Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo Sept 18, 2017 graphic

I am not offended. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, disagreeing with someone is not being offensive.

 

That is true, but, you can generally get a good idea based on where the calls/texts are coming from/going to and who is on the other end (the phone anyway).

 

"Compelling evidence would have been finding physical evidence of HB at the first murder scene, or physical evidence of JA at the scene of HB and/or her belongings. But nothing remotely like that has been found AFAIK. "


Items belonging to Holly were found in the field next Shaynes trailer.
Witnesses saw a white truck, like Zach/s, speeding away from the abduction site. And he was seen casing her street a few days before the kidnapping.

Also, the important thing about the phones was that hers started out near ZAs and SAs at the time she went missing. Then all 3 moved at same time to Yellow Springs road. That is MAJOR circumstantial evidence, imo.

“The only evidence at all is a bunch of very dubious people who at various times have claimed this and that.”


The people were dubious because they were hanging out with the dubious defendant. You are not going to find close confidantes of a rapist/killer who have sterling reputations and clean histories.

But that does not mean they lied about Zach beng involved in the vile and vicious crime.

What are the chances that Zach is totally innocent and ALL of these witnesses decided to accuse him of saying these same things, at various times? Is it a vast conspiracy to frame this upstanding paragon of virtue?

“There is not even a real motive.”


A gang rape and killing is a real motive. A high percentage of our cases here involve that same sick motive——sexual assault.


“The abduction scene does not make sense either. ZA was driving around accosting women on the street (with the implication that they might be HB), but HB was taken from her yard by someone into the woods, someone who did not even look like ZA…”


If Zach had come upon Holly, as she was running alone, early one morning, he would have taken her then and there. That is why he drove past that neighbor slowly and then turned his truck around—he wanted to see if it was his lucky day.

As for Clint’s description—his story and his version of events has always been muddied and confusing. I would not agree that Zach did not look like the abductor. We just don’t know.

As to the claim of why ZA was there in the 1st place—is it JA’s claim? Or is it ZA’s claim, as JA said.

 

So I am just gonna let the state have a pass on finding "upstanding citizens" who witnessed anything.

I 100% agree with you that none of these folks are fine and upstanding...starting with Autry himself. My stomach is sick thinking about it. So I'm with you there.

But I have to think about it this way too -----If this case were not brought to trial because they couldn't find Betty Crocker and Sandra Dee to testify because those folks didn't exist around Zach Adams, then would I be ok for Zachary Adams to not be charged with what has been presented in this trial? For me, the answer is no.

I don't believe just because you had a past it means that everything you say is untrue. Or that even if you are no longer incarcerated, but have a past, that you have an ulterior motive at all times. Should these things be considered? Yes. Did I think every witness was uber-credible? No. For me Victor Dinsmore might have been the least credible of the bunch.

Maybe I'm wrong on this ---but I'm pretty sure Autry was not a last minute witness. I think he has been on the books for prosecution as a witness who was intending to speak since at least February of this year.

You are right about it comes down to whether or not you believe the witnesses. So if you don't, and if you, Tungela, have to also have DNA or forensic evidence that nails ZA for the crime or it is not guilty, then I understand, that's where you are at.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

But that just shows the they were all together--did everything together.

I just cannot believe that none of these defendants were involved in her abduction. I believe it was a group effort. I do n0t know 100% which one did what and when. But I do believe that Zach was the ringleader.

So no matter who had whose phone, they were all culpable in this evil endeavor. JMO

 

If you go back to the first day and the opening statements by the State to the jury....I bet Jason Autry does not get leniency..
Will Dylan go to trial too? Does anybody know?

 

I haven't participated yet in the discussion during the trial but have followed it daily. I have heard and read many times that there is a hierarchy of crimes among inmates. The pecking order places pedophiles and people who commit violent sex crimes on the bottom of the pile. IMO, all the criminals that have given testimony about ZA tends to prove this true.

 

I mostly agree with you. I just think Jason had so much more to do with this and I question Dylan's involvement other than he was there.

 

Yes, the judge earlier this year said Dylan was next. Assuming that is still the case, he would be next (I have not heard additional dates or maybe this would go down first and then it would be announced).

Originally he had said it would either be ZA or Dylan going first. He then announced ZA would be first.

Just personal opinion, I think Dylan is going to be harder to pin down. But I could be wrong. Maybe Dylan did enough talking as It seems in testimony that ZA said he did that there will be enough witnesses to come forward. He seems like a pawn of his brother and as evil as this group is, just me personally, I feel more sympathetic to him than anyone due to how it seems he has been treated his whole life by his older brother.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Jason will probably get lots of prison time. He does not have immunity , just wants leniency.


I question Dylan's level of involvement too---HOWEVER, he didn't call it in and get her help before she was raped and killed either. Nor afterwards.

 

The first part of the above ---you are responding about the cell phone pings in general.

You make an interesting point about the "general area" of a cell phone tower. I'm sure it may vary per area, but if it truly is such a WIDE area ----it may have been a missed opportunity for the defense ----or actually maybe they are waiting for their own cell phone expert to come forward to take the opportunity to explain what it actually means when they are pinged at the same tower.

I mean, specifically for the radius of a tower like the one where ZA and JA cell phones pinged at the same "remains" tower where she was found.

Does that mean both cell phones are within 5 miles? 10 miles? 2 miles of that tower? Or a far greater radius? Cell phone pings may not be that indicative of super close proximity (like standing together or within 100 feet) if the radius could be much wider.

*****

The last part of your "no motive" quote above was my exact issue a couple days ago.

Then someone in this thread, sorry I have forgotten who....woke me up with the meth, crazy world these folks live in their heads and that a motive to just to rape and kill would truly exist in their world. Doesn't need to be a drug debt or a ransom or a specific revenge. Doing sadistic things for pure sport can be a motive. Drug induced folks don't need "a bigger moral reason" for doing something.

I'm still programmed in my mind to think like you are on this point as "there has to be a motive" and for me, I think that comes from TV (not speaking for you, just me here), in that every interesting crime on TV seems to have this motive you have to figure out and it's compelling and twisted and the discovery of it is what I am seeking the whole time.

Then I see a case like this and I'm thinking "what is the motive" until someone pointed out the above to me.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I agree. I wish Dylan had immunity and was speaking out against JA and ZA. I could find both of them GUILTY, no problem...:jail: :jail:

 

Speaking of Victor.... the more I think about his testimony, the more irritated I get that SOMEONE didn't try to discredit him more. A .357, or .38 isn't the same as a .32. Don't use the same bullets, don't leave the same wound, skull, or target damage. The earlier two are powerful handguns. A .22 rifle was even mentioned. Rife and handgun are very different. Though a .22 and a .32 are going to make similar entry and exit damage. Heck he even mentioned it might have been a shot gun! IMO...he was throwing everything out, hoping something stuck. I have to wonder why? Because he was with that group frequently, so he had to know their reputation.
I wonder if the pond he stated he threw that pistol in was drained and searched or did they just go with his work? It wasn't submitted as evidence that there was any search for it.

What legal trouble if any, could he have been in if he had traded or sold that gun to the perps? I know that JA testified he couldn't remember who had owned the gun before Shayne had it, but was supposively with Shayne when he got it. His details on everything else were so clear, and rehearsed, I mean he remembered them so well, and fine details, so many details, but couldn't remember where the gun came from...

What are the odds that the one gun that Victor admits to having owned, that is now 'in the bottom of the pond' is the same type that was found in that drainage ditch? What are the chances that the same gun is what the state admits to evidence is the one that killed Holly? The exact same caliber that Victor owned...but thew away because it wasn't working, was the same caliber found, that Victor owned again. The same gun is traded drugs for so his wife would have a gun? Hmmm.... I wonder just what those chances would be?

From my unprofessional view, knowing only minimum about guns, the shot to Holly's skull had a small entry hole. And exited her face, but didn't blow that side of her face off, so likely was a small caliber like a .22 or .32. I think I believe it was the gun that killed Holly that was found. But I have to wonder about that one in the bottom of the pond and if it exists or not.

Because even if the pistol had a malfunction, did you know there's gunsmiths that fix those problems? There's people that can fix them as a hobby? So why throw it away?

Just little things that nag at me, and I wonder then who is telling the truth or if any of them are! And if there is some truth, then which is truth and which isn't?

Maybe this is the time I should admit I have a hard time trusting people. Been burned too many times by lies. I will quickly point out lies to people in real life and let them know that I know they are lying to me, and why it upsets me. I don't sugar coat. Lost some relationships over it, but so be it, less drama in my life. I'm not talking just a small lie, like I look wonderful when I know I have the flu and look like death warmed up. I mean out and out lying for either personal gain, manipulation, trying to make me believe something because someone else said, when I know that person didn't say anything, etc... I seriously have no tolerance...

 

If anything I've read about Dylan being slow, or abused, or manipulated is true, I would guess he would have been a difficult state witness. Could he remember details as well as Jason did? Would he have been as unrattled as Jason on the stand? Could he withstand a cross examination without getting the 'details' confused? I think had an attorney like J. Martinez cross examined Jason, he would have gotten confused and frustrated and likely his story would have crumbled. But, he didn't, so he appeared as cool as a cucumber, and believeable to some. I did notice how he would look at either his attorneys or the state attorneys like a child looks to their parents for a reaction.

 

No, but Dylan is said to be 'slow' mentally. Some early articles I saw recently said he could barely read.

 

Day 7 loaded up!

Case Archive, Trial section:
http://s296.photobucket.com/user/cr... and Beyond - Justice for Holly?sort=2&page=1

 

So I saw some of these same articles I am sure where in court, a couple folks coming forward saying he was mentally slow and could barely read.

My thought is, I would need a specialist in court to testify to his brain capabilities, IQ, and ability to make decisions.

Because those people who "stood up for him saying he was slow" were his mother and Miller - was he an attorney quoted? (who I don't know the relation or expertise in determining that.)

There are also folks in the community who have said "it's a load of crap" that he is slow....he may not be the brightest bulb in the bunch, but there is nothing "special needs" about him.

To me, until you get a doctor or medical professional to examine him and say so, all of it may be a bit of hearsay both ways.

It would also be good for that same professional to testify to his reading abilities.

I hesitate to say that someone who can't read can't make a decision between what is right and wrong. There are people who are street smart but uneducated and didn't learn to read or read well. And they should still be held accountable for their actions.

If he cannot read though, which is likely the concern to the question of what he may have signed off on by TBI, he may not have understood, and him being coerced to sign something he cannot read or understand should absolutely be known.

From what has been inferred, even if he is not special needs specifically, I still personally feel for him and it sounds like Zach practically raised him which in itself is abuse.

He is tough for me for sure. By default, you don't want him out on the streets either, but man, I may be soft and biased, but you just want to give him a lot of therapy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I'm starting to wonder if Autry's testimony is true to an extent except he changes the players around.

For example ZA supposedly thought HB was dead then when he realized she was not he said "she heard my name" not JA.
It would make more sense in this context because HB may have been blindfolded and no names were used until after ZA thought she was dead (is it possible HB had an asthma attack?).

Also, since JA was brought in as the clean up guy after ZA thought HB was dead he was the one who actually did the shooting? He had ZA go be the lookout. This would tie in with ZA's statement of not doing the killing (if witness can be believed).

I guess what I'm saying is JA's story may have flowed so well because the facts are right but he just changed the players names.

Regardless ZA is guilty one way or the other. JA may end up a free man soon because he was able to figure out how to make a believable narrative which points the finger at ZA.

 

Yes, I have thought this too about the players being reversed and JA doing the shooting instead while ZA was the lookout. That would have been an easy name swap and switcheroo in the story for Autry to pull while making it all seem believable still.

That witness testimony today of "I didn't kill her but did the worst of it," made me think that even more as well.

If this is the way it happened, I still think ZA thought he had killed her before (not the shot but before that) which makes me still think he is equally guilty.

I'm thinking the defense may very well pull that out of their hat too, but I guess by doing that, they would also be saying ZA was actually there which they deny. It's like a catch-22 for them because the whole time, going after an angle like that might start pointing out the best defense in terms of putting more of that "reasonable doubt" in the jurors minds about the actual killing part. They are both equally guilty IMO. Just these seeds of doubt are the cards defense could play.

To me this effects the sentencing more than anything if indeed the jury decides ZA is guilty.

While ZA and JA both are guilty of killing her collectively, only IF the details went down this reversed way above....who the jury may believe gave her "the final shot to the back of the head" that may put that sentence to a death sentence vs life in jail for Zach Adams specifically.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Those checks and balances are there to protect innocent people, who are falsely accused. The checks and balances are not there to protect guilty people, from being held accountable for their crimes.

If you were accused of a crime, and the state could not prove it, then you deserve to go free.

But if you were on trial, and some of the local jurors knew about your criminal history, and knew what a deceased witness had said previously, incriminating you, then you might be found guilty, because of the FACTS they knew.

If you are GUILTY, then there is nothing immoral about a juror voting Guilty during deliberations. Even if some of their knowledge predates the trial. Right is right. JMO