If they had more evidence that would make them offer DA immunity?????????.......can you please explain how in the world you came to this conclusion?
Seriously this is not how it works.......if they had more evidence they would not be willing to offer immunity to any of the suspects.
Which ironically they were trying to revoke the immunity from SA when he committed suicide......good chance they had some evidence he was much more involved then they thought when the deal was made.
The charges imply they only have witness statements..........??????.I am not even going to address this any further.
Forensics can and will prove ZA was in the Bobo carport.........Hence the prolonged silence from the defense since that bit* of
evidence that was dropped on them a while ago
* the massive amount of discovery/evidence wouldn't be considered a "BIT" either here in the US nor over in the UK
SA very likely killed himself because there was a very good chance that his deal was going to be revoked (probably because what he told them was useless or demonstrably false, and he had been told this by them in no uncertain terms), and that would mean that he would be going to jail for a
very long time on the unrelated offences he was charged for. Remember, he provided the prosecutor with information about the Bobo case in return for a deal on other offences he was facing. When the deal was officially revoked he almost certainly would have had his original charges reinstated, and since he likely admitted to them as part of the deal, he was toast.
Evidence comes in two forms. Evidence that a crime was committed, and evidence that a particular person committed the crime. They might have some, even a lot of, evidence that a crime was committed, but it is very unlikely that they have much evidence regarding WHO committed it outside of what DA claimed in his statements. So to connect the other two to the crime, they really need his testimony. Typically (unless they found out that DA was the major perpetrator) they would offer a deal in the form of reduced charges or immunity in return for the testimony making the link between the crime and the accused. For example, in the John Gotti trial, they secured the conviction using the testimony of Sammy Gravano, who was actually a serial killer and a very bad person. In return Gravano got a 5 year sentence. For being a serial killer. This happens all the time.
The charges imply witness statements because they claim facts that could only have come from a witness. The only known such witness is DA, hence it is not unreasonable to presume that that is the basis for the indictment. Ideally they would want DA to SAY that in court, but obviously he is not going to do that (especially now). That is why they have recharged all three of them with new upgraded charges, so they can still use his statements without needing to have him testify. It is a strategic move, and you only make strategic moves because direct moves won't work. That says a lot about the case they have.
I'm not sure how forensics would prove ZA was in the carport since we already know that he was posting on his facebook page at the time HB was abducted and presumably could not be in two places at once. We also know that the description of the abductor does not match ZA.
Discovery in a criminal case is basically the entire investigation file. The investigation had been going on for years before they focused on ZA and co, so there would be a huge amount of irrelevant information in it. All of that is part of discovery as well.
The only information that would be relevant to the trial would be the events of the day, such as who saw what and when LE was called, their initial observations etc etc. Most of this would establish that a crime had occurred, but none of it would say who perpetrated it. After that, evidence gathered during and after the search warrants were executed would be used to show who the perpetrators were. We know about DA's allegations, and that would have been the basis of both the warrants and the indictments. As for the evidence gathered during execution of the search warrants, they may have taken a lot of stuff, but probably very little or none of it would be useable in trial. For example, they may have taken ZA's cell phone, but if there was nothing incriminating on it, it would just be a cell phone and prove nothing other than that he had a cell phone. That is normal for any investigation.
They have had all this evidence for a long time. Do you not think it strange that they would be missing deadlines, ignoring court orders to deliver discovery, forgetting to bring defendants to the courthouse from jail during hearings and all that if they had compelling evidence outside of DA's claims? The whole debacle about the guy who supposedly had a video, but it was really just based on what a woman thought she kind of saw - that was an amazingly weak argument and the sort of thing done in desperation. And what about Stowe's spat with the TBI? Clearly HE thought that things were not being done right and that information was being concealed, even from him, otherwise he would not got into such a public fight. Irrespective of what the public spin was, IMO that was a fight about ethics - it meant that Stowe neither trusted nor believed what the TBI was claiming. If there was compelling evidence outside of DA's statements then none of that would have happened, but it did.
That is the basis for my belief that they don't have much more than DA's statement.
What is the basis for your belief that they do have more? You should present an argument in support of that position.
Obviously we don't know what they do or don't have, but considering the circumstances and the events of the last year or so, I would say that there are strong reasonable grounds to believe that they don't have a whole lot linking the accused to the crime outside of what DA had claimed. And that is the crux of the problem, and the big issue that they are trying to side step.
