Zach Adams guilty in kidnapping murder of Holly Bobo Sept 23, 2017

New Posts

Throwing this in for free. :) From what I know of drug addicts. The lies can abound and abound BUT they also can hit a point where they tell the truth almost to the point of TMI! You can know its true because of the details, and the negative comments about themselves and what they did. I would think 'maybe that's a little too much information for others to absorb'.
Anyways, I'm saying all this to support what JA said. Some druggies can flip and tell the truth almost to a fault. Plus, he had a lot of corroboration to his stories.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
attachment.php


attachment.php
 

Attachments

  • 100317.TDOC.info.JPG
    100317.TDOC.info.JPG
    88.7 KB · Views: 218
  • mccx.JPG
    mccx.JPG
    43.4 KB · Views: 215
MCCX is the same prison where they sent Brandon Vandenburg from the Vanderbilt Rape trial. They gave him 15 years + I believe.
 
from the article posted in post #404

And what about Terry Dicus, the former TBI agent who testified for the defense? He testified he ruled out Adams as a suspect the very first week of Holly Bobo’s disappearance.

"The determination I made was that he could not have been involved in the kidnapping," Dicus testified.

"We didn't pay any attention to him," the juror said concerning Dicus’s testimony.


:lol:
 
Yes, in that article the juror said they believed "some" of JA's testimony, especially paid attention to the cell phone pings (corroboration of movement), and ignored Dicus.
 
Gee said:
Interview with one of the jurors

Juror talks decision to convict Zach Adams in Holly Bobo's murder

http://www.wsmv.com/story/36514411/juror-talks-decision-to-convict-zach-adams-in-holly-bobos-murder

(Via WSMV)
Click to expand...


:tyou: for the update.


Here's a snippet from a juror (who did not want to be named) from the link above:

...

Were jurors disappointed the decision was out of their hands?

“No,” the juror said. "That was a relief.”

Would she have given Adams the death penalty?

"Probably not," she said.

She said she thought other jurors also had concerns.

"We had several Christian people who would have had reservations."


:thinking: I thought this was a death penalty qualified jury ?

And now this unnamed juror is stating that it was a "relief" that she did not have to vote on the DP - and she "thought" that other jurors also had concerns because of their religious faith.

Question is HOW does this juror know that other jurors had concerns about voting for the DP ?

I sure hope this juror is referencing a conversation she had with other jurors AFTER they were DISMISSED from their juror duties by the Judge.

Because IF not, then the jurors were discussing the Death Penalty BEFORE the Sentencing Phase began - which Sentencing Phase did not happen because of the Sentencing Agreement reached between the State and Defendant.

In other words, the jurors should not have discussed the Death Penalty with each other at any time during the Trial and after the Verdict -- they can discuss the DP when INSTRUCTED by the Judge, which would have been when the Sentencing Phase was complete - which no Sentencing Phase because of the Agreement.

Just unbelievable, IMO ...

:moo:
 
She said she "thought" other jurors had concerns, based on their being Christian. Sounds like she had such concerns and assumed others would have as well. JMO.
 
krkrjx said:
She said she "thought" other jurors had concerns, based on their being Christian.

Sounds like she had such concerns and assumed others would have as well. JMO.
Click to expand...


1st BBM: It's unfortunate that we did not get to hear the statements straight from the juror's mouth ... what we have to rely on here is a reporter stating what she was told by a juror - which IMO leads to speculation.

2nd BBM: Here is what is quoted in the article at http://www.wsmv.com/story/36514411/j...y-bobos-murder

She said she thought other jurors also had concerns.

"We had several Christian people who would have had reservations."

BBM: JMO but she should NOT be making assumptions for other jurors ... let the other jurors speak for themselves. And just because a person is "Christian" does not mean they would have reservations for the DP - some do and some don't.

:moo::moo::moo:
 
Although, I can't be sure of exactly what this juror (and the others) were thinking at the end of the trial deliberations, I think I do get her point. And to me, it kinda mirrors the apparent thought behind the question to the judge, but this time points in the other way.

When they asked the question, they were somewhat concerned over the lack of physical evidence, and asked the judge if they could still convict anyhow. That's not exactly what they said, but I believe it was what they were thinking. And he said he couldn't tell them the answer, but rather the answer was whatever they decided it was. Given that freedom, they quickly were able to render a guilty verdict on everything.

However, I think that hesitation cut the other way as well. If you have a bit of a question in the back of your mind as to whether this is the "right" type of evidence to convict, then I don't think a thinking person could decide to go ahead and vote for the DP when there's no physical evidence... which kinda mirrors what the juror revealed.

As I said, I couldn't buy JA's testimony because I felt it was riddled with too many lies to trust. Apparently the jury too felt it was riddled with lies - but they chose to trust it anyhow, in relation to what he said about ZA. And if I had been on that jury, while I wouldn't have felt it was evidence BARD, I feel if i was a juror I would have voted as the rest did - at least on one or several counts - because I wouldn't have been willing to discard enough of what was testified to let ZA walk free.
 
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.
 
-May be a dumb question:
Are his eyes permanently that way because of all the Meth he did? Its a combination of black-purple-pinkish. I can’t say I have seen all three on one person with the exception of surgery, combat, street violence, sports injuries, etc. And none being permanent.
 
SteveS said:
Although, I can't be sure of exactly what this juror (and the others) were thinking at the end of the trial deliberations, I think I do get her point. And to me, it kinda mirrors the apparent thought behind the question to the judge, but this time points in the other way.

When they asked the question, they were somewhat concerned over the lack of physical evidence, and asked the judge if they could still convict anyhow. That's not exactly what they said, but I believe it was what they were thinking. And he said he couldn't tell them the answer, but rather the answer was whatever they decided it was. Given that freedom, they quickly were able to render a guilty verdict on everything.

However, I think that hesitation cut the other way as well. If you have a bit of a question in the back of your mind as to whether this is the "right" type of evidence to convict, then I don't think a thinking person could decide to go ahead and vote for the DP when there's no physical evidence... which kinda mirrors what the juror revealed.

As I said, I couldn't buy JA's testimony because I felt it was riddled with too many lies to trust. Apparently the jury too felt it was riddled with lies - but they chose to trust it anyhow, in relation to what he said about ZA. And if I had been on that jury, while I wouldn't have felt it was evidence BARD, I feel if i was a juror I would have voted as the rest did - at least on one or several counts - because I wouldn't have been willing to discard enough of what was testified to let ZA walk free.
Click to expand...

Curious. What were the lies you saw in his story?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
For one, I didn’t believe the part about going to the house to teach Clint to make meth.
 
Pamelateach5 said:
For one, I didn’t believe the part about going to the house to teach Clint to make meth.
Click to expand...

JA was telling the jury what Zach said. So if that was a lie, it might have been Zach lying, not JA. JMO
 
Aydrianna523 said:
Curious. What were the lies you saw in his story?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He got caught by the defense lying about Holly overhearing his name. He claimed it was when they were talking when they were in the pick up. The defense pointed out to him they were in the cab of the pick up and she was in the bed of the pick up so asked how that could be. It couldn't.
 
I believe that the general framework of JA's story - in which he portrayed himself as more or less "innocent" of any personal involvement in any of the actual crimes committed - was so far-fetched as to be completely unbelievable. According to JA, he didn't kidnap, rape, or murder anyone, while everyone else did (according to him).

Because I don't believe he was telling "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth," I think it's naive to then think we somehow can "know" which part is true and which isn't (which is what the jury decided they could do). How can we objectively distinguish what was made up by him (for his own purpose) and what wasn't? If you're honest about the facts, you have to choose that either JA testified truthfully, or he lied his *advertiser censored* off, and if you believe he lied then you have to admit that his testimony was worthless because you have a liar who is telling you stuff that you can't verify either way (no one else who was there was testifying, and no physical evidence).

The same applies to the way we should regard the things that JA says ZA told him. We accept as "truth" what is convenient to the prosecution, and dismiss what is inconvenient as "Well, ZA was lying." But, what if JA was the one making it up? Once we get into the game of playing all-knowing God with the words of a liar, and thinking we can sift the truth out from the lies, I think it's pure folly.

SO - when I am asked what I don't believe, the answer is that I can't trust anything JA said. Maybe there was some truth in there, but who knows what part it was and what part was just lies tailored to get a sweet deal. Clearly, "maybe it contained some truth" is not the stuff of "BARD."

Sad to say, I think we still don't really know what happened with HB from when she was abducted to when her body was discovered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 3,864 (members: 179, guests: 3,685)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
3,685
Total visitors
3,864
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,036
Messages
17,980,112
Members
228,995
Latest member
SalmonElla
Back
Top