Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #4 ***ARRESTS***

[~n/t~]

I respectfully disagree with your entire post. 'Nuff said. :banghead:

OK :lol:

 

[Suthrnqt]

OK :lol:

:floorlaugh:

 

[goldenbear]

In the Sierra Lamar case the DA is going for the DP without a body. Everyone is concerned that there will be enough evidence for a conviction.

 

[~n/t~]

In the Sierra Lamar case the DA is going for the DP without a body. Everyone is concerned that there will be enough evidence for a conviction.

Why would they be concerned if there is enough evidence?

 

[Wonless]

Just a general comment to everyone here, I think we are going to see the why go hand and foot with the how in this case. If, and I also feel uneasy about LE and DA handling of this so far, DA has a strong case on the how, the why will become more clear. We may not ever really know the why.. but on the other hand if the DA's case centers around only a why, I am more concerned that a conviction may not happen.

 

[SteveS]

I strongly agree with those who think the "why" really isn't that important.

Yes, if you can figure out the why, it can lead you to the killer(s), but sometimes there might not be a why that makes sense to the rest of us. And the perp is just as guilty, and can be convicted even if they did the deed for no understandable reason.

For that reason, the idea that we (or LE) simply MUST find the motive is wrong. They need to find forensic and witness testimony that links the bad guy(s) to the deed, and that's about it.

 

[Suthrnqt]

I strongly agree with those who think the "why" really isn't that important.

Yes, if you can figure out the why, it can lead you to the killer(s), but sometimes there might not be a why that makes sense to the rest of us. And the perp is just as guilty, and can be convicted even if they did the deed for no understandable reason.

For that reason, the idea that we (or LE) simply MUST find the motive is wrong. They need to find forensic and witness testimony that links the bad guy(s) to the deed, and that's about it.

Well said, Steve.

 

[~n/t~]

There is always a why! People don't go around kidnapping/murdering strangers/acquaintances/family etc....just because. Unless they are declared mentally insane, I believe the jurors will want to know the why.

In order to get a successful conviction, IMO, the following questions need to be answered for the jurors.

What?
Who?
Why?
Where?
When?
How?

I also believe that unless the why (motive) is established, the defense attorneys will have a field day. Was it ZA, JA, SA or someone else?

Who had the most to gain from murdering Holly and why?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

But surely some of these comments could backfire badly ?

ie.
# 1 Weren't they related & these families all seem to live fairly close-by ?

#3 That's one of his statements which is being 'debated' per my earlier post !!

Don't get me wrong I fully agree regarding any evidence or swaying of the jury, it's more about 'dirty tactics' or legal loop-holes I was meaning.

And the fact that he says he didn't even know Holly means nada.

Many young females have been murdered or raped or both by someone they didn't know.

Sure doesn't mean he is innocent. I think he is just blowing smoke.

IMO

 

[Karma28]

There is always a why! People don't go around kidnapping/murdering strangers/acquaintances/family etc....just because. Unless they are declared mentally insane, I believe the jurors will want to know the why.

In order to get a successful conviction, IMO, the following questions need to be answered for the jurors.

What?
Who?
Why?
Where?
When?
How?

I also believe that unless the why (motive) is established, the defense attorneys will have a field day. Was it ZA, JA, SA or someone else?

Who had the most to gain from murdering Holly and why?

This is from a CA alternate juror talking about the not guilty verdict:

Huekler laid out three reasons:

The prosecution "didn't present the evidence that would have sustained either a murder charge or a manslaughter charge."
They also failed to show a motive. "We ... kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.”
And the prosecution was also unable to say "how did Caylee actually pass away."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43651613/...r-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/#.U4R_TSgQxbE

 

[oceanblueeyes]

There is always a why! People don't go around kidnapping/murdering strangers/acquaintances/family etc....just because. Unless they are declared mentally insane, I believe the jurors will want to know the why.

In order to get a successful conviction, IMO, the following questions need to be answered for the jurors.

What?
Who?
Why?
Where?
When?
How?

I also believe that unless the why (motive) is established, the defense attorneys will have a field day. Was it ZA, JA, SA or someone else?

Who had the most to gain from murdering Holly and why?

OMG I sure hope this jury doesn't overburden the state like they did in the Anthony case by wanting to know, why, where, when, and how when that is not even the legal burden the state has to prove in the first place. Since 99% of jurors do understand the burden of the state I am not worried about this jury at all understanding it and upholding it to the fullest letter of the law.

The state does not have to prove how Holly died nor where she died or even, when or why she died. They have to prove BARD that she was a victim of homicide and that the defendants charged are the ones who committed that homicide. The aggravated kidnapping wont be hard to prove imo.

They have only three required elements to prove:
The victim is Holly Bobo.
The manner of death for Holly Bobo was a homicide.
The charged defendants did kidnap and commit homicide against Holly Bobo.

But since I have been a jury on three different murder cases, I have full faith in this jury that they will adhere to the rules, and laws they will swear to uphold, and will not overburden the state.

If those things you've listed truly had to be proven then no missing body case would ever result in a conviction which thankfully is not the case. Because in many missing body cases none of your list of demands are ever known yet they are convicted time and time again based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Most cases are CE cases and they are as strong or even more so sometimes than direct evidence cases.

They will link the evidence piece by CE piece. I find that juries do not buy into coincidences and they think every link of evidence has a purposeful intent.

IMO

 

[Karma28]

I have a feeling that the lawyer may not have sanctioned the interview.

Bottom line, attorney can advice client, but if client refuses to follow the advice of counsel, client ultimately runs the show.

I found it interesting that the attorney is whining about lack of access to his client when the press has apparently had much more (free) access to him than the attorney.

The interview happened at a table, face to face, no door no glass.

So what is all this about trying to talk through cel door and thick glass bullcarp?

BBM

He talked to NewsChannel 5 by closed circuit TV from Riverbend Maximum Security Prison.

Regarding JA's recent televised interview, I am surprised that the authorities in charge of where ever he is being held actually allowed it. Surely every prisoner isn't permitted access to media to plead their innocence, even before they face trial??

BBM

The state response also read: "Mr. Long was granted a video conference with his client, but, unfortunately, Mr. Long chose to squander his time when he circumvented TDOC policy by allowing a member of the media to conduct an unapproved interview with an inmate."

This referred to him allowing NewsChannel 5 to interview Autry.

"That's my call. That's not Riverbend's call," said Long, who granted the interview so Autry could have his say.

ETA: Oops.. Link to both statements above:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/25590166/controversy-over-lawyer-access-to-bobo-murder-suspect

MOO

 

[~n/t~]

This is from a CA alternate juror talking about the not guilty verdict:

Huekler laid out three reasons:

The prosecution "didn't present the evidence that would have sustained either a murder charge or a manslaughter charge."
They also failed to show a motive. "We ... kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.”
And the prosecution was also unable to say "how did Caylee actually pass away."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43651613/...r-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/#.U4R_TSgQxbE

Thanks! Even though I think motive was established in Casey's case , it clearly shows how important the jury takes these unanswered questions seriously when it comes down to making their decision.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

This is from a CA alternate juror talking about the not guilty verdict:

Huekler laid out three reasons:

The prosecution "didn't present the evidence that would have sustained either a murder charge or a manslaughter charge."
They also failed to show a motive. "We ... kept waiting to see what was the motive — just because Casey was a party girl did not show why she would possibly, you know, kill Caylee.”
And the prosecution was also unable to say "how did Caylee actually pass away."

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/43651613/...r-sick-our-stomach-over-verdict/#.U4R_TSgQxbE

Thank goodness 99% of jurors aren't like the Pinellas Clueless and does fully understand the law, upholds it and does understand what the real burden is that the state must prove. I shudder to think any one of them being on a jury again.

Cases like the Anthony, OJ, and Durst cases are anomalies. That is why when they occasionally do happen there is such outrage from those in our society.

 

[Suthrnqt]

OMG I sure hope this jury doesn't overburden the state like they did in the Anthony case by wanting to know, why, where, when, and how when that is not even the legal burden the state has to prove in the first place.

The state does not have to prove how Holly died nor where she died or even, when or why she died. They have to prove BARD that she was a victim of homicide and that the defendants charged are the ones who committed that homicide. The aggravated kidnapping wont be hard to prove imo.

They have only three required elements to prove:
The victim is Holly Bobo.
The manner of death for Holly Bobo was a homicide.
The charged defendants did kidnap and commit homicide against Holly Bobo.

But since I have been a jury on three different murder cases, I have full faith in this jury that they will adhere to the rules, and laws they will swear to uphold, and will not overburden the state.

If those things you've listed truly had to be proven then no missing body case would ever result in a conviction which thankfully is not the case. Because in many missing body cases none of your list of demands are ever known yet they are convicted time and time again based on overwhelming circumstantial evidence. Most cases are CE cases and they are as strong or even more so sometimes than direct evidence cases.

They will link the evidence piece by CE piece. I find that juries do not buy into coincidences and they think every link of evidence has a purposeful intent.

IMO

Hey ocean :seeya: Great to see you here. I wholeheartedly agree with your astute observations.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From News Channel 5:


Hearing To Address Immunity Agreement In Bobo Case

Updated: May 27, 2014 7:07 AM CDT


DECATUR COUNTY, Tenn. (AP/NewsChannel 5) – A court hearing is scheduled in a dispute about an immunity agreement in the case of a Tennessee nursing student who disappeared three years ago.

According to court documents, a March 6 agreement granted Shayne Austin immunity from various charges, including "all charges arising out of the disposal, destruction, burial, and/or concealment of Holly Bobo's deceased body."


http://www.newschannel5.com/story/25615439/hearing-to-address-immunity-agreement-in-bobo-case

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thanks! Even though I think motive was established in Casey's case , it clearly shows how important the jury takes these unanswered questions seriously when it comes down to making their decision.[/QUOTE

Imo, all it shows is how clueless THAT jury was and THAT jury demanded that the state be overburdened with elements that didn't have to be proven in the first place.

They were so shallow minded they didn't even know how to link up an overwhelming amount of evidence. They demanded to have a 'video tape' kinda show more like CSI than dealing with reality in a courtroom. That is why Caylee was denied justice.

99% of jurors "get it"

The Anthony jury demands is only a reflection on THAT one case[/B] and those set of jurors only. It was such a controversial verdict that the jurors have had to hide out because most people followed that case knew they overburden the state and did not uphold their oath to follow the law.

It is not in anyway a reflection on all jurors in this country because jurors sit in courtrooms here every day through the week and mete out convictions base on the same set of laws that the Anthony jury was suppose to follow but didn't.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Suit against Holly Bobo prosecutors to be heard

Shayne Austin, a suspect who made a deal with the state in exchange for his cooperation, has filed a lawsuit against the state.

A judge in Decatur County will hear arguments in the case on Tuesday.


http://www.wsmv.com/story/25616279/suit-against-holly-bobo-prosecutors-to-be-heard

 

[Karma28]

Thanks! Even though I think motive was established in Casey's case , it clearly shows how important the jury takes these unanswered questions seriously when it comes down to making their decision.[/QUOTE

Imo, all it shows is how clueless THAT jury was and THAT jury demanded that the state be overburdened with elements that didn't have to be proven in the first place.

They were so shallow minded they didn't even know how to link up an overwhelming amount of evidence. They demanded to have a 'video tape' kinda show more like CSI than dealing with reality in a courtroom. That is why Caylee was denied justice.

99% of jurors "get it"

The Anthony jury demands is only a reflection on THAT one case[/B] and those set of jurors only. It was such a controversial verdict that the jurors have had to hide out because most people followed that case knew they overburden the state and did not uphold their oath to follow the law.

It is not in anyway a reflection on all jurors in this country because jurors sit in courtrooms here every day through the week and mete out convictions base on the same set of laws that the Anthony jury was suppose to follow but didn't.

Tell us how you really feel. :giggle:
My point in my earlier post regarding the CA jury was just a friendly reminder that verdicts like that DO happen and SOME juries do indeed look for motive. Trust me, I pray that those responsible will fry. MOO

 

[~n/t~]

From News Channel 5:


Hearing To Address Immunity Agreement In Bobo Case

Updated: May 27, 2014 7:07 AM CDT


DECATUR COUNTY, Tenn. (AP/NewsChannel 5) – A court hearing is scheduled in a dispute about an immunity agreement in the case of a Tennessee nursing student who disappeared three years ago.

According to court documents, a March 6 agreement granted Shayne Austin immunity from various charges, including "all charges arising out of the disposal, destruction, burial, and/or concealment of Holly Bobo's deceased body."


http://www.newschannel5.com/story/25615439/hearing-to-address-immunity-agreement-in-bobo-case

Wish they would say what time. Should be interesting!!! Thanks for posting.