Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #4 ***ARRESTS***

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chris Conte ‏@chrisconte 56s
Coming into court Jason Autry tried to drop a note officers confiscated. On his way out says "it was for channel 5 news!"

LOL !!
 
I would agree that they haven't proven anything and I would agree with their statement that they don't have to prove anything...at this point. I don't think the DA would suggest they NEVER have to prove anything. That position might not work, but saying they don't have to prove anything RIGHT NOW, in this context, isn't going to offend any Judge. Now, if they charge Austin and Austin files a Motion to Dismiss and at that hearing the DA says I don't have to prove he breached the agreement, then yes, I would agree that won't work before a Judge.

I would DISAGREE with the idea that the DA won't have an obligation to prove it now (with "now" being as soon as the case gets before a judge). In any other breach of contract, once there is a breach (and there certainly has been one here), there is no waiting for a more convenient time, when demand is made by the other party.

Obviously you disagree, and it will be up to the court to decide.

I am well aware that the court may try to make some sort of special rules here for this situation. But if we simply follow contractual law, the "put up or shut up" time won't be after an indictment, because by law that breach by "future indictment" is considered to have already occurred, with the sending of the letter.
 
He had something between the cuffs, something black and also as he was being led to see his lawyers in side room, LE had a hold of him from the back where his chains were wrapped around him. Had a tight hold on him.


It looked like JA had on electronic handcuffs. They provide a shock if the prisoner gets out of line.

http://govtslaves.info/shocking-electronic-handcuffs-developed-for-law-enforcement/



:seeya: And if I may add: JA had NO purple hands today !

The cameras took some close-ups of his hands and all the "jewelry" ...

:moo:
 
Jordan Buie ‏@JordanBuie 3m
Here is the scheduling order the judge provided attorneys in the #HollyBobo case pic.twitter.com/qfiiKss8sP

I'm not real good at uploading pics here, if someone wants to get it for us.
 
Austin propbably took LE to where he thought, or knew where the body was and it was moved. I dunno how LE can do much with that argument.

For breeching the immunity? It seems the DA would not have a case if that happened (the body was moved but SA in good faith provided info on where he knew the body to be last).
Hopefully there is more evidence that SA didn't tell the truth for them to end immunity.
 
From WSMV:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/25625413/prosecutors-to-seek-gag-order-in-holly-bobo-case


The Decatur County judge hearing the case of the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo declined to issue a gag order Wednesday.

...

Prior to the hearing, Autry tossed a note toward reporters, but courthouse security confiscated the note before anyone could read it.


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


BBM: I wonder IF the Judge heard about JA's "shenanigans" prior to today's hearing and rulings ?
 
In regards to the gag order, the Judge advised JA & his attorneys not to try his case in the media. Can backfire.

He really bent over backward for JA & attorneys in my opinion. If anyone thinks JA & Fletcher are going to be quiet...well. They are probably meeting right now to agree on what to release today. I also think that JA walks down the jail hall yelling "I'm an innocent man" while pretending he's in The Green Mile....jmo
As it should be considering the appeal process. Judges hate to be overturned and are very careful of defendant rights. Constitution and all that. :)
 
We already know how much Fletcher likes the media...He's always in it with his clients. Especially the high profile cases.

He reminds me of whats his face from the CA trial. I don't like writing or saying his name, but you all know who I mean.
 
Dec. 17th is much quicker than I expected.

I would anticipate it will be continued some time down the road. Particularly in light of how much discovery there apparently is.
 
Per Scheduling Order issued by Judge:

Dec 17th: Criminal Motion Day
Jan 14th/ 2015: Settlement Date and Appearance:
If this case is not settled by agreement then the case will be set for trial

Jordan Buie ‏@JordanBuie 18m
Here is the scheduling order the judge provided attorneys in the #HollyBobo case pic.twitter.com/qfiiKss8sP
 
He reminds me of whats his face from the CA trial. I don't like writing or saying his name, but you all know who I mean.

Thanks for this post. I so agree. He even sounded like him. I thought I knew him from somewhere and you pinpointed who he reminded me of.
It was driving me crazy who he reminded me of.

I just googled him and it seems he may be in some legal trouble of his own. I know it was mentioned here before too although I never looked him up till now.
 
I would DISAGREE with the idea that the DA won't have an obligation to prove it now (with "now" being as soon as the case gets before a judge). In any other breach of contract, once there is a breach (and there certainly has been one here), there is no waiting for a more convenient time, when demand is made by the other party.

Obviously you disagree, and it will be up to the court to decide.

I am well aware that the court may try to make some sort of special rules here for this situation. But if we simply follow contractual law, the "put up or shut up" time won't be after an indictment, because by law that breach by "future indictment" is considered to have already occurred, with the sending of the letter.

I agree there is already a breach or a repudiation that, under normal contractual circumstances, would allow for redress in the Courts. However, this is not a normal contractual circumstance. It is within the confines of a criminal setting. For example, in a normal contractual setting, one would not have to establish a breach beyond a reasonable doubt as you suggest.
 
That schedule is a clear reminder that it's going to be quite a while (maybe a year, or even more) before we actually see any real evidence as to what (LE says) happened to Holly, and why LE says they are the ones that did it.
 
From WSMV:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/25625413/prosecutors-to-seek-gag-order-in-holly-bobo-case


The Decatur County judge hearing the case of the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo declined to issue a gag order Wednesday.

...

Prior to the hearing, Autry tossed a note toward reporters, but courthouse security confiscated the note before anyone could read it.


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


BBM: I wonder IF the Judge heard about JA's "shenanigans" prior to today's hearing and rulings ?


If he had something so important to say to media then wondering why he didnt just yell it out like he did last time about the cuffs. Would he get additional contempt of court charges or something if he did that.
 
This makes the most sense to me.

Ultimately, if he offered to tell more than he really knew, in order to get a free pass on something else (say, for example, some drug charges), then the DA certainly has every right to pull the immunity.

The question for the court to decide, if that's what's in play here, is to match up what he promised in the proffer, and what he was able to deliver when he talked, and determine if they were materially the same.

This immunity lawsuit makes no sense to me, except as a side show to the circus. SA wouldn't be the first criminal to try and get immunity in one case by peddling information he may or may not really have on another case. But surely any DA worth their salt would rescind the deal if they don't get what was promised. Plus, ZA's vicious reputation is well-known. If he never really had the goods or lied to make himself look better, he won't have immunity and ZA will probably wants to kill him, too.

Plus, I wonder why on earth SA's attorney thinks the courts would enforce the immunity deal if SA either didn't have the information at all or lied about it. If he never had the information he promised, or he had it and lied to them, either way, he didn't do what he agreed to do. I'm sure this isn't the first time a DA has rescinded an immunity or plea agreement because the crook - gasp - lied.
 
If I was a parent of a murdered victim I am not sure I could attend the courtroom because once I had it resolved in my mind that person X was responsible I dont think I could refrain from jumping over the chairs and trying to strangle the person no matter how big the person is.

It amazes me to see the family courage to be able to attend and be so close to who may have have killed their daughter. It is very obvious they are going to be there each and every day of court sessions. Kudos to them.
 
Thanks to all for the updates and your observations, it is much appreciated!
 
This immunity lawsuit makes no sense to me, except as a side show to the circus. SA wouldn't be the first criminal to try and get immunity in one case by peddling information he may or may not really have on another case. But surely any DA worth their salt would rescind the deal if they don't get what was promised. Plus, ZA's vicious reputation is well-known. If he never really had the goods or lied to make himself look better, he won't have immunity and ZA will probably wants to kill him, too.

Plus, I wonder why on earth SA's attorney thinks the courts would enforce the immunity deal if SA either didn't have the information at all or lied about it. If he never had the information he promised, or he had it and lied to them, either way, he didn't do what he agreed to do. I'm sure this isn't the first time a DA has rescinded an immunity or plea agreement because the crook - gasp - lied.

It's not the first time and yes, they're turning it into a circus. The key is to stay on point and not get distracted by the nonsense. SA will have his day in Court at some point. Most likely, he'll lose his argument when it eventually is heard. Just don't let all the side antics distract from what we are ultimately here about.
 
I agree there is already a breach or a repudiation that, under normal contractual circumstances, would allow for redress in the Courts. However, this is not a normal contractual circumstance. It is within the confines of a criminal setting. For example, in a normal contractual setting, one would not have to establish a breach beyond a reasonable doubt as you suggest.

"However, this is not a normal contractual circumstance."
....Maybe. Maybe not. Every case is "unique" in some way, yet contractual law still works the same way. It will be interesting to see if the court prescribes some exception to the norm here, or not. I'm not convinced they will.

"It is within the confines of a criminal setting."
....Actually, that point that may weigh in favor of SA, the defendant for those (anticipated) charges, rather than the DA. Defendant rights are a touchy matter for the courts.

In a different contract he would be allowed immediate redress at the first breach. In that light, I suspect that he will not be required to wait for further breaches of contract by the DA, until such time as is convenient for them, before they are compelled to address the breach they already committed.
 
Here you go Lyric.

Jordan Buie ‏@JordanBuie · 54m
Here is the scheduling order the judge provided attorneys in the #HollyBobo case pic.twitter.com/qfiiKss8sP



Bovni22CYAAsO2Z.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
91
Guests online
1,469
Total visitors
1,560

Forum statistics

Threads
594,940
Messages
18,015,946
Members
229,552
Latest member
Nursestump
Back
Top