DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,480
- Reaction score
- 10,103
They gave him immunity. Found parts of the body. Then revoked his immunity after his information paid off . Thats crazy.
Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #7
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
- Status
They gave him immunity. Found parts of the body. Then revoked his immunity after his information paid off . Thats crazy.
They would have charged him with crimes relating to the HB case after it became clear that whatever he was telling them either was clearly at odds with the evidence, or he was continually changing his version of events. If he was their primary witness that the other two were involved in the crime, they would not be able to go to court like that since he would probably be unreliable on the stand (and they had no way of keeping him on message). They would have charged him with crimes related to the HB case on the basis of his initial statements to them, using the argument that he was guilty by association. By doing that they would be able to admit his original statements as evidence and would not have to use him as a witness (as a result of the hearsay exception that kicks in under those circumstances). Then the reliability of his testimony on the stand would cease to be an issue. I must have explained this a dozen times already, but you still refuse to listen.
By separating the cases, and having him be tried afterwards, they can use him on the stand, and accept his version as truthful, PROVIDED he says exactly what he said in his original statement. If he doesn't, and the other two are acquitted because he is seen to be lying on the stand, or otherwise not credible, well, then his trial comes later and that will not be an issue because they will use his statements only, not his testimony. If he wants to avoid that fate, then he better be damned sure that he sticks to the message the prosecutor wants to hear. Again, this has been explained over and over and over.
In his own trial the prosecutor does not have to prove that his statements are correct, only that he made them, and made them freely at a time when he reasonably would not be lying. It would essentially be treated as a confession of involvement, with the level of full involvement left out - but that does not matter UNLESS he gives a "full" account in the first trial and it is accepted as truthful. They would combine those statements with the fact that HB was indeed abducted and indeed murdered, and then he will be convicted. They don't need more than that. The ONLY way out for DA now is if he testifies in the trial of the other two, and they are convicted as a result. If he can't do that, his goose is cooked and he is going to the chair.
There is no deal. There will be no deal. What will happen is that DA will spontaneously do what they want him to do to save his own skin. For the prosecution the final step in all of these legal maneuverings is to get his trial separated from that of the other two, if they can do that then they will seal the deal for the case even if they have little evidence outside of DA's allegations. That is how the law works.
Except that the body WASN'T found with his information. It was found by accident by hunters who stumbled on it much later.
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,480
- Reaction score
- 10,103
How long from deal date to stumble recovery?
Around 6 months. And the discovery was not made by LE but rather by ginseng hunters who happened to go past (what turned out to be) the body site when looking for ginseng.
Not exactly true.
LE did not threaten. Instead, they declared unilaterally, in writing, that they HAD VOIDED the deal. Whether they had or hadn't done so legally and enforceably was in dispute thereafter, but they were speaking and proceeding as if it was already voided.
It is factual they provided no specific justification, just the general declaration that SA had not performed and he was no longer immune. SA's resulting lawsuit against them was an attempt to force LE to get an independent party - a judge - to arbitrate whether SA had lived up to the agreement, seeking (1) LE's specific grounds for the voiding, or (2) absent there being legit and appropriate justification, for the court to require LE to provide the promised immunity.
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,480
- Reaction score
- 10,103
Wow. Ok. 6 months they let him lead them astray. Ok. I get it.
I'm just surprised that he didn't give them the exact location at first. He must have obviously been more involved in the torture part. Jmo
The concept that the state can have it both ways with DA is silly.
There's no way to cherry-pick things, if you're the prosecution, and think "the rest of the story" about DA can somehow go unnoticed in one trial or another. It sounds like a good scheme except there are two sides working the angles, not just 1. And the testimony DA gave in trial 1 under oath would be fair game for both prosecution AND defense to use in any later trial.
But most importantly, neither DA nor anyone else is going to testify to his own capital-punishable culpability in any trial without a deal in hand. Why would they? Serve their own hide on a platter to the state, without reason? No way. Prior statements, no matter how damning they may seem on paper, are not as compelling as what is said in court, so DA would have no incentive to testify in ANY trial to his own involvement in any crime (and truly seal his fate) without a deal in place that limits his downside. And besides, I have no doubt that the state wants JA and ZA to hang or be put away for life way more than DA, who they'd see as a relatively-minor character in any misdeeds by this gang. DA may not be smart enough to demand a written deal prior to his taking the stand, but his atty would.
It wasn't like that at all. He apparently didn't know the location, and told them something else.
They did a deal. He told them what he knew, thought he knew, or claimed to know. It was apparently info on where he had seen her being disposed of. Maybe he lied, maybe he was mistaken, or he may have told them the truth and then she was moved later without him knowing where. They checked it out immediately, and obviously didn't find her there, nor could they find anything (or maybe they didn't try, who knows) to support his story of her having been put there at some point ...so they told him the deal is off.
The whole immunity deal, from start to finish, was only a few weeks. Maybe 2-3. Then about 6 weeks of wrangling over whether they still had a deal or not, ending with a judge telling them to go elsewhere. And then nothing happened that we heard of. That was late May/early June. SA wasn't locked up or charged, in fact wasn't heard from (or about) again until his death the next spring.
Lots of other drama occurred in the summer. Pearcy bros made the news amid lots of smoke but no apparent substance. Judge demanded the state provide disclosure which they didn't do. Election of a new DA. Some partial discovery provided, deadlines missed repeatedly.
And then in mid-Sep, HB's body was found by accident. Not by LE. Not by SA.
DexterMorgan
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2014
- Messages
- 8,480
- Reaction score
- 10,103
Well usually a deal is based off what you know and could prove. Similar to reward money.
So I don't blame them for pulling the deal if his information didn't pan out. Jmo.
Chainsaw385
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 0
Are you seriously now trying to say the prosecution does not have to prove it's case against DA?
DA's statements are lies he made up to get himself out of other charges........but this is the only evidence they have to get any convictions....these lies will be enough anyhow to earn convictions against ZA and JA,even though there is not any evidence what so ever to back up anything DA said.......DA has some type of under the table deal that is going to be kept from the defense,jury and judge........nothing is going to seem amiss when DA is left out of prison for time served instead of facing Murder 1 and the death penalty......and NOW if DA does not play along and testify he will be convicted on these lies alone because the prosecution does not have to prove his case only that he confessed.
Too bad the prosecutors in Colorado didn't know all this or they could gotten a conviction in the JonBenet Ramsey case when that creepy school teacher guy confessed.
This whole theory you are still trying to pass off is turning into sheer insanity the more desperate you get trying to defend it....Please,move on
Chainsaw385
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 0
I am not disagreeing with the above but rather have some questions about how a restraining order would work in this situation.I understand how one works in a more conventional abuse setting but am confused how this one was playing out.I have done some looking around but can't seem to find anything related to the situation between SA and Tenn that they were in before his death left it unresolved in court.
My questions will be more geared to what I know about a restraining order and how they usually work and the answers I am looking for are how and why they would be different in this scenari
nce again I am not making an argument just trying to better understand what exactly was going on.1)........once this motion for a restraining order was filed wouldn't the defendant(LE) be served a notice telling them of the filling and given an order to cease and desist of certain actions....until a hearing was held and a judge made a ruling.
2)........since LE publicly stated they would give Evans a courtesy call when they indicted his client and this was the basis for the restraining order wouldn't this bump it into an emergency status which usually requires a hearing within 10 days.
3).....If they went ahead and got a indictment and then later a ruling about the restraining order was made favorable for SA.Clearly that indictment would be tossed and wouldn't this create huge problems if they ever tried to indict him again?
.....for example they wanted to indict him for disposing of Holly's body and they went ahead and got this indictment....the court upheld the restraining order later and tossed the indictment.Wouldn't it be much harder to then re-indict him rather then wait and even if the court upheld this restraining motion try and get it reversed before seeking an indictment.
#3 is a rather confusing question......basically I am asking if they got an indictment and then later the restraining order was imposed could the judge in his ruling make that certain one or any further indictments against SA for that crime or any of the ones covered under his immunity deal impossible?
My questions will be more geared to what I know about a restraining order and how they usually work and the answers I am looking for are how and why they would be different in this scenari
1)........once this motion for a restraining order was filed wouldn't the defendant(LE) be served a notice telling them of the filling and given an order to cease and desist of certain actions....until a hearing was held and a judge made a ruling.
2)........since LE publicly stated they would give Evans a courtesy call when they indicted his client and this was the basis for the restraining order wouldn't this bump it into an emergency status which usually requires a hearing within 10 days.
3).....If they went ahead and got a indictment and then later a ruling about the restraining order was made favorable for SA.Clearly that indictment would be tossed and wouldn't this create huge problems if they ever tried to indict him again?
.....for example they wanted to indict him for disposing of Holly's body and they went ahead and got this indictment....the court upheld the restraining order later and tossed the indictment.Wouldn't it be much harder to then re-indict him rather then wait and even if the court upheld this restraining motion try and get it reversed before seeking an indictment.
#3 is a rather confusing question......basically I am asking if they got an indictment and then later the restraining order was imposed could the judge in his ruling make that certain one or any further indictments against SA for that crime or any of the ones covered under his immunity deal impossible?
"1)........once this motion for a restraining order was filed wouldn't the defendant(LE) be served a notice telling them of the filling and given an order to cease and desist of certain actions....until a hearing was held and a judge made a ruling."
Nope. What is filed is a REQUEST for a restraining order, and it's up to the judge as to how to respond. Only if and when a judge actually APPROVES the request for a RO can there be any forced restraint of action, with a cease and desist. But many more ROs are requested than granted.
Keep in mind that a RO is a short-circuit of the normal system. "Normal" is that you are damaged, and then you go to court to ask to be made whole for that damage. But an RO asks the court to stop something before the decision on the lawsuit is made, with it being essentially a statement that irreparable harm is being done, that cannot be remedied even if you win the lawsuit, and therefore you request that the harmful act be prevented. A court, in approving a RO, would have decided that you indeed have a reasonably good chance of winning your lawsuit when it is fully heard, and that there is indeed the potential for irreparable damage if the RO is not issued.
"2)........since LE publicly stated they would give Evans a courtesy call when they indicted his client and this was the basis for the restraining order wouldn't this bump it into an emergency status which usually requires a hearing within 10 days."
One man's "emergency status" is another's "no biggie." The court decides which is which, not the requestor. Given the fact that no hearing was held on the request for a RO despite the passing of almost a year, the court clearly was treating this as a non-emergency.
"3).....If they went ahead and got a indictment and then later a ruling about the restraining order was made favorable for SA.Clearly that indictment would be tossed and wouldn't this create huge problems if they ever tried to indict him again?
#3 is a rather confusing question......basically I am asking if they got an indictment and then later the restraining order was imposed could the judge in his ruling make that certain one or any further indictments against SA for that crime or any of the ones covered under his immunity deal impossible?"
Ye. And in fact this may have been somewhat of how the court was proceeding. That is, only if/when SA was indicted and arrested would there be reason to hear the issue of whether immunity existed, and if it was decided that it did exist, then it would prevent further indictments and charges in the area(s) covered by the immunity.In a way, by its inaction, the court was "ruling" that SA's worry over being indicted was not something to prevent, and he'd just have to grow up and live with the possibility until he was either charged or the SOL ran out.
I feel like tugela is technically correct in that the State doesn't have to prove that DA's former statements were true, only that he made them, but what in the world would be the point of that? If DA's statements aren't true, that doesn't give a great message to the jury regarding DA's credibility. If the State plans on using DA to convict ZA/JA, then they have to convince the jury he's credible and they should believe him. If they plan to introduce statements made by him that they can't prove are true, then his credibility is essential. Why should the jury the believe his testimony w.o anything to corroborate it?
As far as him testifying to his own culpability w.o a deal in place, I completely agree that it's insane, particularly w. this being a capital case. His attorney's job is to provide a defense and protect his interests, what would be the benefit of him testifying w.o a deal in place? I can't wrap my head around the idea that DA has to play along w. the prosecution and stay on message or they'll sink him at his own trial later. That's the exact reason he has an attorney- to make sure that doesn't happen.
If I remember correctly, DA has already told his family the confession was coerced, or at least hinted at that, correct? If that's what DA is going with now, I can't see him being a cooperative witness w.o a deal in place. If he's denying involvement and saying the confession is coerced, putting him on the stand won't look great for the prosecution, because he'd have no reason to go along w. whatever message they want him to stick to if it is going to incriminate him. Steve is completely right in that courtroom testimony is much more compelling than prior statements. DA's prior statements are damning, but if what the jury sees is DA not agreeing with the prior statements, or giving conflicting statements on the stand, it makes the State's reliance on him as a witness questionable. If he's already saying that his confession was coerced and he wasn't involved w. Holly's kidnapping, rape, and murder, why would he testify anything different at ZA/JA's trial?
JMO, but if the State wants to make DA their star witness, they either better be able to corroborate his statements, or plan on giving him a deal, otherwise I can't see why he'd play nice with them when his own life is on the line. As I've said before, I hope the State has enough evidence that they don't have to use DA's confession or testimony to get convictions at all- I think DA has way too many credibility issues to be an asset to their case.
As far as him testifying to his own culpability w.o a deal in place, I completely agree that it's insane, particularly w. this being a capital case. His attorney's job is to provide a defense and protect his interests, what would be the benefit of him testifying w.o a deal in place? I can't wrap my head around the idea that DA has to play along w. the prosecution and stay on message or they'll sink him at his own trial later. That's the exact reason he has an attorney- to make sure that doesn't happen.
If I remember correctly, DA has already told his family the confession was coerced, or at least hinted at that, correct? If that's what DA is going with now, I can't see him being a cooperative witness w.o a deal in place. If he's denying involvement and saying the confession is coerced, putting him on the stand won't look great for the prosecution, because he'd have no reason to go along w. whatever message they want him to stick to if it is going to incriminate him. Steve is completely right in that courtroom testimony is much more compelling than prior statements. DA's prior statements are damning, but if what the jury sees is DA not agreeing with the prior statements, or giving conflicting statements on the stand, it makes the State's reliance on him as a witness questionable. If he's already saying that his confession was coerced and he wasn't involved w. Holly's kidnapping, rape, and murder, why would he testify anything different at ZA/JA's trial?
JMO, but if the State wants to make DA their star witness, they either better be able to corroborate his statements, or plan on giving him a deal, otherwise I can't see why he'd play nice with them when his own life is on the line. As I've said before, I hope the State has enough evidence that they don't have to use DA's confession or testimony to get convictions at all- I think DA has way too many credibility issues to be an asset to their case.
coeurfragile
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2011
- Messages
- 747
- Reaction score
- 50
Sorry to go off topic, but does anyone know when the next court hearing is in this case?
This link from late November 2015 states no trial date has been set (and likely won't be until 2017), but does not mention the next court date for the defendants. I'm just curious when some movement will happen.
http://wkrn.com/2015/11/18/status-hearing-in-holly-bobo-case-will-determine-trial-date/
ETA: I didn't check the stickies thread *doh*
It's March 2, 2016.
This link from late November 2015 states no trial date has been set (and likely won't be until 2017), but does not mention the next court date for the defendants. I'm just curious when some movement will happen.
http://wkrn.com/2015/11/18/status-hearing-in-holly-bobo-case-will-determine-trial-date/
ETA: I didn't check the stickies thread *doh*
It's March 2, 2016.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,947
:seeya: Correct ... the next Court Hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2016 @ 10:00 am ... and I can't wait :gaah: !
Also, here's the link to the Court Dates Thread here at WS -- even though not much activity lately -- but for future reference:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?245266-Court-case-dates-Holly-Bobo
:seeya:
Mr. Noatak
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2009
- Messages
- 530
- Reaction score
- 3
My opinions only, no facts here:
Yes, I have not posted here for many months, but only because NOTHING has changed from all of my prior opinions about this case, except the seemingly-infinite future trial date. Nothing is yet proven or dis-proven.
For newer posters at this thread, please read my detailed Holly Bobo timeline at: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...DiA-amp-TiMeLiNe-only!-*NO-DISCUSSION*/page15 (posts-215-216).
I learned a great deal from the multi-year construction of my detailed timeline, and I am not fully a part of the current status-quo opinion in this case. I possess no doubts that revenge will be obtained; but I am worried about the truth.
A good joke requires a punch-line. Even Albert Einstein said that a good joke should not be repeated too often. And a good story requires a point; a sensible motive for telling (see the movie Planes, Trains, and Automobiles).
Sleuth On!
Yes, I have not posted here for many months, but only because NOTHING has changed from all of my prior opinions about this case, except the seemingly-infinite future trial date. Nothing is yet proven or dis-proven.
For newer posters at this thread, please read my detailed Holly Bobo timeline at: http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...DiA-amp-TiMeLiNe-only!-*NO-DISCUSSION*/page15 (posts-215-216).
I learned a great deal from the multi-year construction of my detailed timeline, and I am not fully a part of the current status-quo opinion in this case. I possess no doubts that revenge will be obtained; but I am worried about the truth.
A good joke requires a punch-line. Even Albert Einstein said that a good joke should not be repeated too often. And a good story requires a point; a sensible motive for telling (see the movie Planes, Trains, and Automobiles).
Sleuth On!
Mightymight
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2014
- Messages
- 79
- Reaction score
- 1
Mr. Noatak, did you every post your 3rd (or 4th I can't remember) part of your story? I was looking forward to it, but I believe I missed it. If you did, can you link back to it? Thanks
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,689
I was thinking this morning about prior cases I have seen where the one/s actually involved in the murder itself took the stand to testify for the State. Off the top of my head I remember it happening in the Rabbi Neulander, James Sullivan, and Fred Tozar murder cases. All were capital murder cases and iirc all three received the death penalty.
The hit men were given sweetheart deals to testify against the masterminds. The DA told the jury about the deals that had been made.
Some even appeared in their orange jumpsuits when testifying. Of course it was up to each jury to either find each one credible or not. In each one the testimonies of the actual murderers themselves were believed by each jury even though they had a long criminal history. Of course the defense tried to imply they were all lying/not credible and only trying to save themselves. It didn't work however.
I also was thinking about cases that had remained unsolved for years....even longer than the three years it took in this case. In many of them when LE finally did a search warrant of the suspect/s home and property years later they found evidence to link the victim/s to the perpetrators when the murder was suppose to have occurred inside of one of their homes.
Over the years I have read extensively about how hard it really is to remove every bit of evidence even if the place was cleaned by the suspect/s. I remember one unsolved case where LE felt they knew who had murdered the victim but needed a link to the victim and the perpetrator and they went back and retested the shoes he was wearing. They found a teeny tiny speck of the victim's blood which had seeped down into the crease of the shoe even though he had attempted to clean them. That was all they needed to connect him to the murder and he was convicted.
So if the TBI has found anything of Holly in the Adams home/property such as hair with a root bulb attached they can match it to Holly or blood that may have been overlooked if it seeped down in between the tiles, hardwood sections, baseboards or carpet that looked clean on top to the naked eye but the blood was still on the bottom of the carpet unseen until ripped up.
I don't think by any means it will just be the testimony of DA that is going to put ZA&JA away. Even in the cases I listed above there were a lot of CE to support the testimony of the hit men in those case. I believe this case will also have a tremendous about of CE too.
I still don't think DA will testify since he has now been charged equally as the other two. That changing of charges tends to make me think the TBI has evidence now that links DA to the crime as much as the other two. No investigation ever stops after arrests have been made and it always continues. I even saw one case where a Judge allowed new evidence to be presented against the defendant in the middle of his trial because it just came to light at that time.
JMO
The hit men were given sweetheart deals to testify against the masterminds. The DA told the jury about the deals that had been made.
Some even appeared in their orange jumpsuits when testifying. Of course it was up to each jury to either find each one credible or not. In each one the testimonies of the actual murderers themselves were believed by each jury even though they had a long criminal history. Of course the defense tried to imply they were all lying/not credible and only trying to save themselves. It didn't work however.
I also was thinking about cases that had remained unsolved for years....even longer than the three years it took in this case. In many of them when LE finally did a search warrant of the suspect/s home and property years later they found evidence to link the victim/s to the perpetrators when the murder was suppose to have occurred inside of one of their homes.
Over the years I have read extensively about how hard it really is to remove every bit of evidence even if the place was cleaned by the suspect/s. I remember one unsolved case where LE felt they knew who had murdered the victim but needed a link to the victim and the perpetrator and they went back and retested the shoes he was wearing. They found a teeny tiny speck of the victim's blood which had seeped down into the crease of the shoe even though he had attempted to clean them. That was all they needed to connect him to the murder and he was convicted.
So if the TBI has found anything of Holly in the Adams home/property such as hair with a root bulb attached they can match it to Holly or blood that may have been overlooked if it seeped down in between the tiles, hardwood sections, baseboards or carpet that looked clean on top to the naked eye but the blood was still on the bottom of the carpet unseen until ripped up.
I don't think by any means it will just be the testimony of DA that is going to put ZA&JA away. Even in the cases I listed above there were a lot of CE to support the testimony of the hit men in those case. I believe this case will also have a tremendous about of CE too.
I still don't think DA will testify since he has now been charged equally as the other two. That changing of charges tends to make me think the TBI has evidence now that links DA to the crime as much as the other two. No investigation ever stops after arrests have been made and it always continues. I even saw one case where a Judge allowed new evidence to be presented against the defendant in the middle of his trial because it just came to light at that time.
JMO
OldSteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 4,946
- Reaction score
- 167
I think the link you want is:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...only!-*NO-DISCUSSION*&p=10473330#post10473330
- Status