Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo Sept 18, 2017 graphic

[turaj]

http://wsmv.images.worldnow.com/library/b12830a9-4f6d-4535-89bc-eeb37ae1c7ea.pdf

Sooo can anyone tell me if this judge is the same mentioned in this document? Because it's obvious to even us watchers that the judge is against the defense for whatever reason... if he had already been asked to step down and refused, and it's him I've watched for a week, then I'm disgusted...

it is him and that hearing is on utube...and yes there is so much bias it is sometimes hard to watch...and it is compounded by Ms. Thompson being just plain BAD.

 

[turaj]

I'm disappointed that the state did not bring any phone text convos, pics, etc into any of the evidence.

Am I wrong, or aren't texts available from cell phone companies, if warranted by TBI etc?

I thought this was an obvious area that would be exposed.

Maybe these culprits weren't in touch via cell during the crime because they were with one another, and I know, they were a bunch of meth heads, so it is doubtful they wrote novels to each other in text, I get it.

But I find it hard to believe over the course of time that they didn't once text about it, send a picture about it, or the "alleged" video we have all heard about. I am assuming this video never turned up with all the prior investigation, so I wasn't expecting it. But I did expect text streams from Zach Adams, Dylan Adams and Jason Autry.

Since it was shown Zach posted what he did on Facebook, I imagine he slipped a text or two about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I too have so wondered about no texts being read in court...I mean these days so much of the case involves texts. Gotta wonder if some of these guys can even read?

 

[Madeleine74]

Of course Defense will point out that evidence presented by Prosecution is circumstantial. But, I've seen many jurors go with a guilty verdict based upon circumstantial evidence.

There's both circumstantial and direct evidence in this case.

The judge will instruct the jury that both types of evidence are considered equal under the law.

 

[JenaTaoson]

http://wsmv.images.worldnow.com/library/b12830a9-4f6d-4535-89bc-eeb37ae1c7ea.pdf

Sooo can anyone tell me if this judge is the same mentioned in this document? Because it's obvious to even us watchers that the judge is against the defense for whatever reason... if he had already been asked to step down and refused, and it's him I've watched for a week, then I'm disgusted...

Yes, same judge. I, however, think he is more partial to rule in favor of whoever is presenting witnesses. Today he overruled the prosecution at least three times when the defense was presenting.That is more than I've ever seen in their favor, of course they haven't objected nearly as much as I think they should have previously.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[lonetraveler]

There's both circumstantial and direct evidence in this case.

The judge will instruct the jury that both types of evidence are considered equal under the law.

Yes, I'm aware of that. Thanks.

 

[JenaTaoson]

There's both circumstantial and direct evidence in this case.

The judge will instruct the jury that both types of evidence are considered equal under the law.

Yes, completely agree. Separately these testimonies may be rumor but together they are powerful.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk
ETA: I am a woman of science normally but this case is full of circumstantial evidence and then some.

 

[Dogface]

I wonder why they didn't wire tap ZA? He seems to have the kind of loose lips that sink ships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tainted Angel]

I'm disappointed that the state did not bring any phone text convos, pics, etc into any of the evidence.

Am I wrong, or aren't texts available from cell phone companies, if warranted by TBI etc?

I thought this was an obvious area that would be exposed.

Maybe these culprits weren't in touch via cell during the crime because they were with one another, and I know, they were a bunch of meth heads, so it is doubtful they wrote novels to each other in text, I get it.

But I find it hard to believe over the course of time that they didn't once text about it, send a picture about it, or the "alleged" video we have all heard about. I am assuming this video never turned up with all the prior investigation, so I wasn't expecting it. But I did expect text streams from Zach Adams, Dylan Adams and Jason Autry.

Since it was shown Zach posted what he did on Facebook, I imagine he slipped a text or two about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because of the time that had elapsed between when Holly was abducted and they started looking hard at ZA, DA, JA, and SA, I wouldn't expect to see text messages that contained any content. Most carriers only retain that information for about 30 days, if that. There are millions of customers sending millions of texts every month and the carriers' servers cannot save that kind of information indefinitely. The call and text logs can still be subpoenaed with a warrant, but not the content if it has already been purged.

 

[Ellej]

Because of the time that had elapsed between when Holly was abducted and they started looking hard at ZA, DA, JA, and SA, I wouldn't expect to see text messages that contained any content. Most carriers only retain that information for about 30 days, if that. There are millions of customers sending millions of texts every month and the carriers' servers cannot save that kind of information indefinitely. The call and text logs can still be subpoenaed with a warrant, but not the content if it has already been purged.

Interesting. Thank you! I did not know.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[popsicle]

I wonder why they didn't wire tap ZA? He seems to have the kind of loose lips that sink ships.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe they tried. That one witness said ZA was getting paranoid and acting sketchy. Whenever HB's name was mentioned he made everyone leave.

 

[Tugela]

So, basically, the prosecution has no evidence other than what Autry claims, and his testimony is highly questionable. He doesn't even claim to have ever actually seen HB, just a wrapped up body. His entire story is questionable. And who just goes and helps someone dispose of a body in what must have been an obvious high profile disappearance and probable sex crime? These sorts of guys look after their own behinds first and foremost, and getting involved in something like that with minimal protest for no real reason is NOT what they do. I don't believe he is being truthful. IMO he is saying all this stuff to avoid the possibility of being convicted of something he didn't do just because he is a ****.

There doesn't seem to be anything implicating DA outside of hearsay, so he has to be acquitted. Based on what we have heard, why was he even charged?

Since Autry has been given partial immunity they wont be able to use anything he said to them or in this trial against him, and there is no evidence other than what he said, so he is off scot free no matter what the verdict is.

I think it is telling that earlier TBI were apparently trying to pressure some other guy into confessing before they turned their attention to ZA and co. How do we know that they were not trying to do the same thing this time around, but his time they got someone to make allegations after their threats?

This whole thing stinks. There is no evidence, as I have suspected all along after the investigators shenanigans and the prosecutors stalling. At all. But the accused are clearly extremely dubious characters, and they will probably get convicted of being lowlifes rather than because there is a clear case against them.

 

[Tainted Angel]

The aunt that owns that farm/the barn/corn crib, is an Evans. The lawyer that Shayne had was an Evans... are they related?

I think SA's mother testified that the attorney representing them was a family member, so quite possibly.

 

[jggordo]

I will be amazed if the Defense does not ask for a mistrial over the Shayne Austin document. Attorneys on both sides argued about that issue before the trial even started. Defense even wanted Luke Evans on the Defense Team for crying out loud.

The Prosecutor tried to be clever and get that in through the "back door" and maybe will get by with it. I believe she knew better and did it anyway. At the very least it should have been debated outside the Jury. The Jury heard it even though the Judge says he will instruct as it being hearsay, he can't unring that bell.

JMO

 

[Ellej]

So, basically, the prosecution has no evidence other than what Autry claims, and his testimony is highly questionable. He doesn't even claim to have ever actually seen HB, just a wrapped up body. His entire story is questionable. And who just goes and helps someone dispose of a body in what must have been an obvious high profile disappearance and probable sex crime? These sorts of guys look after their own behinds first and foremost, and getting involved in something like that with minimal protest for no real reason is NOT what they do. I don't believe he is being truthful. IMO he is saying all this stuff to avoid the possibility of being convicted of something he didn't do just because he is a ****.

There doesn't seem to be anything implicating DA outside of hearsay, so he has to be acquitted. Based on what we have heard, why was he even charged?

Since Autry has been given partial immunity they wont be able to use anything he said to them or in this trial against him, and there is no evidence other than what he said, so he is off scot free no matter what the verdict is.

I think it is telling that earlier TBI were apparently trying to pressure some other guy into confessing before they turned their attention to ZA and co. How do we know that they were not trying to do the same thing this time around, but his time they got someone to make allegations after their threats?

This whole thing stinks. There is no evidence, as I have suspected all along after the investigators shenanigans and the prosecutors stalling. At all. But the accused are clearly extremely dubious characters, and they will probably get convicted of being lowlifes rather than because there is a clear case against them.

"No evidence"??

Have you seen testimony today with multiple witnesses which was pretty damning to the defense?

Have you been reading the great posts here about both circumstantial and direct evidence and have an understanding of what all of it entails?

Just because there isn't DNA doesn't mean there isn't a case.

Autry also had multiple witnesses confirming pieces of his story along with cell phone pings that aligned the locations and timing of his story.

Today's witness after witness, at least 4 I can think of from today that will not personally benefit at all for their testimony (prior convicts or current convicts), put the seal on the coffin of guilt.

I think prosecution overall is resting well tonight with a job well done.

So far these close blood relatives of the defense are doing nothing to prove Zachary Adams less than guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Henry2326]

So, basically, the prosecution has no evidence other than what Autry claims, and his testimony is highly questionable. He doesn't even claim to have ever actually seen HB, just a wrapped up body. His entire story is questionable. And who just goes and helps someone dispose of a body in what must have been an obvious high profile disappearance and probable sex crime? These sorts of guys look after their own behinds first and foremost, and getting involved in something like that with minimal protest for no real reason is NOT what they do. I don't believe he is being truthful. IMO he is saying all this stuff to avoid the possibility of being convicted of something he didn't do just because he is a ****.

There doesn't seem to be anything implicating DA outside of hearsay, so he has to be acquitted. Based on what we have heard, why was he even charged?

Since Autry has been given partial immunity they wont be able to use anything he said to them or in this trial against him, and there is no evidence other than what he said, so he is off scot free no matter what the verdict is.

I think it is telling that earlier TBI were apparently trying to pressure some other guy into confessing before they turned their attention to ZA and co. How do we know that they were not trying to do the same thing this time around, but his time they got someone to make allegations after their threats?

This whole thing stinks. There is no evidence, as I have suspected all along after the investigators shenanigans and the prosecutors stalling. At all. But the accused are clearly extremely dubious characters, and they will probably get convicted of being lowlifes rather than because there is a clear case against them.

IMO, we are seeing our justice system not necessarily at its finest. Many a Defendant are convicted on less evidence than in this case.... 1 person rather than 4 telling their story.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

 

[Tugela]

"No evidence"??

Have you seen testimony today with multiple witnesses which was pretty damning to the defense?

Have you been reading the great posts here about both circumstantial and direct evidence and have an understanding of what all of it entails?

Just because there isn't DNA doesn't mean there isn't a case.

Autry also had multiple witnesses confirming pieces of his story along with cell phone pings that aligned the locations and timing of his story.

Today's witness after witness, at least 4 I can think of from today that will not personally benefit at all for their testimony (prior convicts or current convicts), put the seal on the coffin of guilt.

I think prosecution overall is resting well tonight with a job well done.

So far these close blood relatives of the defense are doing nothing to prove Zachary Adams less than guilty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

There is still no evidence, other than what people claim the accused said. The only real direct evidence the state has is JA's statements. That is it. So it comes down to whether you think JA is credible or not. IMO he is not.

 

[Ellej]

I will be amazed if the Defense does not ask for a mistrial over the Shayne Austin document. Attorneys on both sides argued about that issue before the trial even started. Defense even wanted Luke Evans on the Defense Team for crying out loud.

The Prosecutor tried to be clever and get that in through the "back door" and maybe will get by with it. I believe she knew better and did it anyway. At the very least it should have been debated outside the Jury. The Jury heard it even though the Judge says he will instruct as it being hearsay, he can't unring that bell.

JMO

This is a very interesting point. To me, so far, that would be the only thing the defense had going for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tugela]

IMO, we are seeing our justice system not necessarily at its finest. Many a Defendant are convicted on less evidence than in this case.... 1 person rather than 4 telling their story.

Sent from my VS986 using Tapatalk

Well, if people are convicted with less evidence than this routinely, the US justice system is in very bad shape is all I can say.

This is not to defend criminals, but if you are planning to convict someone of a capital murder charge you had better damned well have compelling evidence that it really happened like that. In this case there is not. Thinking the accused are *******s, even if they are, is not grounds for conviction.

 

[katydid23]

Ok here is "chained" quote....in court back in February

http://m.wmcactionnews5.com/story/34399726/major-developments-expected-in-holly-bobo-case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Evans was the attorney for Shayne Austin, who is also charged in the investigation. Austin was found hanged in a hotel room in Florida in 2015. Prosecutor Jennifer Nichols asked Evans about five things Austin wrote on a piece of paper pertaining to Adams.

"Your client Shayne Austin told you Zach Adams said he put her in the river next to a rock that had an orange T on it," Nichols said. "Do you recall that he said that he wrote that 'I had her chained up in the back and called and called Shayne to,'--Please excuse me your honor, f---- her."

According to the prosecution, Austin said Zach told him how he hid Bobo's body.

"You have to gut them so they won't float," he said.

But, Zach's attorney said it doesn't matter what he said. He said just because Zach said those things, doesn't make them true. They said the statement was made by Zach in a bar to unknown people.

 

[Ellej]

There is still no evidence, other than what people claim the accused said. The only real direct evidence the state has is JA's statements. That is it. So it comes down to whether you think JA is credible or not. IMO he is not.

So you don't think any of the witnesses are credible and that Zach Adams did not say those things to people? Folks missed work and came out of state to testify to lie about it?

Or just that "just because he said it doesn't mean he did it"?

To me, there are way too many people, witnesses testifying to what was said by ZA.

I agree with you that if you don't believe Autry, then there isn't much there. I just think the jury as a whole will believe him. I concur with someone reflecting on Autry's testimony that his "give a damn" was broken and he seemed to lay it all out on the line with absolute candor, and confidence all the while twirling circles around the defense. If it happened another way, maybe we will find out, but the defense is carrying the biggest burden, IMO.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk