post trial discussion of evidence

New Posts

TrixieBelden13 said:
But the defense could have called her too and done just that. I know the possibility is that if she was called she could have testified against ZA also...after all the defense couldn't hand out immunity and she might not have been inclined to help. I think the defense probably had a hard time finding witnesses who would help.
Click to expand...

The defense is not going to call her because they were trying to make Vic out to be a possible alternate suspect. So putting his wife on would be potentially dangerous if she tried to incriminate ZA by throwing in a bombshell or 2.
 
katydid23 said:
The defense is not going to call her because they were trying to make Vic out to be a possible alternate suspect. So putting his wife on would be potentially dangerous if she tried to incriminate ZA by throwing in a bombshell or 2.
Click to expand...

Agree. Could have turned into a mess. It must have been very hard to try to figure out how to avoid land mines with the witnesses already involved.
 
Mr. Dinsmore had testified that some people had tried to attack his daughter prior to Holly's disappearance. First implying that it was ZA, et al. Then, saying it was the Pearcy folks, if I recall correctly. With his drug addiction, Mr. Dinsmore implied that he didn't cut ties with this group b/c he needed the drugs. He also testified that he felt they were trying to set him up with the evidence scattered on either side of his property. For a man not involved, he was certainly interacting with these guys a lot. I write this b/c I am trying to figure out how they go to see him and the evidence around his home just appearing. It truly does connect him.

My wondering about the evidence is this--- Was the evidence scattered by SA and DA? Placed in one area and blew around? Is it possible that it blew out of the back of the pick-up truck and ZA, et al didn't notice. Was going to Mr. Dinsmore's work part of "plan" to make sure the former sex offender was caught up in the situation if the topic ever arose? Were they angry at him for any reason?

My other thinking is about that blanket. Why would they have had it at the barn/corn crib if they weren't going to kill her? Of course, I would love to know where it is and whose it was. I wonder if it was SA's even though mom testified that she never saw a blanket like that.
 
I believe Mr Dinsmore testified that he was out of morphine. In saying that he was prescribed morphine due to a back surgery, IMO a Doctor only prescribes morphine for a limited number of weeks or months. With the morphine addictions they had developed, probably dating back to Zach's Grandmother's cancer terminal pain management the supply had or was drying up.

Therefor I don't believe they (Zack) was looking to set up a meth franchise but actually a new morphine connection. Someone with nursing home connections could be just what the Dr. ordered.

JMO
 
People with chronic pain can be prescribed morphine. I personally know several people that take different forms of it.

Those pink panties...so much talk about them being Holly's but, other than her Mom saying they were hers, no proof. And since there's thousands of pairs of each panties made, I have no idea how anyone can see a pair, and know who they belong to. Even if they were Victoria Secret, well, when I've taken my daughter to buy them, there's hundreds of the same pair in one store! No DNA was found to match Holly. Nothing was stated about who else's DNA was tested against them. No idea if any of the A group were even tested.... just bizarre.

JMO
 
jggordo said:
I believe Mr Dinsmore testified that he was out of morphine. In saying that he was prescribed morphine due to a back surgery, IMO a Doctor only prescribes morphine for a limited number of weeks or months. With the morphine addictions they had developed, probably dating back to Zach's Grandmother's cancer terminal pain management the supply had or was drying up.

Therefor I don't believe they (Zack) was looking to set up a meth franchise but actually a new morphine connection. Someone with nursing home connections could be just what the Dr. ordered.

JMO
Click to expand...

Someone working in a nursing home, as a social worker would NOT have access to morphine prescribed for the patients. Nope. Social workers don't have access to any of the meds.

Morphine can be prescribed for long term use. MSContin is a longer acting morphine and prescribed for chronic pain. Some patients are then given a short acting morphine for break through pain. Of course we know terminal ill patients are also prescribed morphine. Trauma patients as well. I'm not sure how much it's used in emergency rooms now, as from what I have heard from locals in my area, most ERs here aren't writing narcotic scripts.
 
I had to take a mental and physical break from this case. I do remember reading past media reports that I could find. Some links no longer work. There was discussion that an article that either Holly or Clint knew this A gang, and had been to one of their homes in the weeks or days before Holly disappeared. Does anyone else remember seeing that?
 
2Hope4 said:
People with chronic pain can be prescribed morphine. I personally know several people that take different forms of it.

Those pink panties...so much talk about them being Holly's but, other than her Mom saying they were hers, no proof. And since there's thousands of pairs of each panties made, I have no idea how anyone can see a pair, and know who they belong to. Even if they were Victoria Secret, well, when I've taken my daughter to buy them, there's hundreds of the same pair in one store! No DNA was found to match Holly. Nothing was stated about who else's DNA was tested against them. No idea if any of the A group were even tested.... just bizarre.

JMO
Click to expand...

I am confused about those pink underwear too - and I haven't re-listened to the various testimony about them - but if KB said Holly had a pair like that - and that pair was missing from Holly's belongings, not in a drawer, etc then I tend to believe they were in her backpack


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
The thing about the pink underwear is, would she have been carrying the extra pair with her lunchbox and papers? I am not sure if a backpack was found or reported missing so my only problem is if these are her "extra" pair, why was she just walking around with them in her hand? If they were the ones she was wearing, could the lack of DNA be b/c she hadn't had them on for long? It's not vital that we source these back but obviously most of us are left with a few questions about the "pink panties".

IMO
 
lstiff said:
The thing about the pink underwear is, would she have been carrying the extra pair with her lunchbox and papers? I am not sure if a backpack was found or reported missing so my only problem is if these are her "extra" pair, why was she just walking around with them in her hand? If they were the ones she was wearing, could the lack of DNA be b/c she hadn't had them on for long? It's not vital that we source these back but obviously most of us are left with a few questions about the "pink panties".

IMO
Click to expand...

She was carrying a small purse and a larger purse:

"Hodge showed the jury an inhaler, a small purse, a cloth strap (believed to be from the purse), a camera, keys with an 'H' keychain, a tube of ChapStick, a pack of gum, and a small purse filled with writing utensils and lipstick. A larger purse was also found covered in leaves. Hodge said the purse was almost buried in the ground."

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...y-3-more-key-witnesses-expected-to-take-stand

So let's go with her mother did the laundry and she packed them in the larger purse for her. They have had Karen's DNA sample since 2011, why didn't they find Karen's DNA on them? Surely they would know if the DNA found on them belonged to her.

Or, since they supposedly came from Holly's purse (or backpack if someone can find information that she was carrying one, since I haven't been able to find that information), wouldn't you think Holly's DNA would be on them from the numerous skin cells that she must have sloughed from her hands in the purse from the action of taking things in and out of it everyday?

If she had been wearing them, even for an hour, her DNA would have been on them.

And if she was carrying them, why weren't they found with the rest of the stuff from her purse instead of being found in a separate location?
 
dog.gone.cute said:
:seeya:

I think it is "telling" that these items were found near SA's trailer and his grandmother's home ...

BUT I am trying to think like a "perp" - LOL ...

But why would the perp(s) throw items near their home or their buddy's home to throw suspicion on them ? Makes no sense, IMO.

Also, I thought SA had a burn barrel going on that day -- why not throw it in the burn barrel ?

:moo:
Click to expand...

I think it would be hard not to give these guys credit for more sense than they actually have. Maybe it was meant to be burned, but was dropped. Or maybe they took some meth and couldn't have organized their way out of a wet paper bag. :) ZA dropped out of school and had a suspended license, per his mother DA can't tell time or read, and SA's mother testified that he had basically been thrown out of his family's home and given the trailer but no wheels. He was more worried about getting them gone before the satellite tech got there. Much smarter people than this have planned the "perfect" crime and messed up. :D
 
2Hope4 said:
Someone working in a nursing home, as a social worker would NOT have access to morphine prescribed for the patients. Nope. Social workers don't have access to any of the meds.

Morphine can be prescribed for long term use. MSContin is a longer acting morphine and prescribed for chronic pain. Some patients are then given a short acting morphine for break through pain. Of course we know terminal ill patients are also prescribed morphine. Trauma patients as well. I'm not sure how much it's used in emergency rooms now, as from what I have heard from locals in my area, most ERs here aren't writing narcotic scripts.
Click to expand...

I only know from personal experience. Having many relatives both having been in nursing homes and hospice as well. Also some that have worked in them. What is suppose to happen in nursing homes is much different than what does in my experience.

Clint testified that he was working for three different nursing homes while attending college. If he was attending college he was yet to be a social worker, IMO. Especially in small nursing homes and in rural areas workers do just about everything that is needed.

JMO's
 
jggordo said:
Especially in small nursing homes and in rural areas workers do just about everything that is needed.

JMO's
Click to expand...

I have to disagree with this part of your quote. I have worked in a nursing home in a rural area and had family in various nursing homes and have never saw anyone but pharmacists and licensed nurses have access to scheduled drugs. Also I'm not saying it is unheard of for licensed personnel to mishandle meds - but just anyone working in a nursing home doesn't have access


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Just saw on 2020's FB page that they are having a special on Holly this coming Friday
 
:seeya: Hello Y'all !

I have been very busy - real life ...

I went back to review the Trial Timeline, videos of the trial, threads here at WS, MSM articles, etc ...

And of course, I had to get caught up over at LaLa Land :innocent: ... LOL

First, I put the Trial Timeline in a word document so it would be easy to find who testified on what day, which makes it easier to search for the related trial video ... LaNewz and YouTube have the trial videos from each day.

Next -- I finally went back and listened to the testimony about the "panties" - the "pink panties" ... I'll put the info and links in a separate post here.

:cheers:
 
:seeya:


I went back and re-listened to the testimony about the "panties" and "pink panties" -- and this is what I found:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 11, 2017: Karen Bobo on witness stand.

Photos shown, and KB identifies a dirty clothes hamper in Holly's bathroom. JN asks KB if she was asked to retrieve something out Holly’s out of the dirty clothes basket by LE.

KB stated that LE asked her to get a pair of Holly's “panties,” which KB provided to LE. JN passes a bag to KB and asks her if she recognizes what is in the bag, and KB states those are Holly’s panties that she provided to LE that morning.

NOTE: These panties that are in this evidence bag are NOT shown to the jury.

These panties were entered into evidence as Exhibit #26.

Start at approximately 59:00 of the video link below. JN questioned by KB about Holly’s “panties” that she provided to LE.

Link: [video=youtube;31w8b5NrQHs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31w8b5NrQHs[/video]



September 15, 2017: Brent Booth, TBI Agent on witness stand.

Start at approximately 10:10 of the video link below to see BB questioned by State about the physical evidence found: the receipt, the $1 bill, Holly’s note cards, 3 ring binder, etc.

Link: [video=youtube;LYFCKx8_-6A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYFCKx8_-6A[/video]


At approximately 33:30 of the video above, JT passes Exhibit #16A to BB to open up and take a look at what’s in the sealed envelope.


JT asks BB if there is a pink pair of underwear in the envelope, and BB states “it is.”

BB states that the “pink panties” were laying in the middle of the road. JT questions further about the location, and BB testifies they were close to Shayne’s driveway.

BB states that these “pink panties” did NOT belong to Holly.

JT shows BB Exhibit #70, which is a photo of these “same underwear." JT asks BB to pull the underwear out the evidence bag, and BB shows these “pink panties” to the jury.

BB states these “pink panties” that he just showed the jury were tested for Holly’s DNA, and no DNA belonging to Holly was found on them.

JT asks BB if there was another woman’s DNA, and BB states “somebody’s DNA - a mixture of DNA.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So from the above testimony given at trial:

Exhibit #26
There was a pair of panties that Karen was shown in an evidence bag, said were Holly's panties provided to LE on the day she was kidnapped, but were not shown to the jury.


Exhibit #16A
There was a pair of pink panties in the evidence envelope that was shown to Agent Booth, said there were found in the middle of road near SA's house, did NOT have Holly's DNA on it, but were shown to the jury.

So ... two different exhibit #s - 2 different panties ... one pair was shown to the jury - the other pair not shown.


I hope that made sense.

:seeya:
 
lstiff said:
The thing about the pink underwear is, would she have been carrying the extra pair with her lunchbox and papers? I am not sure if a backpack was found or reported missing so my only problem is if these are her "extra" pair, why was she just walking around with them in her hand? If they were the ones she was wearing, could the lack of DNA be b/c she hadn't had them on for long? It's not vital that we source these back but obviously most of us are left with a few questions about the "pink panties".

IMO
Click to expand...

My daughter used to carry a backpack to school that was full of all kinds of things. Her lunchbox, her schoolwork, and a small plastic bag with a pair of clean underwear and t-shirt/leggings, as a back up. Sometimes she would go to a gym or jog, OR she might have an accident that time of the month, and couldn't come home to change.

I think a lot of 19 yr olds carry clean clothing in their packs for similar reasons. They have busy full days: work or gym then to school then maybe to boyfriends, then home, and having clean clothes to change into may come in handy.

In a backpack, a pair of folded clean undies takes up no space. And it can be vital to have, under certain circumstances, as many young women wearing white on a summer day might know...LOL
 
dog.gone.cute said:
:seeya:


I went back and re-listened to the testimony about the "panties" and "pink panties" -- and this is what I found:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 11, 2017: Karen Bobo on witness stand.

Photos shown, and KB identifies a dirty clothes hamper in Holly's bathroom. JN asks KB if she was asked to retrieve something out Holly’s out of the dirty clothes basket by LE.

KB stated that LE asked her to get a pair of Holly's “panties,” which KB provided to LE. JN passes a bag to KB and asks her if she recognizes what is in the bag, and KB states those are Holly’s panties that she provided to LE that morning.

NOTE: These panties that are in this evidence bag are NOT shown to the jury.

These panties were entered into evidence as Exhibit #26.

Start at approximately 59:00 of the video link below. JN questioned by KB about Holly’s “panties” that she provided to LE.

Link: [video=youtube;31w8b5NrQHs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31w8b5NrQHs[/video]



September 15, 2017: Brent Booth, TBI Agent on witness stand.

Start at approximately 10:10 of the video link below to see BB questioned by State about the physical evidence found: the receipt, the $1 bill, Holly’s note cards, 3 ring binder, etc.

Link: [video=youtube;LYFCKx8_-6A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYFCKx8_-6A[/video]


At approximately 33:30 of the video above, JT passes Exhibit #16A to BB to open up and take a look at what’s in the sealed envelope.


JT asks BB if there is a pink pair of underwear in the envelope, and BB states “it is.”

BB states that the “pink panties” were laying in the middle of the road. JT questions further about the location, and BB testifies they were close to Shayne’s driveway.

BB states that these “pink panties” did NOT belong to Holly.

JT shows BB Exhibit #70, which is a photo of these “same underwear." JT asks BB to pull the underwear out the evidence bag, and BB shows these “pink panties” to the jury.

BB states these “pink panties” that he just showed the jury were tested for Holly’s DNA, and no DNA belonging to Holly was found on them.

JT asks BB if there was another woman’s DNA, and BB states “somebody’s DNA - a mixture of DNA.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So from the above testimony given at trial:

Exhibit #26
There was a pair of panties that Karen was shown in an evidence bag, said were Holly's panties provided to LE on the day she was kidnapped, but were not shown to the jury.


Exhibit #16A
There was a pair of pink panties in the evidence envelope that was shown to Agent Booth, said there were found in the middle of road near SA's house, did NOT have Holly's DNA on it, but were shown to the jury.

So ... two different exhibit #s - 2 different panties ... one pair was shown to the jury - the other pair not shown.


I hope that made sense.

:seeya:
Click to expand...

Thank you so much for ironing that out! Now it all makes sense. :) Although I'm old enough to shake my head in disapproval at somebody's panties being left in the road :D, it sounds like we can safely say found them, tested them to be sure, and found they had no connection to Holly.
 
2Hope4 said:
Someone working in a nursing home, as a social worker would NOT have access to morphine prescribed for the patients. Nope. Social workers don't have access to any of the meds.

Morphine can be prescribed for long term use. MSContin is a longer acting morphine and prescribed for chronic pain. Some patients are then given a short acting morphine for break through pain. Of course we know terminal ill patients are also prescribed morphine. Trauma patients as well. I'm not sure how much it's used in emergency rooms now, as from what I have heard from locals in my area, most ERs here aren't writing narcotic scripts.
Click to expand...

I agree with you. Of course, it's still possible that the A's, the great drug-addled brain trust of Decatur County, thought he might be able to steal some morphine for them. I guess we'll never know why they "picked" her. Even if they told the stone cold truth about Why Holly, we probably wouldn't realize it, because the A's are all psychopaths and lie like most people breath.
 
maskedwoman said:
Thank you so much for ironing that out! Now it all makes sense. :) Although I'm old enough to shake my head in disapproval at somebody's panties being left in the road :D, it sounds like we can safely say found them, tested them to be sure, and found they had no connection to Holly.
Click to expand...


:seeya: You're welcome !

The whole "panties" evidence was confusing ... but what finally made sense was clarifying that there were 2 different Exhibits regarding panties. And of course, it was not necessary for the State to have KB take the panties out of the evidence bag and show them to the jury since these were the panties from the hamper in Holly's bathroom given to LE the day she was kidnapped.

Now, IF the panties that Booth the TBI agent testified to were found in the road were Holly's, they would have been shown to Dana with the other items found, such as the note cards, binder, etc.

:moo:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 176 more.
Total: 1,544 (members: 177, guests: 1,367)

Online statistics

Members online
177
Guests online
1,367
Total visitors
1,544
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,801
Messages
17,959,078
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top