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

Not open for further replies.
Since Clint was already there, why didn't she explain it instead of hanging up then? If she was worried enough to immediately call 911, you would have thought that she would have communicated that sort of information to someone she was talking to over the phone who was actually on the scene.

None of these various accounts from various sources over the years make a whole lot of sense. The only explanations IMO are (a) something was brewing in the background so that she immediately knew a serious incident was going down, or (b) the accounts of the conversation and subsequent actions are not accurate.

It sounds like something may have actually made Karen uncomfortable leading up to the abduction...and I am still wondering if it was some type of encounter or bad vibe from the Coon Hunt event. We have had all sorts of conflicting information about it...whether Karen was there and whether ZA or one of the other suspects was stalking Holly. Its hard to decipher what actually happened but I wouldn't be surprised if something made Karen, and maybe even Holly, uneasy.
When it comes to the content of the video it would be hearsay, since she would not have been there herself.

Sorry to have to contradict you, but that is absolutely incorrect.

If she watched the video, she could testify as to what she saw on the video. That's not hearsay, but rather eyewitness testimony of what she saw personally.

I just posted an appeals court ruling a few posts back, and their words made that very point.

In the case against the Pearcy's, the content of the video is somewhat secondary to her testimony that she was shown the video by JP and heard MP on it, but is still relevant and needed to some degree in that case to prove materiality.
The video itself would not be hearsay with regards to the charges of destroying/concealing evidence, but to get those to stick the prosecutor would have to show that the video existed in the first place. If they didn't, they would effectively be placing the burden of proof on the accused, which is not how the legal system works. They would be saying essentially, we accuse you of doing X, now you have to prove that X didn't happen.

The lady witness's testimony (if believed by a jury) is proof that the video existed.
"The similarity between SA and the kidnapping suspect sketch in that nearby report keeps making me wonder. "

I think you meant ZA.

Re your question, that clearly is not LE's thinking on the case. Based on what was said in court, it appears they were arrested based on the belief ZA raped Holly and JA murdered her, with those actions being caught on video (one that may have been destroyed).

Yes, yes I did. Sorry about that!

I don't mean that I don't believe that's what happened or that's what is on video - or was, as the case may be. I totally believe that they caused her harm during having her, but I still wonder about why she particularly was chosen. If ZA had another prior attempt at capturing a woman then it may change motives from a targeted 'has to be this girl' to 'has to be a girl of this type, and Holly makes a good pick.' Her abuse at their hands may have been 'personal' so to speak but the motive for taking her in the first place may have been money.

It's motive I wonder about, and whether or not it was more than 'let's get us a pretty girl and rape and kill her.' Seems like a money-motivated bunch, as addicts are wont to be.
I was always impressed with the sophisticated way videos were doctored up and altered and shown on the J. Leno show - they were able to make politicians and sports figures appear in those videos to do/say things that they didn't actually say or do.

That's the problem I have with a witness saying they saw a video. The witness can say what they saw, but who's to say the video has not been tampered with?
That's the problem I have with a witness saying they saw a video. The witness can say what they saw, but who's to say the video has not been tampered with?

I'm sure that's a point that the defense will use. (Although, I suspect they will also call into question whether a video of any kind even existed in the first place, despite what the lady witness is saying.)
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
Guests online
Total visitors

Forum statistics

Latest member