post trial discussion of evidence

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.


:seeya: These are some great points. BBM: Bingo !

JMO but I still find it puzzling why the person who actually disposed of the "alleged murder weapon" did not testify.

So is it possible that VD's wife was not called to testify because she could have opened up a can :worms: for both the State and defense?

JMO but obviously, she knew all the perps/defendant and she obviously knew this bunch were not "choir boys" ...

So if she testified for the State, her testimony could have been detrimental to the State - especially if she said something about the State's "star witness" ? Yes, JA and the State admitted he was a felon, con., etc. ... But could she have said "something" that they did not want brought up? And naturally, the Defense would not have wanted her because no telling what she would have revealed about ZA.

JMO but the State presented its very carefully and very cautiously ...

:moo:
 
:seeya: These are some great points. BBM: Bingo !

JMO but I still find it puzzling why the person who actually disposed of the "alleged murder weapon" did not testify.

So is it possible that VD's wife was not called to testify because she could have opened up a can :worms: for both the State and defense?

JMO but obviously, she knew all the perps/defendant and she obviously knew this bunch were not "choir boys" ...

So if she testified for the State, her testimony could have been detrimental to the State - especially if she said something about the State's "star witness" ? Yes, JA and the State admitted he was a felon, con., etc. ... But could she have said "something" that they did not want brought up? And naturally, the Defense would not have wanted her because no telling what she would have revealed about ZA.

JMO but the State presented its very carefully and very cautiously ...

:moo:

-Any comment on Natalie (cousin) not receiving a subpoena?
 
-Any comment on Natalie (cousin) not receiving a subpoena?

:seeya: Now that is THE $64,000 question, IMO ! .

Early in the investigation, Natalie did make a few statements to the MSM, and there are a few posts here at WS that go back to April and August 2011 referencing Natalie's statements. There may be some statements out there in the MSM but after 6+ years, sometimes news articles go poof !

JMO but I was expecting Natalie to testify for the State because IMO, I think that she was THE connection to all the A perps and how they knew Holly. I don't believe for one minute that the A's did NOT know Holly - I believe they did at least know of her - not necessarily knew her personally.

What I find "strange" is that Natalie did not even show up at her cousin's trial ... JMO but IF it were my cousin or relative who was kidnapped, raped and murdered, I would have been there with bells on ! JMO but NB's absence at her cousin's trial speaks volumes.

So ... early in the investigation, Natalie made statements on behalf of the family ... then poof ... nothing from Natalie until her name just happens to be mentioned at the trial.

ZA's ex-GF Rebecca testified she knew Holly through her cousin Natalie, and IIRC, it was from her place of work.

Then you have JA who brought up NB's name when he testified ... JMO but I do NOT believe about 90% of what JA testified to on the stand - especially the part about a "3 way" ... but obviously, JA knew NB and knew where she worked.

JMO but there was "something" missing from the trial ... actually, I have MORE questions 6+ years later than I did from day one ! The State's case was extremely disappointing and lacked significant evidence, in addition to the failure of LE early on.

I think it would have been detrimental to both the State and Defense to put NB on the stand, and they did not want to open up that can of :worms:

:moo:
 
:seeya: Now that is THE $64,000 question, IMO ! .

Early in the investigation, Natalie did make a few statements to the MSM, and there are a few posts here at WS that go back to April and August 2011 referencing Natalie's statements. There may be some statements out there in the MSM but after 6+ years, sometimes news articles go poof !

JMO but I was expecting Natalie to testify for the State because IMO, I think that she was THE connection to all the A perps and how they knew Holly. I don't believe for one minute that the A's did NOT know Holly - I believe they did at least know of her - not necessarily knew her personally.

What I find "strange" is that Natalie did not even show up at her cousin's trial ... JMO but IF it were my cousin or relative who was kidnapped, raped and murdered, I would have been there with bells on ! JMO but NB's absence at her cousin's trial speaks volumes.

So ... early in the investigation, Natalie made statements on behalf of the family ... then poof ... nothing from Natalie until her name just happens to be mentioned at the trial.

ZA's ex-GF Rebecca testified she knew Holly through her cousin Natalie, and IIRC, it was from her place of work.

Then you have JA who brought up NB's name when he testified ... JMO but I do NOT believe about 90% of what JA testified to on the stand - especially the part about a "3 way" ... but obviously, JA knew NB and knew where she worked.

JMO but there was "something" missing from the trial ... actually, I have MORE questions 6+ years later than I did from day one ! The State's case was extremely disappointing and lacked significant evidence, in addition to the failure of LE early on.

I think it would have been detrimental to both the State and Defense to put NB on the stand, and they did not want to open up that can of :worms:

:moo:


-Agreed. I think it’s strange that she wasn’t present in any form during the trial. I also don’t know what to make of the statement regarding the subpoena arriving to her in enough time?
 
I'm a newbie, so forgive me, if this post is not in the right place. I want to ask how far off the road was Holly's remains found, and is the terrain hard to get over?
 
I am not surprised cousin N didn't show up in person to the trial.

She had to know there was very unflattering testimony about her. Who wants so sit there on camera for those kinds of public accusations?

If she was in the courtroom, the jury would really question why no one called her to the stand. And I think she was potentially dangerous for both sides. JMO
 
I am not surprised cousin N didn't show up in person to the trial.

She had to know there was very unflattering testimony about her. Who wants so sit there on camera for those kinds of public accusations?

If she was in the courtroom, the jury would really question why no one called her to the stand.

And I think she was potentially dangerous for both sides. JMO

:seeya:

1st BBM: But JA testified under oath that she worked at a strip club, so would testimony on the witness stand be a "public accusation" ?

Which brings me back to a question I keep going over and over and over again about JA being the State's "star witness:"

- Does one believe everything JA stated as TRUTH when he testified - 100% True.
- Does one believe a portion of what JA testified to - % True and % is False.
- Does one get to "cherry pick" what is believable and what is not.

In other words, does one NOT believe what JA said because it was NOT flattering to a family member?

2nd BBM: If NB was sitting in the courtroom, the jury would NOT have known who she was ... No picture of NB was introduced at the trial.

So the only way the jury would have known NB was in the courtroom and NOT called to testify is if they had seen previous MSM news videos and articles with her photo from very early on in the case.

3rd BBM: I totally agree !

I have a very strong opinion on why she was NOT called to the stand by the State but for now, I will have to :silenced:

:moo:
 
As far as I know she is out of state and her subpoena didn't reach to her in time
 
As far as I know she is out of state and her subpoena didn't reach to her in time


:seeya: Hi Emi

Yes, I read something about that.

But IMO that is a poor excuse for an attorney/staff not to timely get their subpoenas issued and served.

The State and the Defense did not want her on the stand, IMO for obvious reasons.

:moo:
 
:seeya:

1st BBM: But JA testified under oath that she worked at a strip club, so would testimony on the witness stand be a "public accusation" ?

Which brings me back to a question I keep going over and over and over again about JA being the State's "star witness:"

- Does one believe everything JA stated as TRUTH when he testified - 100% True.
- Does one believe a portion of what JA testified to - % True and % is False.
- Does one get to "cherry pick" what is believable and what is not.

In other words, does one NOT believe what JA said because it was NOT flattering to a family member?

2nd BBM: If NB was sitting in the courtroom, the jury would NOT have known who she was ... No picture of NB was introduced at the trial.

So the only way the jury would have known NB was in the courtroom and NOT called to testify is if they had seen previous MSM news videos and articles with her photo from very early on in the case.

3rd BBM: I totally agree !

I have a very strong opinion on why she was NOT called to the stand by the State but for now, I will have to :silenced:

:moo:
I don't believe 100% of what Jason Autry testified to. I think you certainly can cherry pick. Most people never tell 100% truth. I think he told enough to satisfy the prosecution.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Trials are all about strategy and finding the best way to utilize time to present and rebut their case. Trials are not intended to be an accounting and showing of every little thing done or every single person spoken to in the course of an investigation.

The goal for the state is to convince a jury the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond any and every possible doubt someone can ever imagine, which is never the standard).

By necessity and practicality that means determining what is needed to be shown and what might be of additional benefit to be shown from a strategic standpoint, and avoiding redundancy if possible.

The jury, the ultimate triers of fact and the ultimate determiners of what was true in this case, are instructed it's up to them to determine who to believe in whole or in part or not at all, what weight they assign it, and the laws about considering direct and circumstantial evidence. The evidence that was brought in and the witnesses that testified were enough to prove the charges to the very people that mattered, as proven by their unanimous verdict.
 
I don't believe 100% of what Jason Autry testified to. I think you certainly can cherry pick. Most people never tell 100% truth. I think he told enough to satisfy the prosecution.

:seeya:

BBM: IMO, he told enough of a "story" to satisfy his "immunity deal" ...

:moo:
 
Did Autry tell the whole truth? Well, the major pieces, yes. As for the little details? Probably some were correct and truthful and some might not have been.

When I look at a case I look at the major pieces to see if they line up and if there's corroboration of those major pieces. In this case:

- cell phone activity
- cell phone locations
- statements by the accused to others
- witnesses to things that happened and/or hearing or overhearing statements
- who was together
- where they were
- evidence found, where it was found


This case clearly showed 4 people together at various points that day who were with the victim. The victim's phone showed movement. Other, tangential people, were in the picture that day (Dinsmore, etc). The gun was eventually located through a witness cooperating, that gun was examined and determined it matched the caliber, and the gun was identified by more than 1 person as being "the gun from that day that SA had and traded."

Statements the defendant made in his incarceration, to people he never knew before and would never see again, who had nothing to gain. Statements the defendant made to people close to him. There were so many pieces that helped prove the person on trial was involved and culpable.

Because of the law of criminal responsibility/acting in concert, it didn't matter which one of them pulled the trigger. It didn't matter which one of them was the one who first showed up at the Bobo house. They all were involved. The jury understood the law and applied it correctly.
 
I am not understanding the importance of NB not testifying. I don't see how her testimony could have harmed the state's case. Not saying I believe this - but hypothetically say the defense showed a connection between Holly and ZA - even say she bought pills from ZA or through NB - which I don't believe - but even if she did that does not lessen the guilt of the 4 accused - it does not justify gang rape or murder - even if the victim puts themselves in harms way it does not justify those unspeakably horrible crimes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
:seeya:

1st BBM: But JA testified under oath that she worked at a strip club, so would testimony on the witness stand be a "public accusation" ?

Which brings me back to a question I keep going over and over and over again about JA being the State's "star witness:"

- Does one believe everything JA stated as TRUTH when he testified - 100% True.
- Does one believe a portion of what JA testified to - % True and % is False.
- Does one get to "cherry pick" what is believable and what is not.

In other words, does one NOT believe what JA said because it was NOT flattering to a family member?

2nd BBM: If NB was sitting in the courtroom, the jury would NOT have known who she was ... No picture of NB was introduced at the trial.

So the only way the jury would have known NB was in the courtroom and NOT called to testify is if they had seen previous MSM news videos and articles with her photo from very early on in the case.

3rd BBM: I totally agree !

I have a very strong opinion on why she was NOT called to the stand by the State but for now, I will have to :silenced:

:moo:

It was not a matter of her being a stripper. I am sure she would have had no problem if that was all that was said about her.

There was talk that she promised Zach a 3 some with her and Holly, and that she was a drug addict and may have traded sex for drugs and was doing so with Zach, her cousin's killer.

That would be a lot to sit through and answer to.
 
Trials are all about strategy and finding the best way to utilize time to present and rebut their case. Trials are not intended to be an accounting and showing of every little thing done or every single person spoken to in the course of an investigation.

The goal for the state is to convince a jury the defendant is guilty, beyond a reasonable doubt (not beyond any and every possible doubt someone can ever imagine, which is never the standard).

By necessity and practicality that means determining what is needed to be shown and what might be of additional benefit to be shown from a strategic standpoint, and avoiding redundancy if possible.

The jury, the ultimate triers of fact and the ultimate determiners of what was true in this case, are instructed it's up to them to determine who to believe in whole or in part or not at all, what weight they assign it, and the laws about considering direct and circumstantial evidence. The evidence that was brought in and the witnesses that testified were enough to prove the charges to the very people that mattered, as proven by their unanimous verdict.


BBM: Obviously, we do not agree.

I have followed this case very closely from day one and for the past 6+ years.

Please refer to my previous posts as to why I disagree with the verdict.


And respectfully, I know about trial strategy, I understand BARD, etc etc etc. I not only follow trials, I have taken criminal law classes.

I received a Certificate in Paralegal Studies as well as an "Honor's Certificate" in Paralegal Studies from LSU in 2014.

[I chose not to get verified here at WS because I do not have the time.]

:moo:
 
I don't believe either side wanted her on the stand. I think she was too unpredictable for both.

She was dangerous for the State because of what she might have said about Clint and his possible connection with any drug usage or connections to the defendants, over time. They are the same age in the same rural area.

She was dangerous for the defense because she knew way too much about Zach and friends. JMO
 
It was not a matter of her being a stripper. I am sure she would have had no problem if that was all that was said about her.

There was talk that she promised Zach a 3 some with her and Holly, and that she was a drug addict and may have traded sex for drugs and was doing so with Zach, her cousin's killer.

That would be a lot to sit through and answer to.


BBM: Yes, that it was JA testified to on the stand ... and yes, I could see where that would be a problem.

JMO but I do not think these questions would be a problem for a stripper ...

:moo:
 
BBM: Yes, that it was JA testified to on the stand ... and yes, I could see where that would be a problem.

JMO but I do not think these questions would be a problem for a stripper ...

:moo:

ReaLLY? At the trial for her dead, murdered cousin, it wouldn't be a problem that she offered her cousin up sexually to the murderer?

I can't imagine it wouldn't be a problem, stripper or not.
 

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
151
Guests online
1,136
Total visitors
1,287

Forum statistics

Threads
591,799
Messages
17,959,048
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top