI withholding evidence in some cases.......I admit I did not read this article carefully or fully......but it appeared to be in cases where no criminal charges were filed.Once criminal charges are filed the discovery process starts and then they must hand over anything that falls under that scope.

http://www.nhregister.com/general-n...d-in-cheshire-triple-homicide-prosecutor-says

These guys were caught leaving the burning house,both confessed in some part to the crimes.....but now this ....911 dispatch tapes and LE communications were not turned over to the defense.An FBI hostage negotiator was also called at some point which by your theory doesn't need to be turned over since they would have been "secondary".The FBI negotiator is not in this story but it is in others from the time period because the defense is trying to make the case 2 victims were still alive when LE was on scene,knew there were hostages and it is somehow LE's fault 2 of them died.

Worst case scenario* is a re-trail but that would be devastating for what family is left of this heinous crime and all because some backup up's of CD's were misplaced.This shows how important it is to make sure all pertinent evidence,no matter who has it gets turned over.....to keep things like this from happening.

*I do not know if this motion has been ruled on yet*....I can't find anything new about it.

 

[SteveS]

"Agencies outside of the responsible police force may provide assistance, but have no obligations ... They do not report to either the DA or the local police force."

Tugela, the above is not true, and imo is the crux of what you are failing to understand. There's a bit of reality in SOME of the above, but you've jumped to conclusions that are wrong.

It's true that TBI doesn't work for a DA. And it's true that this puts TBI agents essentially outside of control from the DA as they investigate.

But it is an erroneous conclusion that this means they would have no legal duties/obligations that they MUST (and do) fulfill in relation to the DA, a trial, and the prosecution of a case. Nor does it shield their work from the legal duties that pertain to the disclosure of all exculpatory evidence to the defendant in a trial.

Such a requirement is basic US constitutional law, and pertains to every state. If the state has evidence that might prove (or hint, or help find other evidence to show) this guy didn't do it, the law and the courts demand that they turn it over to the defense. No exceptions. Justice does matter.

So within the operating guidelines under which TBI is created and works, which are mandated by the legislature, there is no doubt that it is their DUTY to provide all relevant inculpatory and exculpatory evidence to the DA in a trial, so that the case can be prosecuted legally. And it's a major mistake to believe that Stowe's accusations that the TBI was hiding evidence were made as a statement that what they were doing was allowable or legal - it was a shot at them that they were doing things NOT allowed, and has potentially opened the door for him to be put on the stand by the defense and forced to explain these (alleged by Stowe) "failures to perform their duties" and illegalities by TBI in evidence handling in this case.

 

[~n/t~]

Do we have any verified lawyers at WS? Perhaps they can clear this up for us. Just a suggestion.

 

[pearl]

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Article the eighth... In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.

To be blunt here and no disrespect meant to whomever may disagree, enough said. TBI are definitely "witnesses against him" and must provide their evidence if it is to be used in court. If it is not to be used in court and is exculpatory, it has to be given to the defense. If it was taken during a search warrant, it was listed as taken even if it turned out to be useless to the prosecution. It would still have to be accounted for if the defense requests it. Anything the TBI touches, reads, or whatever, must be accounted for.

 

[jggordo]

I believe some of the statements allegedly made by Stowe said that looking at the case and files that the criminals were "one step ahead" of the TBI and that evidence had been "covered up" IIRC. This "opinion" and these statements were revealed to the media by the TBI, not Stowe. It seems to me that if those files and evidence were released to the defense attorneys they could surmise their own opinions as to their contents and call the TBI into question as investigators. To call Stowe as a witness to me would not help their cause as it is only his "opinion" as to the contents. HE was not the investigator. It appears to me to be "grandstanding" by a defense team to take the eyes off the ball.

With Parsons and Decatur being small rural towns and County I don't believe they have any local resources of criminal labs or investigators and rely substantially on the TBI in cases such as this. For anyone within the TBI to publicly admit that their creditability is in question by a Prosecutor is a HUGE mistake, and for the TBI themselves to reveal it is even a BIGGER mistake. There appears to be a personality conflict between the two and the Prosecutor has gotten sandbagged.

If I were the District Attorney I would be asking the FBI and the DOJ for help instead of "walking away". It appears to me that local and trust has been violated and therefor Federal DOJ should intervene as the FBI has been involved in the searches as well. When the County and State functions do not seem to work properly that is what the DOJ is for.

It would be interesting to know the sentence JA is serving for the Federal charges and how long it is. What percentage does he have to serve on those and when he could potentially be out of prison.

JMO's

 

[Chainsaw385]

While researching this discovery issue I am left with a question.

Are the notes detectives make for themselves during the investigation available to the defense?.......if I understand it all correctly what is under the scope of discovery changes a bit from state to state.I know their reports are included in the discovery but my question is about the notes they keep to help them make those reports.

I have seen these notes from detectives used often in trials so obviously those particular notes would have been part of the discovery ....but are these notes available to the defense even if they are not going to be introduced by the prosecution?

While looking at the Tenn. laws of discovery ......I would have to say notes are not part of the discovery unless used in the trial......but I am not completely sure about this.

 

[SteveS]

While researching this discovery issue I am left with a question.

Are the notes detectives make for themselves during the investigation available to the defense?.......if I understand it all correctly what is under the scope of discovery changes a bit from state to state.I know their reports are included in the discovery but my question is about the notes they keep to help them make those reports.

I have seen these notes from detectives used often in trials so obviously those particular notes would have been part of the discovery ....but are these notes available to the defense even if they are not going to be introduced by the prosecution?

While looking at the Tenn. laws of discovery ......I would have to say notes are not part of the discovery unless used in the trial......but I am not completely sure about this.

Investigator "notes" are a tricky topic to address.

Some are specifically excluded from being discoverable (those which pertain to analysis, esp the plans and thoughts that LE is using to put the case together for trial). But in principle, any notes that an investigator for LE has used to record evidence should be open to demand.

Perhaps.

LE is only required to turn over evidence, not every form of the same evidence. The bottom line point is that there should not be anything within the notes, in the recording of evidence, that doesn't get forwarded as to content. So maybe LE turns over notes in cursive writing, and creates a challenge to decipher, but probably not.

Also, imo it's legally possible that original notes don't even still exist when a case gets to discovery. I'd say they can legitimately be written on the go, then later logged into a report or into some sort of permanent file, with the info fleshed out as needed, and then the original scrawled handwriting be destroyed once their purpose - to allow a report and evidence to be remembered, until recorded - has been achieved. If investigators always destroy the original handwritten notes, it avoids any potential conflict/questions and also forces them to make sure and put all the info into a more permanent form while it's all fresh in their mind.

As a defense attorney, I would prefer to have both, and look for a conflict. As LE, I would prefer there only be one record. I suspect guidelines vary from one jurisdiction to another, and maybe even from one investigator to another.