Zach Adams guilty in kidnapping murder of Holly Bobo Sept 23, 2017

New Posts

Is there a thread for Jason Autry? Looking into his criminal past and previous convictions.

Just wondering
 
Pamelateach5 said:
The more I think about it, I don’t believe any of Jason Autry’s 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 that’s 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.
Click to expand...

:seeya:

BBM: I agree ... I have done some backtracking and re-listened to most of JA's testimony -- and the more I watch and re-listen to him testifying, the more I truly believe it was rehearsed. MOO !

It's too far fetched that he remembers so many details, especially when he stated he "cooked up" a 1/2 of a 100 mg of morphine pill and dosed it ! Really ?

Remember: For almost 3 years, JA claimed he was "innocent" and that he did not even know HB ... When JA was brought into the courthouse for some of the earlier Motions when he was first charged in Holly's case, he was yapping away at the cameras that he was "innocent" -- stating something like "right hand raised ..." Also, he had access to discovery through his attorneys - which IMO he could have formulated this fairy tale to match what was known. JA is only concerned about one thing and one thing only: himself IMO.

I know I am practically the "lone wolf" here but there is more to the "story" than what was presented at trial ... and not just JA's testimony ... but a lot more ...

:moo::moo::moo:
 
SteveS said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.

It is human nature to try and minimize one's own connection to a serious crime when telling the story to others. Just because he tried to tell the story and mitigate his own responsibility, it does not mean the entire story is a lie.

I looked at the other evidence to see of any corroborates his version. His phone did not meet up with the others until the same time he testified that it did. And others. like Zach's girlfriend, testified to a similar timeline.

I don't think JA was involved with the initial kidnapping or the initial gang rape. I believe that part of the story.

I don't believe that he just came along and tried to help dispose of the body, and that's all he did. I think he is hiding some real evil dirt. But his time will come and more eyes will be looking at his version then.
 
Rocco said:
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.
Click to expand...

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
 
SteveS said:
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.
Click to expand...

One, there were many, many witnesses. Two, its in the details, which is a really good way to know the truth. A recovering addict relative of mine got clean and got very REAL in telling the truth.... probably to the point of TMI to various people. So I'm buying JA's story. Three, the Bobo's are very informed with details and do believe it was him. Four, if Zach had a better story, he was certainly FREE to speak up!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
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.
 
SteveS said:
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.
Click to expand...

I mean all the other witnesses for the prosecution about what Zachary said. Conspiracy theory?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
You are not a lone wolf in this. I’m with you. Those 4 nut jobs were bad guys and I think everyone is thankful they are off the streets, but I’m 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.
 
I completely believe Zach went around bragging about it. I’m a retired elementary teacher and I have had a few Zachs in my classes over the years. They thrive on attention and don’t care how they get it.
 
Aydrianna523 said:
I mean all the other witnesses for the prosecution about what Zachary said. Conspiracy theory?
Click to expand...

Others CLAIMED that ZA said this or that. Did he truly say those things? (Any witness against ZA qualified for a part or all of the $250,000 being offered. Is that motivation to lie?) And if you want to ignore that issue, can we somehow know that ZA was telling the truth rather than being threatening using his reputation? Remember all the things that ZA supposedly told JA, and we say that what fits the prosecution case must be ZA telling the truth and what didn't must be ZA lying, and isn't that a completely pre-judging way to look at it? Same would apply to what ZA said to others. We excuse the inconsistencies and sift out what fits the prosecution case and label it as truth, which is the same issue of cherry-picking what we want to be true.

The problem is we don't have anyone giving actual eyewitness testimony except JA's account. JA was completely questionable (to me, and even to the jury) that he's actually telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth). We have no other eyewitness testifying. We don't have physical evidence either. It's glaring that they had nothing that showed HB was ever at SA's, or at the river, or at ZA's - and LE put all those places through a microscope. Nothing to show any of the crimes being committed at any of those places either. Nothing at the body to tie to any of the accuseds either.
 
katydid23 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I understand that the jury is free to accept or discard whatever they wish, even from someone they feel is lying to them under oath. I think he was mixing truth and lies, as did the jury, and as do you, and the question is merely "So how much weight can we put on what he said, and how can we sift fact from fiction?" I am NOT saying the jury "should have" deliberated it differently than they did. I am only expressing what I saw and what I feel that tells me.

I understand that in theory some of what JA said lined up with some other stuff, but I am also unwilling to discount his motivation and his opportunity to line up his testimony precisely with whatever other testimony was going to be given. He had the script, without question.

And as I have mentioned previously more than once, the JA skeeziness makes the case fall short of the "BARD" standard for me ... yet if I had been a juror I would have voted to convict ZA on one or more of the counts anyhow.
 
Aydrianna523 said:
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
Click to expand...

If you're in the bed of a pick up, you can't hear anything that's being said in the cab, windows down or not, with all the ambient noise. Plus, when confronted, he then tried to change his story to she heard his name when he first arrived to help dispose of the body. The defense reminded him he never said that when describing what happened when he first arrived.

Why would he need to protect himself? He had done nothing to her---or so he claimed.
 
Pamelateach5 said:
You are not a lone wolf in this. I’m with you. Those 4 nut jobs were bad guys and I think everyone is thankful they are off the streets, but I’m 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.
Click to expand...

I 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?
 
Rocco said:
I 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?
Click to expand...
If we are lucky, ZA will tell the rest of the story in prison. Talking is the only thing he's good at. IMO. Lol

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk
 
I have a question about discovery. Would JA be untitled to see all of the discovery or only the discovery that pertained to himself?

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
More than likely they were carried off by animals. She lay out there for nearly three years. I think she was walked into those woods after the rape and shot there, and left there. All her stuff found along the road was to keep the focus away from where the body was.
 
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
 
terpstra1 said:
I have a question about discovery. Would JA be untitled to see all of the discovery or only the discovery that pertained to himself?
Click to expand...

Having been charged with all the crimes, JA would have been REQUIRED to get to see and absorb every piece of evidence they had about any and all of the crimes. By the time he made his initial offer to testify, he had had almost three years to explore LE's evidence and get his "preferred story" set up that would lay the bulk of the blame elsewhere, with an offer to testify to it in court in exchange for a sweetheart deal.

It should be noted, for those unfamiliar, that in most trials the witnesses are insulated from knowing what others testify to, to try to help prevent this type of testimony (testimony tailored to match that of others) from happening. They can't even sit in the courtroom before it's their turn to testify, lest they glean some info to tailor their account. And when done that way, a matching of their details becomes significant.

However, in this case, the matching could tell us nothing objective or meaningful, because JA knew what everyone else would testify. All he had to do was tailor his testimony to match what the others were going to say, and then it would look like his testimony was corroborated. In essence they had given him the exact script to use, with extreme motivation to follow it, and he had plenty of time to rehearse it and make it believable.
 
Well, if JA's story is lies, then what about ZA's story? We know ZA cleaned up a truck, washed mattresses with water, got scrapes, threatened to kill his gfriend, desperately wanted a gun from his grandfather in a big freak out the day of murder, his white truck possibly observed by a neighbor a few days prior....etc. So why was there no clear cut story/alibi of Zach's whereabouts?
Even Casey Anthony had a Zanny the Nanny and 'dad did it' story, and the jury bought it!
P.S. Anyone ever clean their mattresses by hosing them down? Must be a neat nik.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Gardenista said:
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
Click to expand...


:seeya:

JMO but this reporter is a johnny come lately on this case ... I followed some of his Tweets during the trial and IMO, Staggs came across as he was the only one who had the inside scoop.

I sure would like to know WHO is feeding him this info ...

IF Staggs' above statement on is true, then I want to hear it from ZA or his attorney, Jennifer T ... until then, I don't know IF I believe it.

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

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 160 more.
Total: 3,343 (members: 161, guests: 3,182)

Online statistics

Members online
161
Guests online
3,182
Total visitors
3,343
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,295
Messages
17,966,825
Members
228,735
Latest member
dil2288
Back
Top