post trial discussion of evidence

Discussion in 'Holly Bobo' started by Harmony 2, Sep 23, 2017.

  1. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    After the US marshals picked her up, yes. If she didn't come voluntarily of course. If you are delivered a subpoena you have to appear in court unless you have a valid reason why you can't be there, you can't just refuse to show up. That would earn you a contempt charge . Whoever called her as a witness would have to pay for her to come.
     


  2. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    A better question would be why, if HB was forced off into the woods, would she still have been carrying all this stuff? Surely she would have dropped it during the initial confrontation? One of many things about this case that don't make a whole lot of sense.
     
  3. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ok, well in that case none of that should be been shown to the jury since it implies a connection that isn't there.
     
  4. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Because she had nothing to do with the crime or had any direct knowledge of it outside of being a cousin.
     
  5. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The jury is not supposed to cherry pick. Either the witness is telling the truth or they are not, there is no middle ground. There may be minor details that have been distorted or misremembered over time, but all of the major details have to be truthful. If they are not, then who is to say how much of the rest is truthful as well? If a witness is lying on significant points then their credibility is impeached and a jury (if it is doing it's job properly) should disregard the testimony in its entirety.

    NB has nothing to do with the case as far as we know, other than being a relative, so speculating about what she might or might not have done without any evidence to support that is unfair.
     
  6. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    According to JA his only involvement was to help dispose of a supposed body. So, if he is to be believed, the motive and events of the rest of the crime were what ZA told him. He would have been just repeating what ZA said, but not being there himself he would not know if that was really true or not.

    JA said a lot of things that did not seem very likely or correct. My guess is that he made the immunity deal to get away from his own charges but did not think that the jury would believe him because of some of the more dubious things he claimed and that consequently ZA would be acquitted. That would then have left both of them clear. But if that didn't happen, then ZA would be convicted, however JA would still get out of the mess and save his own skin.

    All of these guys, except ZA, seem to have been prepared to say anything about their buddies to get LE to stop trying to convict them as well. And all of them appear to have been telling some fairly significant dubious things in the process.
     
  7. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Most likely. The simplest explanation is usually the correct one, people like these guys don't do convoluted things. She may not even have been raped, just shot. I keep thinking that whoever killed her did it in rage, either directed against her personally or someone she knew. JA's account does not make a whole lot of sense, while DA and SA appear to have been telling the investigators things that were not true.

    I don't think we will ever really know what happened short of an actual confession, and that doesn't seem too likely at this point.
     
  8. dog.gone.cute

    dog.gone.cute Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10

    Messages:
    15,569
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113



    :seeya: Hi Tugela,

    1st BBM: Yes, interesting point and a possibility.

    The entire "gun" issue was hinky, and the State could not even definitively prove it was THE murder weapon.

    2nd RBBM: BINGO ! Other than Dinsmore, just JA.

    JA testified he sold the gun to Dinsmore for pills ... but my question is WHO did the gun belong to originally ?

    I am going to have to go back and re-listen to JA's testimony about the gun so I do not post incorrect information.

    :moo:
     
  9. dog.gone.cute

    dog.gone.cute Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10

    Messages:
    15,569
    Likes Received:
    1,146
    Trophy Points:
    113

    :seeya: Good points.

    BBM: Exactly ... it should not have been allowed into evidence, as well as those "pink panties" that were found on the road that were not even Holly's !

    JMO but I was NOT impressed with this Judge ... the Judge's favoritism towards the State and his distaste for the Defense stood out like a sore thumb.

    IIRC, JA testified that gun was the murder weapon ... but I will have to go back and re-listen.

    :moo:
     
  10. Madeleine74

    Madeleine74 Of course it's my opinion, who else's would it be?

    Messages:
    10,732
    Likes Received:
    5,671
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pattern jury instructions read by the judge and given to the jurors for deliberation specify it is up to the jury to decide if a witness' testimony is credible or not, in whole or in part, and it is totally up to them to determine what weight, if any, to give any evidence, including witnesses' testimony.

    1.07

    CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES (1) Another part of your job as jurors is to decide how credible or believable each witness was. This is your job, not mine. It is up to you to decide if a witness's testimony was believable, and how much weight you think it deserves. You are free to believe everything that a witness said, or only part of it, or none of it at all. But you should act reasonably and carefully in making these decisions.
     
  11. Tugela

    Tugela Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    2,681
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Of course the jury can believe whatever they want, but the bolded bit is their responsibility in arriving at that belief in a trial. If they are doing their job properly then they would have to in their minds rationalize why some parts should be believed and others not, they are not supposed to cherry pick to conform to preconceived idea. This is something that can be tested on appeal. They should have a reason for arriving at that belief, and it should be a reasonable reason which is evident in what is presented in trial. If they do not do that then they are exhibiting prejudice. In the absence of any evidence to indicate that some parts are not credible how can they conclude that other parts are credible? If the witness is lying in one instance, how do you differentiate between what is and is not truthful in another instance? That is why the judge's instructions included the bolded part. It is a warning so that whatever they find to be factual is not challenged on appeal.

    In an appeal the defendant can claim that the jury did not "act reasonable and carefully in making these decisions" and consequently did not abide by the judge's instructions. Then it would be up to the appeal court to decide if a reasonable person should consider the witness to be impeached or not based on what they testified to at trial. If those judges decide that the witness was sufficiently impeached, then they would look at the remainder of the evidence to determine if a reasonable jury would still have arrived at the same verdict if the witness did not testify. In most cases where these sorts of questions arise, they generally find that there is sufficient other evidence presented that the trial would have had the same outcome and consequently deny the appeal. So, in the absence of JA's testimony and based on the other evidence presented, do you think that the state proved beyond reasonable doubt that ZA did the crime? And if so, what is the reasoning for that opinion?
     
  12. Tuffgong

    Tuffgong Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Autry says Bobo was killed by being shot in the head. The autopsy ruled that she had most likely been shot in the head. However, when Autry was asked to help, he was told Holly was already dead and that he saw her dead body in the truck with blood coming from her head. How was she supposedly killed the first time? It was never revealed and seems very confusing in regards to the autopsy report.

    Why were her lunchbox, papers from school, cell phone and drivers license discovered far away from her carport? Clint Bobo said he heard an argument and then saw her walking away with somebody in camo. Why would she be carrying all of those things with her? SHe was being abducted and she was bringing all of those things, even after Holly was supposedly kneeling down and talking to her abductor. I am confused why she would be taking a bookbag with her.

    Why was Clint's testimony of the abductor not similar to any of the accused? He saw the abductor, his description was big, long dark hair. They say it was Shane Austin, who had red hair and a buzz cut.

    Autry claims they were there to teach Clint how to make meth. That was a lie and there was no "they" there, just the one guy that walked her into the woods.

    Nothing makes sense.
     
    JenNJ likes this.
  13. Tuffgong

    Tuffgong Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I believe strongly that state manufactured a story, told the family members these guys did it and play along, or they will walk. Holly's mom's testimony lacked credibility and was hard to believe. The rest of the testimony was jailhouse snitches. Maybe the brothers did it, but the police were guessing.
     
    JenNJ likes this.
  14. Tuffgong

    Tuffgong Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    178
    Likes Received:
    327
    Trophy Points:
    63
    But why? Why were her papers and lunch box anywhere but in that carport? The person that abducted her, according to Clint Bobo, was talking with her for awhile and then walked together towards the woods. Why would she bring her backpack with her if they were walking on foot towards the woods? Wouldn't she leave it in her car or by her car? I have never understood this point.
     
    JenNJ likes this.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice