Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo- Sept 15 & 16, 2017
- Thread starter Harmony 2
- Start date
- Status
maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,571
- Reaction score
- 7,259
There was some kerfluffle on Channel 5 Saturday morning, where some folks thought the prosecution had rested their case. One of The Nicks said he didn't think so, because they didn't say the magic words. Finally, they said Chris Conte had emailed them that the state had some witnesses they couldn't get to the courthouse over the weekend and they didn't expect to rest until Monday or Tuesday. I guess that may large depend on whether the DA has the witnesses conduct any more cartography classes.
Emi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 10,532
- Reaction score
- 48,092
maskedwoman
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2008
- Messages
- 1,571
- Reaction score
- 7,259
Bummer. Someone posted on one of the threads earlier this week that something had happened in the courtroom and that a few years ago it couldn't have happened. I was hoping that meant they could show victims pictures now.
InquiringMind2
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm a fairly new "poster" here, so I apologize for the length of this post in advance. It may not even be worth the read
So, according to this news article...
http://www.wsmv.com/story/35861646/fifth-man-given-immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-case
...there are 5 people who have be given immunity in this case. Two have already testified (JA, VD), one committed suicide (SA), and two we have yet to hear from (MA, JK). So I assume we'll be hearing their testimony in the near future.
Up to this point, here are my questions (although only the trial will be able to provide answers to most) and my personal thoughts on this case.
Firstly, who called Agt Booth and what did they tell him that caused his investigation to proceed in an entirely different direction, as he testified to on the stand. Was this possibly JA and his new attorneys? Or was it someone we haven't heard from yet.
Secondly, in regards to the prosecution's opening remarks and the quote he kept repeating that he implies was something ZA said ("I couldn't have picked a prettier b****...it was fun. The world may never know what happened to Holly Bobo."). Obviously ZA didn't tell prosecutors or LE that. JA didn't testify to that, they can't bring in SA's prior statements, and I don't think they'll bring in DA's statements. So that leads me to believe another witness will be testifying that ZA talked about this with them.
Next, what made LE get a search warrant on the Bobo's financial records. I assume the defense will delve into this. In my mind, I'm thinking about the statement JA made about CB and teaching him to cook meth. I really don't believe that though.
The cast of characters in this case is just sad, to say the least. I think the prosecution has done a very good job considering everything they are working with is circumstantial evidence. And I really would like to believe they've got their man/men in this case. However...
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth. JA testified he never actually saw Holly, thus he only saw ZA shoot at a blanket with a gun he was familiar with.
Based on various trial testimony about height, weight, hair, and even camo clothing, it seems that it very well
could have been SA, rather than ZA, in the carport and leading her into the woods that day.
On top of all that, everyone is still waiting to see how the prosecution is going to try to prove that Holly was actually drugged and raped. There is no body and no other physical evidence at this point that would lead anyone to believe those points could be proven, unless the prosecution still has something up their sleeve that they've been able to keep secret all these years.
I find it a little hard to fathom that the prosecution would rely so completely on the credibility of these bad people to prove a DP case. But so far, that's all we seem to be getting. The circumstantial evidence seems to be very damaging, but if you really look at the big picture, there are so many holes the defense can poke at in this case...if the defense can step up her game.
As badly as I want to see all of these players behind bars, I really am beginning to question what conclusions the jury can truly come to by the end of this. If I we're on the jury, even though I think they belong in jail, I don't know that I could look past the lack of evidence and the fact the main eyewitness didn't even see her. Those poor jurors are going to have a lot to talk about. Am really hoping the prosecution can bolster it's case a bit before they hand it over to the defense.
So, according to this news article...
http://www.wsmv.com/story/35861646/fifth-man-given-immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-case
...there are 5 people who have be given immunity in this case. Two have already testified (JA, VD), one committed suicide (SA), and two we have yet to hear from (MA, JK). So I assume we'll be hearing their testimony in the near future.
Up to this point, here are my questions (although only the trial will be able to provide answers to most) and my personal thoughts on this case.
Firstly, who called Agt Booth and what did they tell him that caused his investigation to proceed in an entirely different direction, as he testified to on the stand. Was this possibly JA and his new attorneys? Or was it someone we haven't heard from yet.
Secondly, in regards to the prosecution's opening remarks and the quote he kept repeating that he implies was something ZA said ("I couldn't have picked a prettier b****...it was fun. The world may never know what happened to Holly Bobo."). Obviously ZA didn't tell prosecutors or LE that. JA didn't testify to that, they can't bring in SA's prior statements, and I don't think they'll bring in DA's statements. So that leads me to believe another witness will be testifying that ZA talked about this with them.
Next, what made LE get a search warrant on the Bobo's financial records. I assume the defense will delve into this. In my mind, I'm thinking about the statement JA made about CB and teaching him to cook meth. I really don't believe that though.
The cast of characters in this case is just sad, to say the least. I think the prosecution has done a very good job considering everything they are working with is circumstantial evidence. And I really would like to believe they've got their man/men in this case. However...
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth. JA testified he never actually saw Holly, thus he only saw ZA shoot at a blanket with a gun he was familiar with.
Based on various trial testimony about height, weight, hair, and even camo clothing, it seems that it very well
could have been SA, rather than ZA, in the carport and leading her into the woods that day.
On top of all that, everyone is still waiting to see how the prosecution is going to try to prove that Holly was actually drugged and raped. There is no body and no other physical evidence at this point that would lead anyone to believe those points could be proven, unless the prosecution still has something up their sleeve that they've been able to keep secret all these years.
I find it a little hard to fathom that the prosecution would rely so completely on the credibility of these bad people to prove a DP case. But so far, that's all we seem to be getting. The circumstantial evidence seems to be very damaging, but if you really look at the big picture, there are so many holes the defense can poke at in this case...if the defense can step up her game.
As badly as I want to see all of these players behind bars, I really am beginning to question what conclusions the jury can truly come to by the end of this. If I we're on the jury, even though I think they belong in jail, I don't know that I could look past the lack of evidence and the fact the main eyewitness didn't even see her. Those poor jurors are going to have a lot to talk about. Am really hoping the prosecution can bolster it's case a bit before they hand it over to the defense.
crhedBngr
Justice for Danielle Stislicki
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2015
- Messages
- 5,791
- Reaction score
- 48,584
I'm a fairly new "poster" here, so I apologize for the length of this post in advance. It may not even be worth the read
So, according to this news article...
http://www.wsmv.com/story/35861646/fifth-man-given-immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-case
...there are 5 people who have be given immunity in this case. Two have already testified (JA, VD), one committed suicide (SA), and two we have yet to hear from (MA, JK). So I assume we'll be hearing their testimony in the near future.
Up to this point, here are my questions (although only the trial will be able to provide answers to most) and my personal thoughts on this case.
Firstly, who called Agt Booth and what did they tell him that caused his investigation to proceed in an entirely different direction, as he testified to on the stand. Was this possibly JA and his new attorneys? Or was it someone we haven't heard from yet.
Secondly, in regards to the prosecution's opening remarks and the quote he kept repeating that he implies was something ZA said ("I couldn't have picked a prettier b****...it was fun. The world may never know what happened to Holly Bobo."). Obviously ZA didn't tell prosecutors or LE that. JA didn't testify to that, they can't bring in SA's prior statements, and I don't think they'll bring in DA's statements. So that leads me to believe another witness will be testifying that ZA talked about this with them.
Next, what made LE get a search warrant on the Bobo's financial records. I assume the defense will delve into this. In my mind, I'm thinking about the statement JA made about CB and teaching him to cook meth. I really don't believe that though.
The cast of characters in this case is just sad, to say the least. I think the prosecution has done a very good job considering everything they are working with is circumstantial evidence. And I really would like to believe they've got their man/men in this case. However...
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth. JA testified he never actually saw Holly, thus he only saw ZA shoot at a blanket with a gun he was familiar with.
Based on various trial testimony about height, weight, hair, and even camo clothing, it seems that it very well
could have been SA, rather than ZA, in the carport and leading her into the woods that day.
On top of all that, everyone is still waiting to see how the prosecution is going to try to prove that Holly was actually drugged and raped. There is no body and no other physical evidence at this point that would lead anyone to believe those points could be proven, unless the prosecution still has something up their sleeve that they've been able to keep secret all these years.
I find it a little hard to fathom that the prosecution would rely so completely on the credibility of these bad people to prove a DP case. But so far, that's all we seem to be getting. The circumstantial evidence seems to be very damaging, but if you really look at the big picture, there are so many holes the defense can poke at in this case...if the defense can step up her game.
As badly as I want to see all of these players behind bars, I really am beginning to question what conclusions the jury can truly come to by the end of this. If I we're on the jury, even though I think they belong in jail, I don't know that I could look past the lack of evidence and the fact the main eyewitness didn't even see her. Those poor jurors are going to have a lot to talk about. Am really hoping the prosecution can bolster it's case a bit before they hand it over to the defense.
Valid points. We'll just have to wait and see.
Plumeria5
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 4, 2009
- Messages
- 5,546
- Reaction score
- 1,403
They put Holly's image on the projected screen in the beginning but does that mean they can't even show a hard copy photo or that it can't be displayed throughout the trial? They had no problem showing photos of what she looked like AFTER the monsters got a hold of her!!
turaj
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,354
- Reaction score
- 13,942
i recall a photo being up in some cases but from what I understand nothing up in the courtroom...don't know about closing.
I think he made both those statements and probably many more. Imo he would have used the statement about Holly for two reasons. One to keep his gf in line and two he just had to let someone know what he'd done. I won't be surprised to see others testify he boasted to them about Holly.
Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,689
I'm a fairly new "poster" here, so I apologize for the length of this post in advance. It may not even be worth the read
So, according to this news article...
http://www.wsmv.com/story/35861646/fifth-man-given-immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-case
...there are 5 people who have be given immunity in this case. Two have already testified (JA, VD), one committed suicide (SA), and two we have yet to hear from (MA, JK). So I assume we'll be hearing their testimony in the near future.
Up to this point, here are my questions (although only the trial will be able to provide answers to most) and my personal thoughts on this case.
Firstly, who called Agt Booth and what did they tell him that caused his investigation to proceed in an entirely different direction, as he testified to on the stand. Was this possibly JA and his new attorneys? Or was it someone we haven't heard from yet.
Secondly, in regards to the prosecution's opening remarks and the quote he kept repeating that he implies was something ZA said ("I couldn't have picked a prettier b****...it was fun. The world may never know what happened to Holly Bobo."). Obviously ZA didn't tell prosecutors or LE that. JA didn't testify to that, they can't bring in SA's prior statements, and I don't think they'll bring in DA's statements. So that leads me to believe another witness will be testifying that ZA talked about this with them.
Next, what made LE get a search warrant on the Bobo's financial records. I assume the defense will delve into this. In my mind, I'm thinking about the statement JA made about CB and teaching him to cook meth. I really don't believe that though.
The cast of characters in this case is just sad, to say the least. I think the prosecution has done a very good job considering everything they are working with is circumstantial evidence. And I really would like to believe they've got their man/men in this case. However...
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth. JA testified he never actually saw Holly, thus he only saw ZA shoot at a blanket with a gun he was familiar with.
Based on various trial testimony about height, weight, hair, and even camo clothing, it seems that it very well
could have been SA, rather than ZA, in the carport and leading her into the woods that day.
On top of all that, everyone is still waiting to see how the prosecution is going to try to prove that Holly was actually drugged and raped. There is no body and no other physical evidence at this point that would lead anyone to believe those points could be proven, unless the prosecution still has something up their sleeve that they've been able to keep secret all these years.
I find it a little hard to fathom that the prosecution would rely so completely on the credibility of these bad people to prove a DP case. But so far, that's all we seem to be getting. The circumstantial evidence seems to be very damaging, but if you really look at the big picture, there are so many holes the defense can poke at in this case...if the defense can step up her game.
As badly as I want to see all of these players behind bars, I really am beginning to question what conclusions the jury can truly come to by the end of this. If I we're on the jury, even though I think they belong in jail, I don't know that I could look past the lack of evidence and the fact the main eyewitness didn't even see her. Those poor jurors are going to have a lot to talk about. Am really hoping the prosecution can bolster it's case a bit before they hand it over to the defense.
Great Post and welcome to this thread.
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth.
I respectfully disagree with part I have quoted below while agreeing on the majority of your post. First, by law the jurors can take someone's testimony and are allowed to infer. They absolutely can conclude that JAs testimony is truthful. That is what jurors do in CE cases when weighing the testimony and what each one said.
That is the heart of CE and CE can be very powerful/weighty and can even outweigh direct evidence. All witness testimony given by lay witness, like JA, VD etc is consider evidence in a court of law that the jury can consider. So everyone that comes forth as lay witnesses will continue to add to the CE puzzle, (rope, chain) etc.
I think Madeline74 said it best in one of her prior post. (Paraphrasing) For the jury to find him NG they would have to believe everyone who has testified against him and will testify tomorrow are all lying. All of them. Imo, that will not happen. All of the witnesses brought forth have validated JAs testimony. Imo, he will be believed by the jury. Imo, the other witnesses for the state tomorrow will do the same thing.
There is just too much that has been entered for the jury to believe ZA didn't do this and think all he is ......is just the most unluckiest man in TN.
There have been countless cases won including death penalty cases that were won without forensic/DNA evidence. But they had strong CE like they do in this case.
The state prosecutors in just about every state have even gotten convictions numerous times without even having the body of the victim, nor knew where the crime scene was, no DNA/forensics and they didn't know how the victim/s were killed. Yet, they had powerful CE which most trials are CE cases and the defendants were found guilty.
Only the CSI type jurors would demand forensic evidence be in cases in order to find someone guilty. Thousands of cases have been won with CE way before forensic evidence/DNA was born. A prosecutor doesn't need an actual smoking gun. All they need to do is weave the circumstantial evidence pieces together, witness by witness. It doesnt even have to be all of the puzzle pieces just as long as there are enough CE facts linked together to show the image of the suspect where it is recognizable to the jury even if some of the puzzle pieces are left out. In every case there will always been unknowns and unanwered questions even after the trial is over.
IMO
Whiteshark
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2006
- Messages
- 15
- Reaction score
- 1
Just catching up....we know the defense is lying here. Holly's cousin Natalie was known to show pics of Holly to ZA as he wanted to meet her, there is even the unconfirmed story of the threesome. Interesting, Dana Bobo, Natalie's uncles and her Dad went out of state to gather Natalie from druggies where she was being "used".......Earp also said she knew holly and ZA knew of her
Wondergirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 10, 2010
- Messages
- 9,659
- Reaction score
- 2,467
Omg, the state resting on Monday? I sure as hell hope not! I don't think they are anywhere near being done.
WG
InquiringMind2
New Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2016
- Messages
- 5
- Reaction score
- 0
Thank you! I have been reading your posts
on here for years now and appreciate your insight 😊
I don't disagree with anything you said. I suppose I was trying to reiterate what the judge has been hammering on regarding hearsay. But I also suppose I forgot that doesn't apply to ZA because he is the defendant.
I do believe the prosecution has done a tremendous job weaving this together, as you put it, considering what they are working with and without. Personally, I also believe they've got the right people for the crime, barring some unforeseen evidence to the contrary from the defense. However, the devil's advocate in me keeps telling me to take a step back
turaj
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2013
- Messages
- 5,354
- Reaction score
- 13,942
they are close either monday or tues. and they are now starting at 830est...judge really wants to keep moving...i think defense will be much shorter.
Madeleine74
Knower of Things
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2011
- Messages
- 11,556
- Reaction score
- 20,080
Direct evidence is defined as: confession by the perp, eyewitness to the crime or elements of the crime, or a video of the crime. All other evidence by definition is considered circumstantial evidence.
The state has a combination of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence in this case. Ironically, some people find it difficult to believe direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) and are suggesting that evidence is weak and unconvincing. There have been more eyewitnesses than just Autry. There's the Dinsmore guy, Miss Dottie's housekeeper, HB's brother Clint, ZA's girlfriend, to name a few.
So when someone says a case is "just circumstantial" as if that's a weakness, remember this case and how direct evidence doesn't seem to be trusted by a segment of case followers.
IMO the state is building their case piece by piece, brick by brick. They're not done yet. Supposedly one of the witnesses to testify is someone who was a cellmate of ZA and it was allegedly to him ZA confessed to the crime and made highly incriminatory statements. However, it makes me wonder if that witness will be believed since there seems to be a lot of doubt about any eyewitness who has testified so far.
The good news is most juries most of the time pay attention, are diligent, follow a judge's instructions, and don't deem every witness as unreliable, so I have hope this jury will not get caught up in creating fantasies and conspiracies.
The state has a combination of direct evidence and circumstantial evidence in this case. Ironically, some people find it difficult to believe direct evidence (eyewitness testimony) and are suggesting that evidence is weak and unconvincing. There have been more eyewitnesses than just Autry. There's the Dinsmore guy, Miss Dottie's housekeeper, HB's brother Clint, ZA's girlfriend, to name a few.
So when someone says a case is "just circumstantial" as if that's a weakness, remember this case and how direct evidence doesn't seem to be trusted by a segment of case followers.
IMO the state is building their case piece by piece, brick by brick. They're not done yet. Supposedly one of the witnesses to testify is someone who was a cellmate of ZA and it was allegedly to him ZA confessed to the crime and made highly incriminatory statements. However, it makes me wonder if that witness will be believed since there seems to be a lot of doubt about any eyewitness who has testified so far.
The good news is most juries most of the time pay attention, are diligent, follow a judge's instructions, and don't deem every witness as unreliable, so I have hope this jury will not get caught up in creating fantasies and conspiracies.
Please correct me if I am wrong but didn't Jason Autry testify that HB had been inside ZA home at least once before this terrible accident? Maybe I am wrong. My poor memory really being tested in this trial..especially w all the initials running together
Gee
New Member
- Joined
- Mar 8, 2009
- Messages
- 801
- Reaction score
- 21
Jason Autry did testify that ZA told him Holly had been in his (ZA's) home
- Status