Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #7

[Mightymight]

Nope. It doesn't create any problems, provided that he was told his rights to have an attorney by LE beforehand. If he waives those rights, or otherwise chooses to talk to them without his lawyer present, then he does not have those Miranda protections. Remember, the stuff that he would have been telling them in his mind would not have involved him as a guilty party, he would have been "informing". You don't need a lawyer for that. It isn't unusual for LE to offer people the opportunity to turn in bigger fish in exchange for going easy on them prior to laying charges. This happens all the time when people get picked up in possession of drugs. LE try to get them to entrap their dealer, and in exchange they get to go free. I imagine that he would have been in that sort of a situation. He got picked up for something else and the topic of his brother's potential involvement in the HB case came up. Something along the lines of "we will put in a good word for you, or maybe turn a blind eye, if you happen to be able to help us with this other case", and things go from there. That might have appealed to him if he didn't particularly care for his brother, which he apparently didn't. Lawyers are generally not involved in those sorts of pre arrest arrangements since the snitch is acting as an informant. Usually a lawyer gets involved in the deal only after a full arrest and charges being laid, and the offer of co-operation takes place within a formal framework. SA had a deal like that, but DA clearly did not, so the mechanism and circumstances under which they came to be cooperating with LE were different.

Provided he is of sound mind, he is legally capable of making those decisions himself.

And in case you have forgotten, when he was first arrested on charges relating to the case, the basis for the arrest was specifically a result of things that he TOLD the TBI during interviews. So he did not have a lawyer handling this for him, he was doing it himself. There is no assumption about it.

Let's stop dealing with hypothetical scenarios when we know answers.

http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news/2014/09/22/john-dylan-adams-arraigned-in-bobo-case/16048491/

The above link, dated 22-SEP-2014, says DA was appointed a public defender, Matthew Maddox. At the time DA was charged with tampering with evidence ONLY. This was before the incriminating statements were made that helped indite him on Murder 1. So lets stop with the smoke and mirrors of saying DA might have said this or that because he didn't have an attorney. The fact is that he DID have an attorney. Yes, he had the RIGHT to an attorney, but he also ACTUALLY HAD an attorney.

I have a criminal brother. Oh and did I mention that he has taken multiple plea and immunity deals? Based on the deals he has received in the past, I believe I have a pretty good understanding of how the system works, specifically in TN. This scenario you continue to propose is simply not possible. Please stop pushing this dream. I would also like you to review the "thanks" you have received over your last few posts. I assume the lack of thanks to your posts is indicative of the lack of people agreeing with your point of view.

My rant is over, but I hope we can agree to disagree on this and move on.

 

[DexterMorgan]

Idk. But didn't they offer another guy a deal and then pulled it and then he killed himself. Didnt he have a lawyer who helped get the deal. But the prosecution later pulled it because of information that the guy either left out or wasn’t truthful about?

Idk. But I think the prosecution should have waited to pull his deal until after convictions were made on the others. Jmo.

But now it's too late. And his statements before death won't seem as credible. Because he can't be cross examined by the defense.

So his statements may not be allowed in the long run. Idk

 

[Mightymight]

Idk. But didn't they offer another guy a deal and then pulled it and then he killed himself. Didnt he have a lawyer who helped get the deal. But the prosecution later pulled it because of information that the guy either left out or wasn’t truthful about?

Idk. But I think the prosecution should have waited to pull his deal until after convictions were made on the others. Jmo.

But now it's too late. And his statements before death won't seem as credible. Because he can't be cross examined by the defense.

So his statements may not be allowed in the long run. Idk

The deal stated the following, among other contingencies,

"In exchange for the total cooperation of Shayne Kyle Austin, the State agrees to grant him immunity for all charges arising out of the disposal, destruction, burial, and/or concealment of Holly Bobo's deceased body, conditioned upon him assisting us in recovering the body of Holly Lynn Bobo."

and

"This agreement is conditioned upon the body of Holly Lynn Bobo being recovered from the site or location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; there being clear evidence that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; and/or there being no credible evidence that negates the fat that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previoslyu present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin."

Granted, this is an assumption, but I assume he violated these provisions. This assumption is based on the fact that the body was body was not found until a number of months later. The deal was not pulled, it was breached by SA.

 

[DexterMorgan]

The deal stated the following, among other contingencies,

"In exchange for the total cooperation of Shayne Kyle Austin, the State agrees to grant him immunity for all charges arising out of the disposal, destruction, burial, and/or concealment of Holly Bobo's deceased body, conditioned upon him assisting us in recovering the body of Holly Lynn Bobo."

and

"This agreement is conditioned upon the body of Holly Lynn Bobo being recovered from the site or location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; there being clear evidence that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; and/or there being no credible evidence that negates the fat that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previoslyu present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin."

Granted, this is an assumption, but I assume he violated these provisions. This assumption is based on the fact that the body was body was not found until a number of months later. The deal was not pulled, it was breached by SA.

Thanks for the clarity. He must have been stalling until he got up enough courage to kill himself before getting locked back up. Idk

 

[~n/t~]

Hence the "unlikely" bit.

Chainsaw's guess that he would take the stand "because" he had given interview and written letters. My point was that it was unlikely. Do you think that Chainsaw is probably correct, or that I am probably correct?

I'm not taking sides. I believe the point was made that if he shoots off his mouth by giving interviews and writing letters to the media, it appears, he likes the spotlight and wants the public to know "his" side of the story....so the likelihood of JA taking the stand is plausible. Of course his attorneys will convince him not to BUT I would have thought they would have told him to not talk to the media either but guess what? He did. So, it's anyone's guess at this point whether or not he will take the stand. I think he will want to convince the jury of his innocence by his own voice. That's the type of character I see in him

 

[SteveS]

The absurd theory being proposed about DA testifying wasn't just about DA having a deal to testify or not, but it was also that such a deal was
a - under the table,
b - not in writing,
c - not under the oversight of DA's attorney to protect his rights even after it was made,
d - includes a plan for both DA and LE to lie about its existence when he testifies,
e - includes the idea that DA's reward for talking is entirely contingent on whether JA and ZA are convicted or not - in other words, DA being incentivized to try to convince the jury in whatever way he possibly can.

That theory is nuts, pure and simple. Such a deal would get people disbarred and get convictions set aside, and more. Ain't happenin'.

 

[Chainsaw385]

I'm not taking sides. I believe the point was made that if he shoots off his mouth by giving interviews and writing letters to the media, it appears, he likes the spotlight and wants the public to know "his" side of the story....so the likelihood of JA taking the stand is plausible. Of course his attorneys will convince him not to BUT I would have thought they would have told him to not talk to the media either but guess what? He did. So, it's anyone's guess at this point whether or not he will take the stand. I think he will want to convince the jury of his innocence by his own voice. That's the type of character I see in him

We are both looking at this issue the same way........I get the feeling JA thinks he can talk his way out of this.I am basing my thoughts on his video interview and letter writing.

If the prosecutions case is weak and his attorney can convince him that it would be better to not take the stand and open himself to cross he probably won't ......I can certainly understand this weather JA is innocent or guilty.The prosecution could hammer on something like a lack of alibi (if JA doesn't have one) and make it look bad even if he was completely innocent.This is why weather a suspect takes the stand in their own defense or not is not a sign of guilt or innocence.

I'm sure many of us here have followed or read up on cases where the attorney advised strongly against the suspect taking the stand but they did anyhow to disastrous effects.

I will not argue one way or the other about JA taking the stand.There are just to many variables left to be determined. And their plan they have of him testifying or not today may change once the trial progresses .....but a poster asked for peoples thoughts on this ....so I gave mine.

Sadly another person took it for more then it was worth........and is trying to turn it into an argument that at this point is pure silliness.

 

[DexterMorgan]

I'm not taking sides. I believe the point was made that if he shoots off his mouth by giving interviews and writing letters to the media, it appears, he likes the spotlight and wants the public to know "his" side of the story....so the likelihood of JA taking the stand is plausible. Of course his attorneys will convince him not to BUT I would have thought they would have told him to not talk to the media either but guess what? He did. So, it's anyone's guess at this point whether or not he will take the stand. I think he will want to convince the jury of his innocence by his own voice. That's the type of character I see in him

Guys like that usually want sick female fan mail while in prison. They usually know that the jig is up. But causes enough attention to get a bored sugar mamma or 2 to write them and send them money. Jmo

Narcissistic people can't help themselves. They think they get prison bragging rights about gullible women that they coerce to visit them and give them money and sneak in contraband. Jmo

So I think his media seeking attention could have other means besides the I'm here to help the state. Lol

 

[SteveS]

Conjugal Confessions
"The narcissistic boasts of accused criminals"

Sounds like the makings of a new TV show!

 

[DexterMorgan]

Conjugal Confessions
"The narcissistic boasts of accused criminals"

Sounds like the makings of a new TV show!

From my opinion. The guy who can bring in more money to the prison will always be protected by certain gangs.


Especially since. Money talks while serving a hefty prison sentence. Jmo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The deal stated the following, among other contingencies,

"In exchange for the total cooperation of Shayne Kyle Austin, the State agrees to grant him immunity for all charges arising out of the disposal, destruction, burial, and/or concealment of Holly Bobo's deceased body, conditioned upon him assisting us in recovering the body of Holly Lynn Bobo."

and

"This agreement is conditioned upon the body of Holly Lynn Bobo being recovered from the site or location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; there being clear evidence that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin; and/or there being no credible evidence that negates the fat that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previoslyu present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin."

Granted, this is an assumption, but I assume he violated these provisions. This assumption is based on the fact that the body was body was not found until a number of months later. The deal was not pulled, it was breached by SA.

Thank you MM.

BBM

Maybe this is standard wording used in such cases like this involving an immunity deal but for some reason the specific word 'destruction' gives me pause. It seems to imply the TBI/DA believed at the time or had been told that Holly may have been dismembered even possibly her head decapitated after death. Or even her body thrown in a fire and the bones were crushed. Maybe that is why they only supposedly found her head under the bucket. I would think the DA would make the agreement 'word specific' to the case in which he is giving the immunity deal.

Another thing I noticed from your very informative post is they gave him a chance to still get immunity even if her body wasn't located where he may have told them she was put. From your post: there being clear evidence that Holly Lynn Bobo's deceased body was previously present at the location indicated by Shayne Kyle Austin. So it seems he certainly failed to live up to his part of the agreement.

Didn't this immunity deal come about after ZA had already been arrested? I remember when the discussion was going on about the three day extensive search of the Adams property and there was mention they were looking at an old well or it may have been two wells and one had a deeper shaft than the other one. One was abandoned from what I recall. So that couldn't be where he told them her body was located because they would already know that she wasn't there.

Even when bodies have been relocated to another location soil samples are taken at the empty burial location to determine if a human body had been placed there before and of course they have cadaver dogs as well who have found bodies who had been buried for many years. Occasionally the forensic experts will discover through soil samples the body was at a particular location at one time but was moved. Some have even found hair of the victim/teeth/jewelry but the body had been moved.

So it seems they had a suspicion or perhaps knowledge by then the A-Train was moving Holly's remains around.

SA had to be lying about his own involvement if he wasn't straight up with them after them agreeing to give him immunity in such a serious case. There would be no other reason for him to lie. He had every reason to tell the truth IF he had no involvement in the rape and murder of Holly. If he did pretend to say Holly was here >>>>etc. but when she wasn't there I guess he told them the A-Train must have moved her thinking they would just accept that and not do any forensic testing at the location he showed them.

I think he killed himself because he knew the DA would be able to prove to the Judge he had lied therefore his immunity deal would become null and void. Imo, he thought he was going to be charged along with the rest.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

Imo, he thought he was going to be charged along with the rest.

Unlikely. SA was never accused of, nor admitted to, nor asked for or obtained immunity (even on a temporary basis) from, any crime against Holly. And clearly they had no evidence of anything, as he was never arrested (just idle and unfulfilled threats lasting almost a year). Everything discussed in the immunity deal pertained to things supposedly known and done by SA after her death.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Unlikely. SA was never accused of, nor admitted to, nor asked for or obtained immunity (even on a temporary basis) from, any crime against Holly. And clearly they had no evidence of anything, as he was never arrested (just idle and unfulfilled threats lasting almost a year). Everything discussed in the immunity deal pertained to things supposedly known and done by SA after her death.

Parts of this I have to disagree with

SA and his attorney had filed a breech of contract suit against the state in civil court......also they filed a motion in criminal court blocking the state from seeking an indictment against SA.

Here is a link detailing the ruling in the civil case,which the judge ruled she didn't have jurisdiction to make a decision and sent it to criminal court instead. http://www.waff.com/story/25616241/holly-bobo-murder-case-returns-to-court

These were not idle threats to revoke his immunity.They were in the process of fighting in court to indict him for some type of crimes related to the Holly Bobo case.If I can be shown where SA could have been indicted before rulings by a judge were made in these court cases (especially the motion to block any indictment) I will stand corrected.

Neither the breech of contract nor the motion to block any indictment had been ruled on at the time of SA's death......so it appears to me until a ruling was made that he had violated his immunity deal.SA couldn't be indicted.

As a side note ....I agree that his suicide could be related to his immunity deal being revoked but he was also a junkie and they commit suicide for many various reasons.Without a suicide note we may never know for sure.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Didn't this immunity deal come about after ZA had already been arrested? I remember when the discussion was going on about the three day extensive search of the Adams property and there was mention they were looking at an old well or it may have been two wells and one had a deeper shaft than the other one. One was abandoned from what I recall. So that couldn't be where he told them her body was located because they would already know that she wasn't there.

3 weeks

I am just going by memory alone......not sure if I read this exact figure or put it together myself thru a timeline.

But if my memory serves me correctly + or - a day or two and 3 weeks should be pretty close to the time after ZA was arrested and SA signed his immunity deal.

 

[Chainsaw385]

3 weeks

I am just going by memory alone......not sure if I read this exact figure or put it together myself thru a timeline.

But if my memory serves me correctly + or - a day or two and 3 weeks should be pretty close to the time after ZA was arrested and SA signed his immunity deal.

I just watched an old video about SA and in that it says 1 week after ZA was indicted he was granted immunity.......so disregard my 3 weeks

 

[SteveS]

Parts of this I have to disagree with

SA and his attorney had filed a breech of contract suit against the state in civil court......also they filed a motion in criminal court blocking the state from seeking an indictment against SA.

Here is a link detailing the ruling in the civil case,which the judge ruled she didn't have jurisdiction to make a decision and sent it to criminal court instead. http://www.waff.com/story/25616241/holly-bobo-murder-case-returns-to-court

These were not idle threats to revoke his immunity.They were in the process of fighting in court to indict him for some type of crimes related to the Holly Bobo case.If I can be shown where SA could have been indicted before rulings by a judge were made in these court cases (especially the motion to block any indictment) I will stand corrected.

Neither the breech of contract nor the motion to block any indictment had been ruled on at the time of SA's death......so it appears to me until a ruling was made that he had violated his immunity deal.SA couldn't be indicted.

As a side note ....I agree that his suicide could be related to his immunity deal being revoked but he was also a junkie and they commit suicide for many various reasons.Without a suicide note we may never know for sure.

You can disagree, but respectfully, you are wrong. The civil suit was adjudicated and over in short order (as I recall, June 2014), and nothing prevented LE from arresting and charging SA at anytime thereafter. (In essence, the ruling by the judge was that the issue of whether he had immunity or not was one to be settled if he was ever arrested, in conjunction with that case. The judge, a civil judge, indicated that it was a case for criminal court, in essence a shorthand to make it part of any arrest, since SA could not file a lawsuit in criminal court to prevent an arrest.) So from that point until his death almost a year later, LE claimed they were going to arrest him shortly, and held that invisible sword over his head as a continuous threat and intimidation tactic, and could have done so from the instant the judge ruled, but never acted at all.

In addition, the idea they were wanting to charge him with "crimes related to Holly" is not correct, because factually he was never claiming/admitting to have been involved in any of those crimes, nor was he granted any immunity from any of them at any point. I've read the immunity agreement, and it's very explicit. IOW, if they had evidence he was involved in kidnapping, rape, murder, etc, or anything against Holly during her lifetime, the immunity agreement itself said they could arrest him for those and for anything else he had told them. His immunity was only for crimes of involvement or knowledge regarding a disposal of a body, and his information was to tell them what happened to it and who else was involved. Part of his immunity deal was to shield him from prosecution on some sort of drug-related stuff, as well as on the disposal stuff.

 

[Chainsaw385]

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/24/us/holly-bobo-case-suicide/

"As a result, Evans filed a civil breach of contract suit against the state, asking the court to enforce the immunity deal as well as a restraining order to prevent the state from further attempts at indictment. That case is pending in circuit court, Evans said."

This is dated 2-24-15 the same time as SA's suicide.....and also gives a little more detail about the restraining order they had filed to stop the process of indicting SA.

I doubt the breech of contract suit could keep them from seeking an indictment but the restraining order is sounds like did.As I said if you can show me proof that LE could have legally charged and indicted him before these lawsuits were settled.I will stand corrected.... until then it is just your opinion and my links that the prosecution was fighting in court to try and proceed with an indictment trumps your opinion and shows it was it not idle threats.

 

[SteveS]

Chainsaw, I stand corrected somewhat. Thanks for adding to my knowledge on this case

Yes the original lawsuit was indeed adjudicated, which was generally reported by news people without recognition that it was a dismissal. The following note is typical - "A judge ruled that Austin's lawsuit did not belong in chancery court because it was not the correct forum to address an immunity agreement in a criminal case" - and is indicative of a dismissal. The judicial reasoning ("wrong venue") dismisses it in regards to that wrong venue, and it's solely up to the plaintiff involved as to whether they want to file another lawsuit that is in the proper venue.

However, at the time of dismissal of lawsuit 1 and in the weeks thereafter, I never saw anything saying they had refiled elsewhere, until looking today at this note about SA's suicide which says: "Evans then filed another breach of contract lawsuit in circuit court in Decatur County." http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...15/02/27/shayne-austin-found-hanged/24115817/

So one lawsuit was ended at the end of May. But yep, another had been filed at some unknown and unreported later point. Thanks.

However, most of the rest of what I noted still would be true. To clarify:

1 The state could have charged him at any time.
2 There was no restraining order issued. Just made a request for one. You don't file a RO, instead you ask a judge for one and then wait to see what he says.
3 While awaiting the results of a TRO or RO request, there is no legal requirement for the (potentially) to-be-restrained party to wait and see if they have been restrained in advance, and indeed until and unless a TRO or RO is issued, they remain free to act and render the request moot.
4 Nor was there any ruling telling LE they could not charge SA, only a lawsuit filed requesting a trial to argue for it.
5 My personal opinion is that the request was going to sit unheard until there was a reason to hear it, ie only if and when SA had been actually charged with a crime covered by the immunity agreement. While I think that is a due process violation, it appears to me that SA had been put in that box by LE who felt they could get away with it and didn't really care if it was unfair.
6 In addition, and most importantly, the fact remains that the immunity agreement (or any related TRO, RO, ruling etc) would never have had any bearing whatsoever on SA's being charged with any crimes against Holly - kidnapping, rape, murder, etc. It only would have (potentially) protected against relatively minor offenses, which would be things done to a dead body after it was dead, plus certain unrelated drug issues.

IMO from a practical and prosecutorial standpoint, if the state had felt SA to be involved with the others in crimes against Holly, he would undoubtedly have been tossed into the same defendant pile with the others right up front. They wouldn't have let him walk the streets in such a situation. And I see no reason to think LE had their case-strategy ducks in a row from the outset, to have separated him out of the group of actors in these crimes, unless they simply didn't think he was involved in those things.

 

[SteveS]

One other thing I noticed in looking back at the SA situation.

Apparently LE tried multiple times ("at least twice" per his attorney in an interview with CNN at the time of the suicide) to get a grand jury to indict SA. So we can conclude that the evidence was lacking and the GJ had no-billed the attempt(s), up to the point of his suicide. But it doesn't mean they wouldn't have tried again, of course.

The following quote, from an interview with People magazine, offers a bit more of his assertions on LE's ongoing actions, which he characterized as "threats" being made "continually": "[Shayne] provided his full cooperation to the government at every turn and he was absolutely just torn up that he had been included in a group of people that allegedly had something to do with what happened to Holly Bobo. I would call it a witch hunt where it appears that the investigators allowed the rumor mill to drive their investigation instead of relying on evidence and facts. After all of that, to have the government continually make threats of charging him – that would have taken a toll on anyone."

 

[Tugela]

Parts of this I have to disagree with

SA and his attorney had filed a breech of contract suit against the state in civil court......also they filed a motion in criminal court blocking the state from seeking an indictment against SA.

Here is a link detailing the ruling in the civil case,which the judge ruled she didn't have jurisdiction to make a decision and sent it to criminal court instead. http://www.waff.com/story/25616241/holly-bobo-murder-case-returns-to-court

These were not idle threats to revoke his immunity.They were in the process of fighting in court to indict him for some type of crimes related to the Holly Bobo case.If I can be shown where SA could have been indicted before rulings by a judge were made in these court cases (especially the motion to block any indictment) I will stand corrected.

Neither the breech of contract nor the motion to block any indictment had been ruled on at the time of SA's death......so it appears to me until a ruling was made that he had violated his immunity deal.SA couldn't be indicted.

As a side note ....I agree that his suicide could be related to his immunity deal being revoked but he was also a junkie and they commit suicide for many various reasons.Without a suicide note we may never know for sure.

His deal covered charges unrelated to the HB case as well, which were waived in return for his cooperation. When or if the deal was voided, those charges would have been reinstated, and it was THAT prospect that his attorney was fighting to avoid.

The prosecutors were not the ones going to court to get the deal overturned, they had only threatened to void it. SA's attorneys filed suit to prevent them from doing that or violating the terms of the agreement.

There is no question that whatever he told them could not be corroborated, otherwise the prosecutor would not have been publically threatening to void the deal. If his allegations were true, the deal would be legally enforceable and inviolate, so they would have no motivation to even try to void it. Plus, they would need him as a witness in the trial, and trying to renege on the deal after he helped them would not make him a particularly friendly witness.