Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo Sept 20 & 21, 2017

[oceanblueeyes]

:seeya:

RBBM: Exactly !

JMO but until it is proven for a fact WHO was in the carport, there will always be debate regarding CB's statements regarding what he saw that morning.

CB's description given did NOT fit ZA, DA or JA, but IMO it did somewhat fit SA's description ...

So until it is proven as to who was THE "Camo Man," Unfortunately there will always be doubt regarding CB's statements.

:moo:

That will continue I am sure on social media sites by some but really all of those things are irrelevant to the trial of ZA. The felony murder rule has been made very clear to the jury. In the end it really doesn't matter by law who the original kidnapper was because they all were committing felony kidnapping by holding her against her will by raping her before they killed her.

I am glad the ADA used the felony bank robbery as an example of acting in concert.

 

[Bravo]

Witness after witness testified which supports Autry's testimony. IMO

 

[katydid23]

People wondering why the 'idiots' are pointing fingers at each other, but why did Britt implicate himself? Why would he be willing to plea to something he didn't do? And that...is where reasonable doubt slips in. There is false confessions. So in this particular case, who is telling the truth and who isn't? I don't know!

I don't believe for one second that Britt was about to confess. The way the Marshall described the wording, it sounded like Britt was being sarcastic. " Since you have it all figured out I better just confess right now..." NOT

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910892977517744128]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/910892977517744128[/video]

[video=twitter;910892977979052033]https://twitter.com/SashaJonesWMC/status/910892977979052033[/video]

[video=twitter;910892996324941825]https://twitter.com/burtstaggsnews/status/910892996324941825[/video]

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910893026196762625]https://twitter.com/WBBJ7EricP/status/910893026196762625[/video]

[video=twitter;910893041833177089]https://twitter.com/chrisconte/status/910893041833177089[/video]

[video=twitter;910893075354066955]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/910893075354066955[/video]

 

[katydid23]

Yes, it is a very confusing case. But, Dicus talked about all of the idiots who confessed to the crime, said they had Holly's head in the freezer, had her chained in the basement, etc. But, what about the cell phone facts? Holly's device went past Zach's and kept going north. Wasn't that testimony compelling? Wasn't it compelling that all of the criminals were pointing their fingers at Zach, but the people that the defense called were professionals, for the most part, and functioning members of society?

Whose cell phone facts should we use? There were conflicting opinions.

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910893105133604864]https://twitter.com/WSMVCarley/status/910893105133604864[/video]

[video=twitter;910893221697478657]https://twitter.com/MarandaFaris/status/910893221697478657[/video]

[video=twitter;910893342640295939]https://twitter.com/burtstaggsnews/status/910893342640295939[/video]

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910893393177452545]https://twitter.com/MarandaFaris/status/910893393177452545[/video]

[video=twitter;910893412924129281]https://twitter.com/bchapman_WREG3/status/910893412924129281[/video]

[video=twitter;910893434789122048]https://twitter.com/NC5_ChrisConte/status/910893434789122048[/video]

 

[SteveS]

Was this immunity agreement actually in effect? I thought Shayne had not been charged yet when he died.

It was a matter of dispute that was taken to court. There was a signed agreement. Then the state said that SA hadn't kept the agreement, and declared he had lost his immunity, but SA strongly disagreed that anything was amiss, and asserted he should still have immunity. As I recall, the court kinda sidestepped the issue, more or less saying that whether or not his immunity agreement was violated would be decided if he was ever charged with something in violation of it.

After that, the state said that they were bringing charges very soon, and they made all kinds of inferences about him. They never did, however; nothing happened at all. Then out of the blue, maybe 9 months later, he committed suicide in Florida (where he had moved), with a statement from his lawyer afterwards saying he had no involvement in the crimes against HB and that the suicide flowed from feelings of being a pariah in TN.

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910893440292065280]https://twitter.com/MarandaFaris/status/910893440292065280[/video]

[video=twitter;910893498198642694]https://twitter.com/WSMVCarley/status/910893498198642694[/video]

[video=twitter;910893517349801990]https://twitter.com/SashaJonesWMC/status/910893517349801990[/video]

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910893550312804352]https://twitter.com/MarandaFaris/status/910893550312804352[/video]

[video=twitter;910893738402205696]https://twitter.com/FOX13Memphis/status/910893738402205696[/video]

[video=twitter;910893745608036354]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/910893745608036354[/video]

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Same. I don't think I could ever give anyone the death penalty, but I would definitely find Zach guilty of kidnapping and murder - not as sure about rape, it depends on the law and jury instructions.

I certainly believe 100% he is guilty of all charges. I look at each case and the circumstances surrounding the crimes to decide if I think death is an appropriate sentence.

I wouldn't have any reservations whatsoever in voting for death in this case.

 

[Mightymight]

LOL no

I’m going to have to go with OBE here. The evidentiary rules are much lower in sentencing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Bravo]

Will this be all about Britt

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910895206433779713]https://twitter.com/_KCummings_/status/910895206433779713[/video]

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It was a matter of dispute that was taken to court. There was a signed agreement. Then the state said that SA hadn't kept the agreement, and declared he had lost his immunity, but SA strongly disagreed that anything was amiss, and asserted he should still have immunity. As I recall, the court kinda sidestepped the issue, more or less saying that whether or not his immunity agreement was violated would be decided if he was ever charged with something in violation of it.

After that, the state said that they were bringing charges very soon, and they made all kinds of inferences about him. They never did, however; nothing happened at all. Then out of the blue, maybe 9 months later, he committed suicide in Florida (where he had moved), with a statement from his lawyer afterwards saying he had no involvement in the crimes against HB and that the suicide flowed from feelings of being a pariah in TN.

I think he knew they would be filing charges against him. He couldn't take the pressure and waiting for the other shoe to drop so he took the cowardly way out instead of possibly going to death row.

From the way the state has said things in this case about SA I think they found a lot more evidence on him since his immunity agreement.

 

[Mightymight]

There are 2 more defendants waiting in the wings ... DA and JA:

- Will they have a trial?
- Will they have a plea deal?
- Will they have immunity?

My question is will this evidence that was not admitted in this trial be made public in the trial of DA and/or JA?

Maybe if they have a trial for DA and/or JA ...

JMO but the State's case is weak against ZA, and he is supposed to be the "ring leader" ...

So my question is was the evidence that was not admitted in ZA's trial held for the other two?

OR - is there something else they do NOT want the public to know ?

Confused ?

:moo:

I expect Dylan to go to trial or plead guilty. I expect JA to be offered a better deal. In one of the pre-trial hearings, JA’s lawyer told the judge he does not need a trial date for JA. I believe his charges will be lowered and he will plead guilty. Nothing is formalized atm, but I expect it to be in after DA’s trial/guilty plea.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dog.gone.cute]

That will continue I am sure on social media sites by some but really all of those things are irrelevant to the trial of ZA. The felony murder rule has been made very clear to the jury. In the end it really doesn't matter by law who the original kidnapper was because they all were committing felony kidnapping by holding her against her will by raping her before they killed her.

I am glad the ADA used the felony bank robbery as an example of acting in concert.

:seeya:

I totally understand the "felony murder rule" etc ...

BUT you just can't rule out what the State's Star Witness - Jason Autry - stated UNDER OATH: that Zach was at the Bobo home that morning to teach Clint how to make meth.

So ... do you "cherry pick" what you want to believe about the Star Witness for the State - do you believe a percentage - do you accept all or nothing from Autry?

JMO but it does matter who the ACTUAL Kidnapper - "Camo Man" - was in it proves the State's case, and it will exonerate Clint.

:moo:

 

[minor4th]

I believe whatever was ruled inadmissible will remain so throughout all phases of the trial, including appeals unless ruled at some point to be admissible. Just my opinion from the trials I've watched. Minor or other attnys here can say with legal expertise if this is in fact the fact of the matter.

For sure there is evidence that would be inadmissible at trial but admissible for sentencing. Prior bad conduct is usually a big part of sentencing, but it's usually inadmissible at trial.

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910897325337391104]https://twitter.com/SashaJonesWMC/status/910897325337391104[/video]

[video=twitter;910897714757619712]https://twitter.com/burtstaggsnews/status/910897714757619712[/video]

[video=twitter;910898143746826241]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/910898143746826241[/video]