post trial discussion of evidence

Harmony 2

Retired WS Staff
Joined
Oct 12, 2008
Messages
12,875
Reaction score
22,182
Discuss the evidence of the case here

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.

Hodge began by showing two earrings, two pink fibers, a small lotion bottle, the sole of a flip flop, teeth, and ribs that were found near where Holly Bobo's remains were found.
A wallet was found at the scene with Holly Bobo's driver license inside.

Then Hodge showed some of the items found inside the purse at the scene, including a thumb drive and an earring.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...y-3-more-key-witnesses-expected-to-take-stand
 
I think this is one of the most important pieces of evidence:

[B]Booth said a piece of paper with Holly Bobo's name on it was found about 75 feet from Austin's trailer two days after she disappeared.[/B] Bobo's underwear, her school papers and other items belonging to her also were found near Austin's trailer and his grandmother's home.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-state-police-made-mistake-in-holly-bobo-case/

In the end, they had no DNA from Holly on the pink underwear. But I still believe it could have been a pair of her underwear that she had in her backpack.

But it doesn't really matter because her name was on some of the schoolwork and papers. One of the papers with her name was only 75 ft from the trailer. Makes it seem like it might have blown away from the burn pile?

I think the jury probably keyed in on that evidence because it is hard to figure why those things would be so close to the trailer.
 
I think this is one of the most important pieces of evidence:

[B]Booth said a piece of paper with Holly Bobo's name on it was found about 75 feet from Austin's trailer two days after she disappeared.[/B] Bobo's underwear, her school papers and other items belonging to her also were found near Austin's trailer and his grandmother's home.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-state-police-made-mistake-in-holly-bobo-case/

In the end, they had no DNA from Holly on the pink underwear. But I still believe it could have been a pair of her underwear that she had in her backpack.

But it doesn't really matter because her name was on some of the schoolwork and papers. One of the papers with her name was only 75 ft from the trailer. Makes it seem like it might have blown away from the burn pile?

I think the jury probably keyed in on that evidence because it is hard to figure why those things would be so close to the trailer.

75 feet ... I guess a paper could roll on the ground with a strong breeze... I looked at that property online and the front lawn is bare but around the perimeter is heavily wooded. The trailer is situated on four acres. I would like to know how far back the trailer was from the road. I tried to go to street view but couldn't. Where exactly was it found in relation to the trailer? on the driveway? I need to go back and listen to that portion of the testimony. What other items? Wasn't a notebook found with her school papers?
 
:seeya:

:tyou: for this thread ...

When I get more time, this will be my "second home" . . . :D

:seeya:
 
I think this is one of the most important pieces of evidence:

[B]Booth said a piece of paper with Holly Bobo's name on it was found about 75 feet from Austin's trailer two days after she disappeared.[/B] Bobo's underwear, her school papers and other items belonging to her also were found near Austin's trailer and his grandmother's home.


https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-state-police-made-mistake-in-holly-bobo-case/

In the end, they had no DNA from Holly on the pink underwear. But I still believe it could have been a pair of her underwear that she had in her backpack.

But it doesn't really matter because her name was on some of the schoolwork and papers. One of the papers with her name was only 75 ft from the trailer. Makes it seem like it might have blown away from the burn pile?

I think the jury probably keyed in on that evidence because it is hard to figure why those things would be so close to the trailer.


: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:
 
Experienced major computer problems during trial. Was ANY DNA from anyone found on the pink panties? I heard that Holly's DNA wasn't but was anyone else 's Dna found?

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
 
dog.gone.cute
time stamp 1:15 on the following video... do you know where that road leads to?

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/36374031/bobo-trial-day-5-gruesome-details-shed-light-on-murder


BBM: Oh, I'm sorry I don't know where that road leads ... but if I find out I will let you know.

I must admit that for following this case for so long, I don't know the area/landscape as well as I should ... LOL ... I remember a lot of the street names, counties, etc.

So I am going to have to get out google maps and do a tour.

:seeya:
 
Experienced major computer problems during trial. Was ANY DNA from anyone found on the pink panties? I heard that Holly's DNA wasn't but was anyone else 's Dna found?

Very interested in your discussion.


:seeya: I had a response all typed out and poof - computer connection goes poof :gaah:

Anyway ... I am so glad you are interested in this discussion on the evidence !

I have a lot of questions about the evidence that was introduced, and evidence that was not introduced.


Ah ... the "pink panties" ... IIRC, they did not even belong to Holly, so if they did not belong to her they would not have her DNA on them ... so why even introduce them ? And IIRC, they did not even state if anyone else's DNA was on them ... makes no sense to even introduce them IMO.

Ah ... "the gun" ... I will have to go back and re-watch Dinsmore's testimony on "the gun" but are we supposed to believe Dinsmore's (a "buddy" of the A's) that his wife threw the gun in a creek when he told her he thought it "had a body on it" ? I guess you could say Dinsmore testified to what he saw, but if she threw this particular gun - which the State passed off as THE murder weapon - then I wanted to hear it straight from her. JMO but WHY didn't the State put the person who disposed of the gun on the stand? Makes no sense, unless someone is hiding something ?

Ah ... "the bucket" ... JMO but I wanted to see that "bucket" that was found where the remains were found -- not that I don't believe there was a bucket - there was but I wanted to see exactly what the ginseng hunter found.

There's more ... but got to go !

seeya: and :moo:
 
This it the video where the evidence found is testified to:

[video=youtube;qBCiOlRWzaI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qBCiOlRWzaI&t=46s[/video]

Notes:

*Piece of paper 70 feet from Shane’s- ???Paper between yellow springs church and SA’s trailer????
Timestamp 21:50
https://youtu.be/qBCiOlRWzaI?t=21m48s

*Pink receipt and dollar bill found in front of SA’s grandmother’s house-a mile and a half from SA’s trailer to his grandmother’s
*drug card grade sheet and index cards for drugs found in and by a creek on gouche road
*three ring binder recovered at creek on gouche road- appeared to have washed down the creek
*lunchbox found further down the creek
*another piece of paper found at intersection of I40 and yellow springs road
*another piece of paper found where yellow springs road comes into bible hill road – about 2 miles from Shane’s home- near a bridge that is near I40
*May 3rd phone found near 641
*sim card found at old Camden road

No trace of Holly Bobo at Dylan’s
Remains found at 1000 county corner rd

** The testimony was very difficult to follow. I had to go back many times to re-listen to several sections.
 
I wish some of the jury would speak. I'd love to know some of their thoughts on the evidence and witnesses.
 
Ah ... the "pink panties" ... IIRC, they did not even belong to Holly, so if they did not belong to her they would not have her DNA on them ... so why even introduce them ? And IIRC, they did not even state if anyone else's DNA was on them ... makes no sense to even introduce them
<snip>

seeya: and :moo:

Yeah. The panties make no sense. I know some said they were introduced because that is what caught the eye of the guy who found them. But why not the bucket then? The bucket is what caught the hunter's eye.

That seems like something the state would bring in if it had any DNA or fingerprints but they didn't. So why didn't the defense bring it in and say that her client's DNA/fingerprints were not on it?
 
:seeya: I had a response all typed out and poof - computer connection goes poof :gaah:

Anyway ... I am so glad you are interested in this discussion on the evidence !

I have a lot of questions about the evidence that was introduced, and evidence that was not introduced.


Ah ... the "pink panties" ... IIRC, they did not even belong to Holly, so if they did not belong to her they would not have her DNA on them ... so why even introduce them ? And IIRC, they did not even state if anyone else's DNA was on them ... makes no sense to even introduce them IMO.

Ah ... "the gun" ... I will have to go back and re-watch Dinsmore's testimony on "the gun" but are we supposed to believe Dinsmore's (a "buddy" of the A's) that his wife threw the gun in a creek when he told her he thought it "had a body on it" ? I guess you could say Dinsmore testified to what he saw, but if she threw this particular gun - which the State passed off as THE murder weapon - then I wanted to hear it straight from her. JMO but WHY didn't the State put the person who disposed of the gun on the stand? Makes no sense, unless someone is hiding something ?

Ah ... "the bucket" ... JMO but I wanted to see that "bucket" that was found where the remains were found -- not that I don't believe there was a bucket - there was but I wanted to see exactly what the ginseng hunter found.

There's more ... but got to go !

seeya: and :moo:

I think they wanted to keep Vic's wife off the stand for a few reasons.

One, someone tells you to throw an illegal weapon into the swamp because it might 'have a body on it'? Kind of immoral and irresponsible action and she would have to defend it, on the stand.

Two, she was hubby's alibi. And I don't think they state wanted the defense to get the chance to attack his alibi by asking all kinds of scandalous questions, about past crimes, etc.

So they might have been hiding some things, but not necessarily hiding anything about the discarded weapon.
 
I think they wanted to keep Vic's wife off the stand for a few reasons.

One, someone tells you to throw an illegal weapon into the swamp because it might 'have a body on it'? Kind of immoral and irresponsible action and she would have to defend it, on the stand.

Two, she was hubby's alibi. And I don't think they state wanted the defense to get the chance to attack his alibi by asking all kinds of scandalous questions, about past crimes, etc.

So they might have been hiding some things, but not necessarily hiding anything about the discarded weapon.

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.
 
Since she is in Indiana would Ms. Dinsmore have had to answer to a subpoena if she did not choose to?

ETA- I think Indiana - correct me if it is somewhere else

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
:seeya: I had a response all typed out and poof - computer connection goes poof :gaah:

Anyway ... I am so glad you are interested in this discussion on the evidence !

I have a lot of questions about the evidence that was introduced, and evidence that was not introduced.


Ah ... the "pink panties" ... IIRC, they did not even belong to Holly, so if they did not belong to her they would not have her DNA on them ... so why even introduce them ? And IIRC, they did not even state if anyone else's DNA was on them ... makes no sense to even introduce them IMO.

Ah ... "the gun" ... I will have to go back and re-watch Dinsmore's testimony on "the gun" but are we supposed to believe Dinsmore's (a "buddy" of the A's) that his wife threw the gun in a creek when he told her he thought it "had a body on it" ? I guess you could say Dinsmore testified to what he saw, but if she threw this particular gun - which the State passed off as THE murder weapon - then I wanted to hear it straight from her. JMO but WHY didn't the State put the person who disposed of the gun on the stand? Makes no sense, unless someone is hiding something ?

Ah ... "the bucket" ... JMO but I wanted to see that "bucket" that was found where the remains were found -- not that I don't believe there was a bucket - there was but I wanted to see exactly what the ginseng hunter found.

There's more ... but got to go !

seeya: and :moo:

BBM;
I know I missed a lot of actual trial time but I thought Karen ID'd the panties as Holly's. There was a long discussion about it in the thread, no?
And I remember the testimony when the witness was holding them uip for the Jury, was that the DNA on it was a "mix" but not specified who's, just that it wasn't Holly's. I can see that. Whoever handled the laundry that day and likely she kept a change in her backpack.

ETA Booth holding them up;
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908769742856605702

JMO
 
BBM;
I know I missed a lot of actual trial time but I thought Karen ID'd the panties as Holly's. There was a long discussion about it in the thread, no?
And I remember the testimony when the witness was holding them uip for the Jury, was that the DNA on it was a "mix" but not specified who's, just that it wasn't Holly's. I can see that. Whoever handled the laundry that day and likely she kept a change in her backpack.

ETA Booth holding them up;
https://twitter.com/i/web/status/908769742856605702

JMO

That's what I think happened.

Karen said they looked like Holly's. I knew what my daughters underwear looked like because I did most of the laundry. I am sure Karen probably knew what Holly's looked like too.

And like many 19 yr olds, my daughter often kept a change of clothing in her backpack. 19 yr olds have busy schedules and are on the go.
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
100
Guests online
1,320
Total visitors
1,420

Forum statistics

Threads
591,795
Messages
17,958,966
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top