Zach Adams on trial -kidnapping/murder Holly Bobo 9/20-22, 2017 GUILTY

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveS said:
Yes I'm sure.

As the article you cited states, it was SA who went to court (not the state), but it centered on what the state CAN do, if they wish, and the court bailed. The court gave the instruction that the state's path was to charge him with whatever crime and then they could all argue/adjudicate in that context whether there was a valid immunity agreement or not. And the state said they would do that, and it was about to happen right now, in a few, imminent, and so on - except they did nothing whatsoever.
Click to expand...

I guess we will have to agree to disagree on whether they took action and had intent to void his agreement. It looks to me like they argued for just that in court---which is action and intent---but no ruling was given, and there was a stalemate.

I will agree, that after the non-action of the court, they had not yet taken it up again. But they had already made it clear and public that they wanted to void the immunity deal.
 
SteveS said:
"Are you sure they never voided his immunity deal?" ...Yes I'm sure.

As the article you cited states, the state unilaterally declared that the signed agreement was not vaild any longer, and it was SA who went to court (not the state), but it centered on what the state CAN do, if they wish. And the court bailed. The court gave the instruction that they couldn't say, and the state could charge him with whatever crime and then they could all argue/adjudicate in that context whether there was a valid immunity agreement or not. And the state said they would do that, and it was about to happen right now, in a few, imminent, and so on - except they did nothing whatsoever.

It's all moot anyhow, but the point remains that SA never confessed to having been a part of any kidnapping, rape, murder, etc of HB, and he was never charged with any of it either (while, in contrast, the others at the time had been charged and locked up already).
Click to expand...

I am not sure it is really a moot point. Shayne did point blame at Zach and crew, so that is very relevant to this trial.

And he was not charged initially because he was thought to be telling the truth---but the state decided that he was not telling the truth, and revoked the deal.
 
katydid23 said:
It would be hard for me to say that the state didn't prove their case, if in fact, I believed the defendant to be guilty.
Click to expand...

You are certainly correct that there's a difference between "think he did it" and "proved he did it," and a juror can do it his own way, and break the law and his oath, if he chooses. I'm sure some do. But we also see some that don't. The Casey Anthony trial was probably like that (I don't watch it, but that was the sense I got from afar, and from comments still being made on WS). And the OJ case was DEFINITELY like that - the jury (and most observers) knew he did it, but he walked because the prosecution was too inept to prove a gift-wrapped case, and the jury refused to convict without it being proven. (I watched the case, and it was obvious that even though they had the evidence on OJ, they presented it in such a way that they proved nothing, so legally the jury did exactly what they were supposed to do.)
 
I just relistened to ADA Hagerman's closing argument (best closing of the day, IMO).

He mentioned something interesting I hadn't caught the first time:

Two separate jail inmates, who didn't know each other and did not previously know of Zach, heard Zack Adams say he wasn't worried because there was no body and no gun. These people crossed paths with Adams on March 4, 2014, as they and others were waiting to be processed and transported. That's the day Adams made that comment. One of the guys was then sent off to another jail in another county (same one as Dylan Adams) so that was the only opportunity for him to hear this statement Adams said. He's the one Zach asked to get to his brother and "tell Dylan to keep his mouth shut or I'll put him in a hole, right next to her."

The other guy is someone who didn't want to hear and didn't want to believe that Adams had done this crime.

Both of those guys testified in the trial. Neither one received any deal. In fact one of the guys was only in jail for 60 days, that was the total of his incarceration.

Adams confessed to each of these 2 strangers, and this is in addition to all the other people ZA yapped at among all the people in his community he knew.

ETA: Adams also claimed (bragged) about his $2MM bail saying, "you have to kill a beotch to get a $2MM bail!" These 2 heard him say it.
 
Was it Shayne or Dylan that said JA was standing feet from Holly while she was tied up in a green chair? She was wearing a pink Tshirt??

As I was watching prior news reports, there was one that the judge was pissed that sealed papers were given to a reporter. What were those papers?
 
2Hope4 said:
Was it Shayne or Dylan that said JA was standing feet from Holly while she was tied up in a green chair? She was wearing a pink Tshirt??

As I was watching prior news reports, there was one that the judge was pissed that sealed papers were given to a reporter. What were those papers?
Click to expand...

Who was it that said Holly was raped at ZA's house? Did he have a green chair? If so, bet it got disposed of.

I believe it was Dylan that said that.
 
Do we have a clear statement on the 'hit it'? Because I've hard that used in regards to rape, but also in regards to drugs. Of course, in the end, nothing we type here will matter, as it's all up to the jury.
 
Also something mentioned in Hagerman's closing:

There were between 7 and 9 people who testified about statements Zach said to them in the weeks after HB's murder, claiming his involvement in this crime. These were not people who all knew each other, though some of them did as they were acquaintances or friends of Adams.

There was independent corroboration of things Autry testified to:

- cell phone pings
- statements said by Zach Adams to others, his confessions
- other witnesses that corroborated things Autry said (guy who was cutting the grass in the area of the barn, Dismore with the gun, etc)
 
Plumeria5 said:
Who was it that said Holly was raped at ZA's house? Did he have a green chair? If so, bet it got disposed of.

I believe it was Dylan that said that.
Click to expand...

I don't know, and I don't know if that was released as part of that sealed papers or not. And in court it wasn't mentioned, that I remember. Neither was the rape mentioned at ZA's house, which you would have thought it would have been. State seems to say now that it was the 'barn'. JA seemed to imply SA's house because he mentioned going to SA's house, said SA was burning stuff, but someone was still in the house and didn't come out, was that Dylan? I'm getting so darn confused!
 
Madeleine74 said:
Also something mentioned in Hagerman's closing:

There were between 7 and 9 people who testified about statements Zach said to them in the weeks after HB's murder, claiming his involvement in this crime. These were not people who all knew each other, though some of them did as they were acquaintances or friends of Adams.
Click to expand...

Hangerman isn't sticking to the truth then. Because all those witnesses talked when Zach was in jail. He wasn't in jail in the weeks after Holly disappeared! It was YEARS later.
 
The statements made to friends was in the weeks and months after the murder. The statements made to the 2 inmates who never heard of or knew ZA was made on March 4, 2014.

It was only through investigation after the useless TBI guy was taken off the case that all the witnesses surrounding Adams and his cohorts were interviewed and alibis finally checked.

The timeline hasn't changed. Hagerman didn't lie. The witnesses in the trial testified and each told what they knew and when.
 
2Hope4 said:
Do we have a clear statement on the 'hit it'? Because I've hard that used in regards to rape, but also in regards to drugs. Of course, in the end, nothing we type here will matter, as it's all up to the jury.
Click to expand...


DInsmore had one version but it was JA who told exactly what happened.

Autry says he met up with Zach Adams, Shayne Austin and Dylan Adams later in the day and that’s when more info came out.
“Shayne told him ‘you didn’t have to kill her,’ and Zach told him ‘you’re just as [expletive] guilty. You hit it,” Autry said.
Autry says all three men — Zach, Shayne and Dylan — raped Bobo.
Click to expand...
http://www.wbbjtv.com/2017/09/14/jason-autry-testifies-zach-adams-raped-shot-holly-bobo/
 
If anyone has followed Holly's case from the beginning you may remember Will Nunley's coverage - at that time he was a reporter for WBBJ in Jackson - this is his reflection on the early days of the case - not related to the trial

https://www.facebook.com/wopcfm/videos/744452342420948/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SteveS said:
JA confess? He kinda didn't - which is part of my problem with his testimony. In HIS account of what happened, he didn't kidnap, he didn't rape, he showed up and most of the crime was done, he did happen to be there when she was "killed" but only as a bystander, and mostly what he did (in his story) wasn't painting himself as a heinous monster. Accompanying his tale, he detoured to try to take gratuitous shots at the others, to paint them as even worse in the eyes of the jury. Added together, it casts a lot of doubt on how factual he really was ...and his honesty (or lack of it) is the core of the state's case.

As for why he didn't just keep quiet, he may have felt that there was enough suspicious evidence that someone might get hung, guilty or not, and he simply didn't want to risk it with DP an option. They were already in jail for quite some time with a trial looming, before he spoke.
Click to expand...

But didn't the state have Austin's statement, too? If Austin had said that Autry was directly involved, I highly doubt the state would've used Autry's testimony in which he basically said he didn't do much. I think the other witness's testimony, and Austin's statement, corroborated that Autry's role was limited. He's a , no doubt, but I don't think he was directly involved in kidnapping and murdering her.
 
I don't see how any jury could convict from the "evidence" put forth.
 
cfreyja23 said:
But didn't the state have Austin's statement, too? If Austin had said that Autry was directly involved, I highly doubt the state would've used Autry's testimony in which he basically said he didn't do much. I think the other witness's testimony, and Austin's statement, corroborated that Autry's role was limited. He's a , no doubt, but I don't think he was directly involved in kidnapping and murdering her.
Click to expand...

He was the one who noticed she was still alive when they went to dispose of the body. He then served as a look out so ZA could shoot her. Or so he says. He may have shot her himself but regardless, he was involved in murdering her.
 
Rocco said:
He was the one who noticed she was still alive when they went to dispose of the body. He then served as a look out so ZA could shoot her. Or so he says. He may have shot her himself but regardless, he was involved in murdering her.
Click to expand...

Ugh. For what? So these losers could 'hit' a girl who was so far out of their league that they had to humiliate and murder her?
 
I know this is not going to be a popular opinion, but I think there's enough reasonable doubt here. I don't know that I could vote guilty. As much as I think bad guys like ZA should be in jail, I think there's reasonable doubt as to his culpability in this particular case. That reasonable doubt is (IMO) Terry Britt.

For what it's worth, I almost always side with the prosecution in trials/cases I follow and usually have no problem with cases where the evidence is mostly circumstantial If ZA is convicted, I won't shed a tear for some guy who shot his own mom spending significant time behind bars (the DP bothers me in general)....but I will be worried about whoever may have killed Holly not seeing justice for it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 217 more.
Total: 3,566 (members: 218, guests: 3,348)

Online statistics

Members online
218
Guests online
3,348
Total visitors
3,566
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,697
Messages
17,957,684
Members
228,588
Latest member
cariboucampfire73
Back
Top