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

[SteveS]

From the archives back when the main defendants were arrested (Feb 2014): "Mark Gwyn, director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said investigators have sworn statements from witnesses who saw Holly Bobo alive in the presence of Zachary Adams and Jason Wayne Autry after she was kidnapped."

Wondering if that consisted entirely of testimony from SA (who is now deceased) and DA (who is now a defendant rather than a witness).

 

[Tugela]

From the archives back when the main defendants were arrested (Feb 2014): "Mark Gwyn, director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said investigators have sworn statements from witnesses who saw Holly Bobo alive in the presence of Zachary Adams and Jason Wayne Autry after she was kidnapped."

Wondering if that consisted entirely of testimony from SA (who is now deceased) and DA (who is now a defendant rather than a witness).

Probably. It is hard to imagine who else might have seen her if she was being held under duress, other than the ones holding her.

Unless she wasn't being held under duress of course, but then this case would be entirely different from the current narrative.

 

[Tugela]

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 DA is concerned, leaving out the case against the other two, the argument the prosecutor would make would go something like this: (A) HB was abducted (as evidenced by the scene and the witness statements by family and neighbors); (B) DA made statements before LE indicating that he was in her presence after that happened; and (C) HB was killed (as evidenced by her remains and the circumstances under which they were found). They would argue that DA's claims that he was nothing but an observer is a lie to cover up his culpability, and that statements pointing fingers at his brother were an effort to misdirect LE investigators from the truth. That is a reasonable argument that will get him convicted unless his brother testifies that DA's account is what occurred, and that is NOT going to happen. So, in the absence of a conviction of ZA, he is going to be convicted of capital murder himself.

The only way out for him is if he testifies against his brother and the brother gets convicted. Once that happens, and assuming DA is tried afterwards, the prosecutor cannot then argue that DA was lying in his testimony because if they did that ZA's attorney would immediately file an appeal on the grounds that DA was not credible, it was extremely prejudicial to his client and consequently ZA should get a new trial, one where DA's testimony is NOT admitted. They will say that the prosecutor is conceding that DA's testimony is not credible because the prosecutor was claiming that in DA's trial. Essentially the prosecutor has to accept DA's account as being fully truthful if the trials are separated and DA testifies for the state. And if they accept that he is being fully truthful, then the case against him dissolves. Which means that after ZA is convicted, the charges against Da will be dropped for lack of evidence.

With separate trials, and assuming that the conviction of ZA is dependent on DA's account, it has to work out this way and the prosecutor has no choice. They will be able to convict only one of them, the other one will go free.

So there will be no deal in place. In fact, it is in the state's interests NOT to have a deal because even if they can't secure a conviction of ZA they can still go after DA (and be sure of a conviction) because then they would not have to worry about an appeal by ZA.

They have DA over a barrel. They don't need a deal. Either he plays along with their narrative and goes free, or he gets convicted and goes to death row.

 

[Chainsaw385]

They have DA over a barrel. They don't need a deal. Either he plays along with their narrative and goes free, or he gets convicted and goes to death row.

Just out of curiosity .....What happens if DA plays along and testifies just like the prosecution wants but ZA gets acquitted anyhow?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

From the archives back when the main defendants were arrested (Feb 2014): "Mark Gwyn, director of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, said investigators have sworn statements from witnesses who saw Holly Bobo alive in the presence of Zachary Adams and Jason Wayne Autry after she was kidnapped."

Wondering if that consisted entirely of testimony from SA (who is now deceased) and DA (who is now a defendant rather than a witness).

Let me ask you something Steve.

This is only a 'what if' question.

What if there is video footage of a deposition taken by the DA with Austin where his attorney is present and the defense attorney was also allowed to ask Austin questions? The reason I ask is I have seen it happen in a couple of other trials when a witness died before the trial happened but had given a deposition and the Judge allowed it to come in.

Another what if....if he gave a written statement signed by him with his attorney present would that come in at trial? In the ones I have seen they will have one attorney read from a transcript, word for word, from the witness stand representing the deceased witness, and the other one asks the questions from the same transcript representing the DA or ADA who deposed him. They seem to read it into the record even when they have the deposition on video.

Now, play nice, and don't pounce with both feet please. I really would like to know the answer. Thank you in advance.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

Let me ask you something Steve.

This is only a 'what if' question.

What if there is video footage of a deposition taken by the DA with Austin where his attorney is present and the defense attorney was also allowed to ask Austin questions? The reason I ask is I have seen it happen in a couple of other trials when a witness died before the trial happened but had given a deposition and the Judge allowed it to come in.

Another what if....if he gave a written statement signed by him with his attorney present would that come in at trial?

1 "What if there is video footage of a deposition taken by the DA with Austin where his attorney is present and the defense attorney was also allowed to ask Austin questions?"

We know that didn't happen. And the criminally accused have the right to CONFRONT any witnesses against them. as explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, so that's a deal-killer. But yes, it can be admissible if some criteria are met, such as
a - it was under oath (this is key),
b - the attorney for the/each defendant was allowed to cross-examine his testimony, and
c - the cross-examination was independent, adversarial, and not limited (just like in a courtroom).
There are no guarantees but if those criteria are met, testimony by a deceased has a good shot of being admitted.

2 "if he gave a written statement signed by him with his attorney present would that come in at trial?"

Very unlikely. The issue is about the protection of the rights of the criminally accused, not of the witness, so the fact SA perhaps had his own atty there would be irrelevant on the issue of admissiblilty.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

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

My opinions only, no facts here:

I admit to having been reticent about completing part IV (parts I through III are not my timeline, they are personal analyses of it), for two reasons. First, I figured that the case would be tried by now. Secondly, and more importantly, I am not sure if the cell phone evidence relates to the Holly Bobo case or even exists. When I write a part IV about the cell phone evidence it will have to be with a potent disclaimer. Then again, since it seems like the case will never come to trial, maybe I should plow ahead and finish the story.

When you think about the case, the sole material witness (Holly's brother) saw ONE perpetrator. Then when one includes the knowledge of the location of Holly's remains, she could have been placed at that location on the very morning of her abduction. It is a relatively straight-shot from Holly's home northward to where her remains were ultimately found. Then the lone perpetrator could have quickly doubled back to the south, turned east and planted the Gooch Road evidence to draw attention to another (innocent) rural party and maybe made it to work or wherever by 10 or 11 AM.

But the cell-phone evidence is paradoxical with this simplistic snatch-and-grab-and-quickly-mislead-authorities scenario. The supposed cell phone was discovered much later than the Gooch Road evidence and could well have been planted at a significantly later date. Also, it is one thing to dump the Gooch Road evidence to frame a rural citizen and another thing to later plant the cell phone near-to Holly's College to frame a student. Two different mind-sets would have to be at work, at least after-the-fact. And maybe this is the crucial detail: did the perpetrator become paranoid after consulting with another person and later decide to plant Holly's cell phone near her College?

When you think about it, the whole chain of (non-remains) evidence is remarkable, if not absurd. Everything discovered would fit in a small shopping bag. Put that in your wood stove for a week and case-closed. It is almost as if a lone perpetrator did not have unobserved access to a wood stove or fire pit near their domicile. I have made mention of a "cheerleader" character in certain previous posts and if I do not address it here, some of you may call me on it. The person who commits the crime is oft-times goaded and encouraged by a second party with their own particular motive. Yes, it takes two to tango, and I personally suspect that two are involved, but not three, four, or five.

Sleuth On!

 

[SteveS]

it is one thing to dump the Gooch Road evidence to frame a rural citizen and another thing to later plant the cell phone near-to Holly's College to frame a student. Two different mind-sets would have to be at work, at least after-the-fact. And maybe this is the crucial detail: did the perpetrator become paranoid after consulting with another person and later decide to plant Holly's cell phone near her College?

When you think about it, the whole chain of (non-remains) evidence is remarkable, if not absurd.

Yes, that is an absurd linkage, but not because a paradox exists. The absurdity exists from the relocation of the supposed find of her cell and/or SIM card to her college.

If I understand correctly, she went to school in Lexington at the Tennessee Technology Center. The supposed cell-phone find was N of Parsons, resulting from a search N of Parsons (logical place to be searching). The location descriptions included Eaton Plant off Highway 641, Kolpack, Highway 69, the concrete property (rock quarry), and 100 Eaton St, and its instructive that ALL of those use different terminology to point to essentially the same "wide busy spot in a country road" area - an area clustered around the rock quarry and refrigeration plant that together probably employ quite a few in the area.

None of that is near, contiguous, or a somehow-related location to Tennessee Technology Center sited 25 minutes away. Nor would there have been any reason for a rural search team to be combing the city of Lexington and then stumble upon her cell phone and/or SIM card, whereas there was every reason for them to be searching a rock quarry and its environs for a missing person.

Logically as well as based on the tenor of the various reports, any idea that the search team was at her college can obviously be nothing more than someone's mistake in telling, reading, or reporting, and a quick comparative analysis would and should have readily discarded it long ago for the obvious error.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Yes, that is an absurd linkage, but not because a paradox exists. The absurdity exists from the relocation of the supposed find of her cell and/or SIM card to her college.

If I understand correctly, she went to school in Lexington at the Tennessee Technology Center. The supposed cell-phone find was N of Parsons, resulting from a search N of Parsons (logical place to be searching). The location descriptions included Eaton Plant off Highway 641, Kolpack, Highway 69, the concrete property (rock quarry), and 100 Eaton St, and its instructive that ALL of those use different terminology to point to essentially the same "wide busy spot in a country road" area - an area clustered around the rock quarry and refrigeration plant that together probably employ quite a few in the area.

None of that is near, contiguous, or a somehow-related location to Tennessee Technology Center sited 25 minutes away. Nor would there have been any reason for a rural search team to be combing the city of Lexington and then stumble upon her cell phone and/or SIM card, whereas there was every reason for them to be searching a rock quarry and its environs for a missing person.

Logically as well as based on the tenor of the various reports, any idea that the search team was at her college can obviously be nothing more than someone's mistake in telling, reading, or reporting, and a quick comparative analysis would and should have readily discarded it long ago for the obvious error.

My opinions only, no facts here:

No specific complaints here to your much-appreciated response, although you may be confusing the Lexington Extension Center (i.e. the Tennessee College of Applied Technology) at 230 South Broad, Lexington, TN 38351 with its many satellite (off-campus) locations, including the Parsons-Decatur County Instructional Service Center (and Practical Nursing Facility where Holly attended) at 975 Tennessee Avenue, North Parsons, TN, 38363 (see http://www.tcatjackson.edu/campus-sites). This location is about 1.5 miles north of Parsons. But I am not here to quibble about mere details of geography. Consider the individual post below from my detailed timeline about the cell phone evidence:

APRIL 23 TO APRIL 24, 2011
_______________________________
(?This search included the area? that has been variously described as “Holladay Road, Holliday Road, Highway 69, Eaton Plant off Highway 641, Kolpack, the Tennessee Technology Center where Holly attended school, and the Tri-County Concrete property at 100 Eaton St.” This search location could have been ?based upon a ping or call from the perpetrator’s cell phone or a ping from Holly’s cell phone?, but there is a news report that it was ?based upon a phoned-in-tip?. Anyway, this should be where the so-called “significant find” or “Easter evidence” was made). (Early reports and internet chat described ?a “card”, even a hotel door passkey card, and later rumors suggest either a SIM card or cell phone or both?). (?A student ID card? has also been rumored). (The timing and wording of early news reports suggest either the 23rd or the 24th as the discovery date and that a “singular item” was found). (?It was reported that the police backtracked and later said that this evidence might not be related to the case?). (?It is more recently claimed by bloggers that this item WAS Holly’s cellphone?). (?It is even more recently claimed that the cell phone and its SIM card were found on opposite sides of the highway around the above-described location?). (? Most recently it is claimed by private investigators that a cell phone was found in grass near a culvert or in a culvert and that the SIM card was found about a mile away and/or across the road?- BEWARE! THIS LAST CLAIM MAY HAVE BEEN DISCREDITED BY THE TBI).
_______________________________

There clearly is a lot of "white noise" regarding the exact location of the cell phone evidence. This is yet another reason why I worry about devoting a post towards the analysis of this supposed evidence. BUT, if this evidence actually exists, near-to 975 Tennessee Avenue, North Parsons, TN, 38363, then something illogical is afoot. There would be a quandary, dilemma, contradiction, inconsistency, paradox, incongruity, or a conundrum. But alternately, it could represent a paradigm, an exemplar template; something so obviously-predictable that we fail to recognize it.

Sleuth On!

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Look, we also need comic relief, or at least spiritual relief in such a long and deeply-troubling criminal case.

I love poetry. A very small sample of my favorite lines:

From the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám; Fifth Edition of the Translation: “for some we have loved, the loveliest and the best”.

From “A Dog Named Ego” by Delmore Schwartz: “not free, no liberty, rock that you carry”.

From “Recessional” by Rudyard Kipling: “If, drunk with sight of power, we loose
Wild tongues that have not Thee in awe,
Such boastings as the Gentiles use,
Or lesser breeds without the Law—
Lord God of Hosts, be with us yet,
Lest we forget—lest we forget!”

From the “Song of the Wandering Aengus” by William Butler Yeats: “Though I am old with wandering Through hollow lands and hilly lands, I will find out where she has gone”,…….

From “I Have a Rendezvous with Death” by Alan Seeger: “God knows ‘twere better to be deep
Pillowed in silk and scented down,
Where love throbs out in blissful sleep,
Pulse nigh to pulse, and breath to breath,…..”

From “Because I Could Not Stop for Death”, by Emily Dickinson:
"Because I could not stop for Death –
He kindly stopped for me –
The Carriage held but just Ourselves –
And Immortality.”

An earlier poetic post of mine from Websleuths on May 21, 2015, is herein semi-officially updated for Christmas Eve, 2015: One of my favorite episodes of Sherlock Holmes (with the incomparable late actor Jeremy Brett) is the "Musgrave Ritual". Here are my UPDATED personal modifications of the "Musgrave Ritual" by Sir Arthur Ignatius Conan Doyle for the Holly Bobo case (with great apologies to the original author!!):

Whose was it?
She who has gone.
Who has taken it?
ONE known, tied and torn by history,
and ONE to be named.
What was the month?
The fourth from the first.
Where was the sun?
Low towards the East.
Where were the shadows?
Long towards the shed.
How was it stepped?
North by five and by eight,
east by ten and by twenty, and not under.
What shall we give for it?
All that is ours.
Why should we give it?
For the sake of the truth.

Sleuth On!

 

[SteveS]

If I understand correctly, she went to school in Lexington at the Tennessee Technology Center.

Mr Noatak, thank you for the thoughtful reply to the above. If my understanding of where she went to school was incorrect, then I stand corrected. She went to school in the town of Parsons, then.

But my point is still the same. In light of the fact there are multiple descriptions offered for the find site, I still would question the rationality of ignoring the rural site that essentially all the other various mentions point to, in favor of town. It was found by one of the search teams that was scouring the rural rugged areas, and the quarry and plant area mentioned with various descriptions would make sense for such a search - whereas, searching through town areas where people went everyday doesn't.

It's not that important, and maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But I just don't see any real mystery to the location's general character, since almost all the descriptions are pointing to someplace rural.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

1 "What if there is video footage of a deposition taken by the DA with Austin where his attorney is present and the defense attorney was also allowed to ask Austin questions?"

We know that didn't happen. And the criminally accused have the right to CONFRONT any witnesses against them. as explicitly stated in the Bill of Rights, so that's a deal-killer. But yes, it can be admissible if some criteria are met, such as
a - it was under oath (this is key),
b - the attorney for the/each defendant was allowed to cross-examine his testimony, and
c - the cross-examination was independent, adversarial, and not limited (just like in a courtroom).
There are no guarantees but if those criteria are met, testimony by a deceased has a good shot of being admitted.

2 "if he gave a written statement signed by him with his attorney present would that come in at trial?"

Very unlikely. The issue is about the protection of the rights of the criminally accused, not of the witness, so the fact SA perhaps had his own atty there would be irrelevant on the issue of admissiblilty.

Thank you for replying, and Merry Christmas to you, and everyone!

What are you saying didn't happen? Sorry, it has been a very long non-stop day for me so my brain tonight may not be firing on all eight fuel injectors.

Are you saying they did not video tape any of his interview? I have seen other cases when the witness was questioned by the DA or LE their lawyer was with them at the time, and they asked questions of their client. I suppose they did it to clarify the client's answers and to get those additional questions and answers on record.

Since he received the immunity deal just five days after Adams was charged, iirc, could he have appeared in front of the GJ when they handed down the indictment?

Can any of Austin's statements come in through the lead detective over the case when he/she testifies. If the specific person in LE or the DAs office were the ones who interviewed or deposed Austin can his statement come in through the detective or lead TBI agent if that is the case? The reason I asked is I have seen a detective give testimony about those he spoke with and what was learned when talking to them but some were never called as witnesses at trial.

I have seen the defense do it too. They will ask a sorts of questions about a particular pathologist/medical examiner bolstering their expertise but never call them to the stand in the defense CIC.

Would anything change about his lawyer being present if at the time he was not looked at as a witness but they may have been accusing him at the time of being involved even giving him his Miranda warning before it began? Before the immunity deal I mean.

I cant remember specifics at this time but I have seen closings where the state and defense uses the argument that they promised to produce a certain witness to testify in the trial but the jury never heard from them.

Maybe with some good rest tonight I will be able to understand exactly what you are telling me. I do appreciate it though, and it isn't your fault because you are very precise, and instead the fogginess is my tired old brain.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

OBE "What are you saying didn't happen?"

Your hypothetical was that there exists (enumeration added to clarify the elements you included) "1 video footage of a 2 deposition 3 taken by the DA with Austin where 4 his attorney is present and 5 the defense attorney was also allowed to ask Austin questions." My response is that it's very safe to say that 5-element event you outline never happened.

In particular, there is a need to satisfy the key constitutional tenet: the criminally accused have the right to CONFRONT any witnesses against them. SA did not testify under oath in front of these defendants, and they were not given a chance to challenge his testimony via cross-examination.

"Can any of Austin's statements come in through the lead detective over the case when he/she testifies."

Doubtful. The problem is that what SA said would be being introduced as an accusation against the defendants, and the defense has been provided no opportunity to challenge any of it and question the accuser. The lead detective can testify as to what he (the lead detective) knows personally.

This may make it easier to wrap your head around the concept. Consider the many attempts to convict those in organized crime of doing dastardly deeds that end when the star witness suddenly dies or disappears. The state hears his testimony before the trial starts, decides to prosecute, makes an arrest, and then sets a trial. But if at some point before trial the witness goes away, poof, end of case unless they find a different witness. That's why witness protection is so important, because unless the witness makes it to court to testify under oath and let his testimony be challenged and cross-examined by the defendant, the expected testimony is not allowed and there is no case.

I won't speak to the anecdotal trial references that you mention, as nuances within the process can have been missed, and the exact details of any particular case can be a bit misremembered or misunderstood. Judges have some latitude in some limited areas, so there's that, and attorneys have to speak up to keep the lines from being stepped past, but I've often found as I watch a trial myself that what appears to some to be crossing lines really wasn't, way more often than not. In any event, all I can relate is the rules.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Mr Noatak, thank you for the thoughtful reply to the above. If my understanding of where she went to school was incorrect, then I stand corrected. She went to school in the town of Parsons, then.

But my point is still the same. In light of the fact there are multiple descriptions offered for the find site, I still would question the rationality of ignoring the rural site that essentially all the other various mentions point to, in favor of town. It was found by one of the search teams that was scouring the rural rugged areas, and the quarry and plant area mentioned with various descriptions would make sense for such a search - whereas, searching through town areas where people went everyday doesn't.

It's not that important, and maybe I shouldn't have said anything. But I just don't see any real mystery to the location's general character, since almost all the descriptions are pointing to someplace rural.

My opinions only, no facts here:

Regarding two of my detailed timeline posts below:
____________________________
8:35 to 8:45 AM: (?This is approximately the earliest time when the police may have began a ground search around the property?). An early news account places the search as beginning ?45 minutes? after police arrived. However, on the April 30, 2013 WSMV-TV episode, a family friend states that it was more than two hours before the official search began, because the police were waiting for search dogs and a helicopter. Also see my 10:15 AM post below, regarding the ‘delayed search’ scenario.

Later than 8:35 AM and possibly later than 10:15 AM: (There are two principal stories; ?one is that the dogs could not track Holly’s scent into the woods; the other version is that the dogs crossed the family ‘lawn’ to a path and continued a short distance on that path shallowly into the woods and lost the scent near a logging road?). In my opinion, it is likely that the dog or dogs lost Holly’s scent just upon the edge of the woods. Also in my opinion, if the dog or dogs could not track Holly’s scent out to the main road (Swan Johnson Rd.) OR to human/vehicle tracks in the mud on a logging road (it had recently rained heavily- see my 4:30 AM entry, above), something is incongruent with my timeline descriptions. In my opinion, the nose of a dog does not lie and possesses no bias- IF a tracking dog has a fresh scent and IF its handlers do not consciously or subconsciously give the dog cues. In my opinion, the various stories concerning the tracking dogs generally imply that the scent suddenly stopped or was indistinct and directionless and no scent evidence was found very far beyond the edge of the Bobo family’s ‘lawn’. Also, in my opinion, what the tracking dogs ultimately determined is second only to the location of Holly’s white sling-bag/lunch box (described in a later entry) in understanding this case.
____________________________

What do you make of these particular details? I am not asking for an immediate response; sometimes things like this have to be put in the back of one's mind for awhile to mull around.

From everything I think I "know" about this case, the tracking dog(s) should have simply traced Holly's scent into the deep woods (where vehicle tracks would have been obvious, because of the recent heavy rain) OR out to the main road that fronted the Bobo property. Yet, I get the picture of dog(s) wandering somewhat aimlessly, getting little recent fresh and/or directed scent beyond the areas of the property that Holly would typically occupy on any average day.

Sleuth On!

 

[Foxfire]

Yes, that is an absurd linkage, but not because a paradox exists. The absurdity exists from the relocation of the supposed find of her cell and/or SIM card to her college.

If I understand correctly, she went to school in Lexington at the Tennessee Technology Center. The supposed cell-phone find was N of Parsons, resulting from a search N of Parsons (logical place to be searching). The location descriptions included Eaton Plant off Highway 641, Kolpack, Highway 69, the concrete property (rock quarry), and 100 Eaton St, and its instructive that ALL of those use different terminology to point to essentially the same "wide busy spot in a country road" area - an area clustered around the rock quarry and refrigeration plant that together probably employ quite a few in the area.

None of that is near, contiguous, or a somehow-related location to Tennessee Technology Center sited 25 minutes away. Nor would there have been any reason for a rural search team to be combing the city of Lexington and then stumble upon her cell phone and/or SIM card, whereas there was every reason for them to be searching a rock quarry and its environs for a missing person.

Logically as well as based on the tenor of the various reports, any idea that the search team was at her college can obviously be nothing more than someone's mistake in telling, reading, or reporting, and a quick comparative analysis would and should have readily discarded it long ago for the obvious error.

Holly Bobo attended nursing school at UT Martin Parson, TN Center..

https://www.utm.edu/departments/parsons/

UT Martin Parsons Center
975 Tennessee Ave N
Parsons, TN 38363
https://www.google.com/maps/place/9...2!3m1!1s0x887c8975041ef579:0xbf726a8249bb6672

 

[SteveS]

What do you make of these particular details?

To me it hints at a very simple "plan" that could have required little-to-no planning at all: a vehicle parked not far N of the house on Swan Johnson to simply be out of sight. Beforehand, I see the perp driving N past the driveway, pulling over out of sight of the house, sneaking back to the carport, and waiting for Holly to come out so he could grab her. Then he grabs her, and there's a forced stroll taking Holly "into the woods" that is merely through a few trees right back to the road and the vehicle waiting there.

 

[Chainsaw385]

To me it hints at a very simple "plan" that could have required little-to-no planning at all: a vehicle parked not far N of the house on Swan Johnson to simply be out of sight. Beforehand, I see the perp driving N past the driveway, pulling over out of sight of the house, sneaking back to the carport, and waiting for Holly to come out so he could grab her. Then he grabs her, and there's a forced stroll taking Holly "into the woods" that is merely through a few trees right back to the road and the vehicle waiting there.

And being turkey season even if the vehicle was spotted by someone traveling on the road....it would be passed off for nothing more then a turkey hunter pulling over close to the area in which they wanted to hunt.

 

[Tugela]

OBE "What are you saying didn't happen?"

Your hypothetical was that there exists (enumeration added to clarify the elements you included) "1 video footage of a 2 deposition 3 taken by the DA with Austin where 4 his attorney is present and 5 the defense attorney was also allowed to ask Austin questions." My response is that it's very safe to say that 5-element event you outline never happened.

In particular, there is a need to satisfy the key constitutional tenet: the criminally accused have the right to CONFRONT any witnesses against them. SA did not testify under oath in front of these defendants, and they were not given a chance to challenge his testimony via cross-examination.

"Can any of Austin's statements come in through the lead detective over the case when he/she testifies."

Doubtful. The problem is that what SA said would be being introduced as an accusation against the defendants, and the defense has been provided no opportunity to challenge any of it and question the accuser. The lead detective can testify as to what he (the lead detective) knows personally.

This may make it easier to wrap your head around the concept. Consider the many attempts to convict those in organized crime of doing dastardly deeds that end when the star witness suddenly dies or disappears. The state hears his testimony before the trial starts, decides to prosecute, makes an arrest, and then sets a trial. But if at some point before trial the witness goes away, poof, end of case unless they find a different witness. That's why witness protection is so important, because unless the witness makes it to court to testify under oath and let his testimony be challenged and cross-examined by the defendant, the expected testimony is not allowed and there is no case.

I won't speak to the anecdotal trial references that you mention, as nuances within the process can have been missed, and the exact details of any particular case can be a bit misremembered or misunderstood. Judges have some latitude in some limited areas, so there's that, and attorneys have to speak up to keep the lines from being stepped past, but I've often found as I watch a trial myself that what appears to some to be crossing lines really wasn't, way more often than not. In any event, all I can relate is the rules.

There are exceptions to that, for instance if the witness is murdered to keep them quite, then hearsay may be admitted. But generally speaking such evidence would carry less weight than direct witness testimony in court would. If the witness just dies, or (as in SA's case) kills themselves, then their testimony dies with them.

It is irrelevant in the case of SA however, even though he is dead the prosecutors public actions make whatever he said highly dubious. Clearly they do not believe his statements to be credible if they were willing to go so far as to revoke (or threaten to) his deal. Under those circumstances there is no way that any judge acting in a professional way is goin to admit his statements under the hearsay exception.

 

[Tugela]

Just out of curiosity .....What happens if DA plays along and testifies just like the prosecution wants but ZA gets acquitted anyhow?

Then DA goes to trial and gets convicted on the basis of his earlier statements he already made to the TBI. If ZA goes free, DA is dead in the water.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Then DA goes to trial and gets convicted on the basis of his earlier statements he already made to the TBI. If ZA goes free, DA is dead in the water.

Once DA takes the stand against ZA it opens up pretty much everything he has said to investigators for the defense to use on cross examination.......which means those early statements DA gave to the TBI can be used by either side to help their case.

If DA changes any details from the earlier statements he gave to LE....ZA's attorney is going to use that to try and impeach anything DA is testifying about or gave statements regarding.

If DA implicates himself in any of those statements...or while on the witness stand the defense will pounce on this and try and claim DA was the lead actor in these crimes and create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors about their clients involvement in certain aspects of the crimes.

Also if DA implicates himself in any way while on the witness stand this will be used against him at his own trial....If DA is mentally limited this is going to be a slaughter when the defense attorneys get him on cross.

DA can get up on the stand against ZA and change the whole narrative of his statements ....this kind of thing happens all the time.Then the jury has to figure out which (if any) version of the events are what actually happened.But if DA varies too much from his original statements and there is no evidence to back up his current or past account of the events,I'm not sure how a jury could accurately determine which version to go with.

DA is now claiming his early statements were coerced.Meaning it is unlikely his version of events today is matching the version he gave TBI at the onset of the investigation.