post trial discussion of evidence

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

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.
 
She was carrying a small purse and a larger purse:

"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."

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...y-3-more-key-witnesses-expected-to-take-stand

So let's go with her mother did the laundry and she packed them in the larger purse for her. They have had Karen's DNA sample since 2011, why didn't they find Karen's DNA on them? Surely they would know if the DNA found on them belonged to her.

Or, since they supposedly came from Holly's purse (or backpack if someone can find information that she was carrying one, since I haven't been able to find that information), wouldn't you think Holly's DNA would be on them from the numerous skin cells that she must have sloughed from her hands in the purse from the action of taking things in and out of it everyday?

If she had been wearing them, even for an hour, her DNA would have been on them.

And if she was carrying them, why weren't they found with the rest of the stuff from her purse instead of being found in a separate location?

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.
 
:seeya:


I went back and re-listened to the testimony about the "panties" and "pink panties" -- and this is what I found:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 11, 2017: Karen Bobo on witness stand.

Photos shown, and KB identifies a dirty clothes hamper in Holly's bathroom. JN asks KB if she was asked to retrieve something out Holly’s out of the dirty clothes basket by LE.

KB stated that LE asked her to get a pair of Holly's “panties,” which KB provided to LE. JN passes a bag to KB and asks her if she recognizes what is in the bag, and KB states those are Holly’s panties that she provided to LE that morning.

NOTE: These panties that are in this evidence bag are NOT shown to the jury.

These panties were entered into evidence as Exhibit #26.

Start at approximately 59:00 of the video link below. JN questioned by KB about Holly’s “panties” that she provided to LE.

Link: [video=youtube;31w8b5NrQHs]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=31w8b5NrQHs[/video]



September 15, 2017: Brent Booth, TBI Agent on witness stand.

Start at approximately 10:10 of the video link below to see BB questioned by State about the physical evidence found: the receipt, the $1 bill, Holly’s note cards, 3 ring binder, etc.

Link: [video=youtube;LYFCKx8_-6A]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYFCKx8_-6A[/video]


At approximately 33:30 of the video above, JT passes Exhibit #16A to BB to open up and take a look at what’s in the sealed envelope.


JT asks BB if there is a pink pair of underwear in the envelope, and BB states “it is.”

BB states that the “pink panties” were laying in the middle of the road. JT questions further about the location, and BB testifies they were close to Shayne’s driveway.

BB states that these “pink panties” did NOT belong to Holly.

JT shows BB Exhibit #70, which is a photo of these “same underwear." JT asks BB to pull the underwear out the evidence bag, and BB shows these “pink panties” to the jury.

BB states these “pink panties” that he just showed the jury were tested for Holly’s DNA, and no DNA belonging to Holly was found on them.

JT asks BB if there was another woman’s DNA, and BB states “somebody’s DNA - a mixture of DNA.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So from the above testimony given at trial:

Exhibit #26
There was a pair of panties that Karen was shown in an evidence bag, said were Holly's panties provided to LE on the day she was kidnapped, but were not shown to the jury.


Exhibit #16A
There was a pair of pink panties in the evidence envelope that was shown to Agent Booth, said there were found in the middle of road near SA's house, did NOT have Holly's DNA on it, but were shown to the jury.

So ... two different exhibit #s - 2 different panties ... one pair was shown to the jury - the other pair not shown.


I hope that made sense.

:seeya:

Ok, well in that case none of that should be been shown to the jury since it implies a connection that isn't there.
 
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.

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.
 
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.......

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.
 
The more I think about it, I don’t believe any of Jason Autry’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’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.

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.
 
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?



: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:
 
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?


: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:
 
The jury is not supposed to cherry pick. Either the witness is telling the truth or they are not, there is no middle ground.

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.
 
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.

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.


Agent admits investigators made mistakes 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.

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.
 
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.

Nothing makes sense.

I would guess that not even the pathologist could conclusively say what killed her, her full remains weren’t found and what was found was completely skeletonized.

They have a cranial bone with a hole in it. No muscle or tissue that shows impact or trajectory. The bullet wasn’t even found either so that doesn’t give them much info on what Gun was used.

This whole saga is so sad for many involved and there has got have been a cover up at some level, with small town cops scrabbling around trying to pin it on someone.

Was Holly an undercover informant? Did her cousin try to pawn her off? Did her brother not tell everything? Was terry brit involved? We may never know. I doubt it ends with the Adams brothers, they just seem too infantile to have concocted such an elaborate plan.
 
Jason Autry came off as completely coached in his testimony. I think he was fed his lines completely. Nobody's testimony matches the others. Britt seems obvious to me. He wasn't a dummy and knew his phones and trailer was being bugged, he didn't talk about it. That does not mean he didn't do it though. The man was looking to plead on it.
 
for YEARS I return to this case to figure out what it is that I'm missing.. the confession means nothing to me.. just like the underwear, and Clint's perception.. none of it adds up and I'm definitely open to the idea that LE felt so much pressure to pin it.. moo
 
I tend to find the Holly Bobo case very odd I can't shake the fact that they just tried to close a case blame it on people who nobody cares about so nothing will be questioned. Help me out on this one be nice to hear others opinions thanks
 
Dylan Adams who was arrested for weapons charges (before holly bobo case) took a plea deal to live with a retired police officer then a few months later he confessed to knowing what happened to her... also took a deal for 8 years for his confession. remember this case got a lot of media only bringing this old case up because i saw in the news that Dylan adams is being released soon. Thanks for replying
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
126
Guests online
1,249
Total visitors
1,375

Forum statistics

Threads
591,797
Messages
17,959,007
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top