The more I think about it, I dont believe any of Jason Autrys story.
I think Holly was taken up to that cell tower, walked into the woods and raped and then shot. She stayed there until her remains were found. If Zach Adams killed her I believe thats where it happened. Who wants to lug a dead body 400 yards into those woods. Then that person made a loop and headed back toward Parsons throwing some of her things out of the vehicle to focus attention away from where the body was. Just my opinion.
I believe that the general framework of JA's story - in which he portrayed himself as more or less "innocent" of any personal involvement in any of the actual crimes committed - was so far-fetched as to be completely unbelievable. According to JA, he didn't kidnap, rape, or murder anyone, while everyone else did (according to him).
Because I don't believe he was telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I think it's naive to then think we somehow can "know" which part is true and which isn't (which is what the jury decided they could do). How can we objectively distinguish what was made up by him (for his own purpose) and what wasn't? If you're honest about the facts, you have to choose that either JA testified truthfully, or he lied his *advertiser censored* off, and if you believe he lied then you have to admit that his testimony was worthless because you have a liar who is telling you stuff that you can't verify either way (no one else who was there was testifying, and no physical evidence).
The same applies to the way we should regard the things that JA says ZA told him. We accept as "truth" what is convenient to the prosecution, and dismiss what is inconvenient as "Well, ZA was lying." But, what if JA was the one making it up? Once we get into the game of playing all-knowing God with the words of a liar, and thinking we can sift the truth out from the lies, I think it's pure folly.
SO - when I am asked what I don't believe, the answer is that I can't trust anything JA said. Maybe there was some truth in there, but who knows what part it was and what part was just lies tailored to get a sweet deal. Clearly, "maybe it contained some truth" is not the stuff of "BARD."
Sad to say, I think we still don't really know what happened with HB from when she was abducted to when her body was discovered.
He got caught by the defense lying about Holly overhearing his name. He claimed it was when they were talking when they were in the pick up. The defense pointed out to him they were in the cab of the pick up and she was in the bed of the pick up so asked how that could be. It couldn't.
I believe that the general framework of JA's story - in which he portrayed himself as more or less "innocent" of any personal involvement in any of the actual crimes committed - was so far-fetched as to be completely unbelievable. According to JA, he didn't kidnap, rape, or murder anyone, while everyone else did (according to him).
Because I don't believe he was telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I think it's naive to then think we somehow can "know" which part is true and which isn't (which is what the jury decided they could do). How can we objectively distinguish what was made up by him (for his own purpose) and what wasn't? If you're honest about the facts, you have to choose that either JA testified truthfully, or he lied his *advertiser censored* off, and if you believe he lied then you have to admit that his testimony was worthless because you have a liar who is telling you stuff that you can't verify either way (no one else who was there was testifying, and no physical evidence).
The same applies to the way we should regard the things that JA says ZA told him. We accept as "truth" what is convenient to the prosecution, and dismiss what is inconvenient as "Well, ZA was lying." But, what if JA was the one making it up? Once we get into the game of playing all-knowing God with the words of a liar, and thinking we can sift the truth out from the lies, I think it's pure folly.
SO - when I am asked what I don't believe, the answer is that I can't trust anything JA said. Maybe there was some truth in there, but who knows what part it was and what part was just lies tailored to get a sweet deal. Clearly, "maybe it contained some truth" is not the stuff of "BARD."
Sad to say, I think we still don't really know what happened with HB from when she was abducted to when her body was discovered.
There were not many many eyewitnesses to what happened. There was only one (JA). As far as the "details" that matched, he was given the "script" of what the prosecution wanted him to match, before he ever testified, and they were bribing him to give testimony that they like. When his goal was to make them happy, how can we be sure of which details he said because that's what happened vs which details he said because that's what the prosecution wanted? The hardest lie to sift out is the half truth, which is why I can't trust any of it - with the mix of truth and lie, it was ALL "half-truth" stuff.
I mean all the other witnesses for the prosecution about what Zachary said. Conspiracy theory?
In a trial, a judge will say that even if a witness says something the juror does not believe, it is up to the juror to decide if they will accept, some or none of their testimony.
Just because a witness tells some lies, it does not automatically mean that everything they said is a lie. Especially if they are discussing a crime that involves them and they are possibly going to trial themselves for murder.
I can see how a criminal like JA might get all paranoid thinking that Holly had heard his name, even from the back of a truck. Sound carries. Window down? But, especially if he was scared for himself, on drugs, got paranoid, and was in heightened state of self-protection mode.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
You are not a lone wolf in this. Im with you. Those 4 nut jobs were bad guys and I think everyone is thankful they are off the streets, but Im still not sure who killed Holly. I do believe her death occurred up around that cell tower, and not at the river as JA said.
If we are lucky, ZA will tell the rest of the story in prison. Talking is the only thing he's good at. IMO. LolI think JA may be the one who actually killed her, not that it makes ZA any less guilty of murder because he participated in the crime.
I wonder if we'll ever know what happened to her body after she was killed. It makes no sense to me that only her scull, some teeth, and ribs were found. No bones from her arms or hands and no bones from her lower body, and IIRC, no bones from her spine. None. How can that be if her whole body was disposed of in one place?
I have a question about discovery. Would JA be untitled to see all of the discovery or only the discovery that pertained to himself?
I didn't see this posted
Burton S. Staggs
12 hrs ·
Zach Adams offered to plea guilty at least two times prior to the trial
According to a source with knowledge of the plea negations Zach Adams made at least two attempts to plea guilty before the Holly Bobo trial. The source said that Adams approached the state about a plea of guilty which would have him serve 25 years and at a later date a plea that would have him serve 45 years. According to that source both offers were decline by the state of TN
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1631371536882185&id=907291309290215