post trial discussion of evidence

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.

:seeya:

1st BBM: In my opinion, NB was the link to the A's ...

2nd BBM: And NB's testimony did NOT fit the Version No. 2 of the State's case - the JA Version.

Version No. 1 of the State's case was Dylan's interrogation which was presented before the Grand Jury.

ALL JMO and :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


:seeya: I agree with the above !
 
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.

:seeya: I totally understand your point here ... But her absence speaks volumes IMO ... I posted earlier that she had made some statements to the MSM very early on ... but then poof !

My question is why ?

:moo:
 
:seeya: I totally understand your point here ... But her absence speaks volumes IMO ... I posted earlier that she had made some statements to the MSM very early on ... but then poof !

My question is why ?

:moo:

I think the reason she was absent was because it was easier for all involved.

It was better and easier for NB, and for her family.

And less dangerous for both the state and the defense,

So everyone just let it be. JMO :cow:
 
There was compelling evidence, and enough of it, to convince this jury, so they said through their verdict. To me that means they believed at least some of JA's testimony, if not most or even all of it. I myself believed the major parts of JA's testimony and it was those major parts that had corroboration.

As for NB and what she could have added, it might have added to the "why take Holly/motive" question. If ZA became aware of HB because NB showed him a picture and if NB had indicated a sexual tryst was possible, that would certainly be of interest to ZA, even if what NB said wasn't the least bit true. And, if it was a lie ZA told and NB never said it and never showed ZA a picture, it doesn't help ZA anyway. The defense wouldn't want to show any ties between ZA and the Bobo women and NB would potentially be a link.
 
I'd like to know how close Holly and NB actually were. When they last had contact. When NB last had contact with any of Holly's family members i.e. Mother, father or brother! <modsnip> What was the question asked to Holly that morning to have her respond with a "No, why?" (Clint heard those words or similar words anyway). Was she asked if NB had been in touch with her? (or a similar question involving NB). :thinking: <modsnip>. All MOO
 
I have been watching the trial on YouTube. Why would Jason Autry say that Zach Adams went there to teach Clint how to make meth? I&#8217;ve tried to read everything I could and I can&#8217;t find where Clint had any connection to drugs. Why didn&#8217;t he just say Zach went there to abduct her. Her remains were also not found where Autry said Zach told him they were. If he lied about part of his testimony, how do we know he wasn&#8217;t lying about all of it? Maybe he was in it from the beginning.......
 
I have been watching the trial on YouTube. Why would Jason Autry say that Zach Adams went there to teach Clint how to make meth? I’ve tried to read everything I could and I can’t find where Clint had any connection to drugs. Why didn’t he just say Zach went there to abduct her. Her remains were also not found where Autry said Zach told him they were. If he lied about part of his testimony, how do we know he wasn’t lying about all of it? Maybe he was in it from the beginning.......
JA testified that ZA told him he went there to teach Clint how to make meths. ZA could very well have told JA that. Doesn't make it true, but ZA may not have wanted to tell JA he was there solely to kidnap Holly. As far as we know, Clint was not involved in anyway. I don't recall ZA's telling JA exactly where Hollys remains were, just that they were buried or they got rid of her body. SA (Shayne Austin) apparently told LE where Hollys body was buried but when LE went to the location, they could not find Hollys body/remains. It's quite possible, SA was telling the truth but her body was removed. If my memory has failed me (anybody), please feel free to correct me. TIA
 
ZA told JA he dumped the body at a place called Kelly&#8217;s Ridge, but that&#8217;s not where the remains were found.
 
JA repeated what he said ZA told him (about HB's abduction). If what ZA said was a lie, then he's the liar and JA was repeating it, not knowing if it was true.

If JA wasn't himself at the Bobo residence, and there's no evidence he was, then he would have no first-hand knowledge of abduction details beyond what ZA or SA told him.
 
ZA told JA he dumped the body at a place called Kelly’s Ridge, but that’s not where the remains were found.


Can anyone point out where Kelly's Ridge is?

Since so little was found of Holly's bones, it is also possible there might be bones at Kelly's Ridge, just not surfaced like the ones near the cell tower.
 
I'd like to know how close Holly and NB actually were.
When they last had contact.
When NB last had contact with any of Holly's family members i.e. Mother, father or brother! <modsnip>
:thinking: What was the question asked to Holly that morning to have her respond with a "No, why?" (Clint heard those words or similar words anyway). Was she asked if NB had been in touch with her? (or a similar question involving NB).
:thinking: <modsnip> All MOO


:seeya: I like your questions ... :D ... and I have the same questions.

1st BBM: From what I have read, apparently at one time they were close.

2nd BBM: Now that is one of the many $64,000 questions that I have regarding this case ... I thought we would have found out these answers at trial -- we didn't -- I have more questions after the trial then I did 6+ years ago.

3rd & 4th BBM: I totally agree ... IMO, she was the "link" to the A's ... not saying that she was involved, just linked.


Also I went "digging" in the MSM for references to NB - they are out there from early on in the case IF you can find them.

Here is an excerpt from CNN Nancy Grace Show with a reference to NB:

DNA Results in Holly Bobo Case

Aired April 20, 2011 - 20:00:00 ET

DEBORAH NORVILLE, GUEST HOST: Breaking news tonight as we go live to Tennessee and the continuing mystery of a beautiful nursing student, the cousin of a rising country music star, who has gone missing without a trace. Investigators have turned to roadblocks, stopping Holly Bobo`s neighbors to question them about suspicious activities they might have seen in the area, her last known sighting by her own brother, who says he saw her being led into the woods by a mystery man in camouflage. The brother reportedly found flecks of blood across the lawn, prompting him to call 911. Then Holly`s lunchbox is found discarded in the woods, and reportedly also found, duct tape with blond hair.

........

NORVILLE: Well, for instance, it`s being reported by one magazine that there were flecks of blood in the lawn. Would that be how he`s described it to you?

BROMLEY: He`s not described it to me.

NORVILLE: Has the family shared what he said?

BROMLEY: No. No. We`ve not talked at length about what Clint witnessed that day.

NORVILLE: As you know, we have spoken off-camera with other family members, and Natalie Bobo, who`s a cousin of Holly who`s gone missing, said to us that Clint had indicated that he had taken a polygraph test and passed it. Can you confirm that?

BROMLEY: I don`t know that to be sure. Has the investigators said anything about that?

NORVILLE: Well, this is a family member who has told us, and we`re trying to confirm that with you as the family spokesperson.

BROMLEY: Right. I don`t know that to be factual. That would be something you`d have to talk with the investigators about.


Link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/20/ng.01.html
 
The more I think about it, I don&#8217;t believe any of Jason Autry&#8217;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&#8217;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.
 
Imo the where was NB and why didn't she testify questions are moot. They obviously didn't need her as they won a conviction without her. Zacks atty. couldn't call her. She would have contradicted that he had never seen her.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
The more I think about it, I don&#8217;t believe any of Jason Autry&#8217;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&#8217;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.

My vision on how that was done was an off-road quad, ATV, etc.

JMO
 
:seeya: I like your questions ... :D ... and I have the same questions.

1st BBM: From what I have read, apparently at one time they were close.

2nd BBM: Now that is one of the many $64,000 questions that I have regarding this case ... I thought we would have found out these answers at trial -- we didn't -- I have more questions after the trial then I did 6+ years ago.

3rd & 4th BBM: I totally agree ... IMO, she was the "link" to the A's ... not saying that she was involved, just linked.


Also I went "digging" in the MSM for references to NB - they are out there from early on in the case IF you can find them.

Here is an excerpt from CNN Nancy Grace Show with a reference to NB:

DNA Results in Holly Bobo Case

Aired April 20, 2011 - 20:00:00 ET

DEBORAH NORVILLE, GUEST HOST: Breaking news tonight as we go live to Tennessee and the continuing mystery of a beautiful nursing student, the cousin of a rising country music star, who has gone missing without a trace. Investigators have turned to roadblocks, stopping Holly Bobo`s neighbors to question them about suspicious activities they might have seen in the area, her last known sighting by her own brother, who says he saw her being led into the woods by a mystery man in camouflage. The brother reportedly found flecks of blood across the lawn, prompting him to call 911. Then Holly`s lunchbox is found discarded in the woods, and reportedly also found, duct tape with blond hair.

........

NORVILLE: Well, for instance, it`s being reported by one magazine that there were flecks of blood in the lawn. Would that be how he`s described it to you?

BROMLEY: He`s not described it to me.

NORVILLE: Has the family shared what he said?

BROMLEY: No. No. We`ve not talked at length about what Clint witnessed that day.

NORVILLE: As you know, we have spoken off-camera with other family members, and Natalie Bobo, who`s a cousin of Holly who`s gone missing, said to us that Clint had indicated that he had taken a polygraph test and passed it. Can you confirm that?

BROMLEY: I don`t know that to be sure. Has the investigators said anything about that?

NORVILLE: Well, this is a family member who has told us, and we`re trying to confirm that with you as the family spokesperson.

BROMLEY: Right. I don`t know that to be factual. That would be something you`d have to talk with the investigators about.


Link: http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1104/20/ng.01.html

-I have the same questions. And I did not follow from 2011 on, which may be why I haven’t heard about Clint calling 911 and the statement about the specs of blood?? Was that debunked, thrown out??

-I think NB would have cast a negative cloud on the family. So they proceeded without. I wonder if that relationship will remain in tact.
 
: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:

Most likely the wife was not called because she had denied throwing the gun away or even knowing about it. It would kind of undermine their witness if the other corroborating witness contradicted him.

Other than Dinsmore's say so was there anything to suggest that the gun was even connected to ZA at all, let alone to the murder?
 
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?

If there was no demonstrable connection with the crime it should not have been introduced, since it could be considered inflammatory.
 
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.

Hiding a weapon that you had reason to believe was involved in a crime is a criminal offence in itself, so my guess is that she denied doing it, or even knowing that the gun existed. They could hardly put her on the stand if she did that, since it would undermine the witness they were using to connect the defendant to the crime.

What surprises me is that the defense did not call her to the stand. I know that in general you don't want to call a witness when you don't know what they are going to say, but the fact that the state did not call her to corroborate what the husband was saying (since she supposedly got rid of the gun) is kind of a red flag that she would likely say something different on the stand. I guess they figured that since there was nothing connecting the defendant to the gun other than the husband's say so, or that the gun was even involved in the crime, it was not worth the risk. Frankly, I don't know why the judge even allowed the gun to be entered into evidence considering that there was nothing to indicate that it was even involved in HB's death. Did Autry say that that particular gun was the one used, or was he not specific about the precise gun used?
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
1,417
Total visitors
1,560

Forum statistics

Threads
591,798
Messages
17,959,038
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top