Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #6

[~n/t~]

Hey Ladies and Gentlemen,

Well here we go from Nick Beres FB page:


https://www.facebook.com/NC5NickBer...50827361639/10152640803906640/?type=1&theater

Jennifer Nichols response:


http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...tor-responds-to-motion-in-bobo-case/24994633/

Thanks Lyric.


Interesting how she doesn't address this Quote from the article: "But Herbison argued that neither Stowe nor Nichols have complied with the judge's order to turn over evidence."

When was Nichols appointed?


More stalling..............*sigh*

 

[~n/t~]

I would bet that it has to do with the extreme nature of the crime(s), and the desire to get a trial and perhaps justice for Holly.

No matter how negligent the prosecution is in fulfilling its duties, the court has to be aware of what a travesty it would be if murderers are allowed to walk - and not because of lack of evidence, but simply due to the failure of the prosecution to provide due process.

So from that perspective, the extreme latitude they are giving the prosecution is a positive.

OTOH, it's very concerning that the prosecution is putting the court in that position in the first place, and throughout. For no good reason other than a failure to do their job, they are endangering the case and providing ammo for an appeal if there's a conviction. Latitude has both limits and consequences. And while their repeated failure to perform doesn't prove that the prosecution's case is iffy, those actions certainly give that hint, which adds concerns on a completely different level. So there's that.

Who is giving extreme latitude to the prosecution?

 

[ZooSleuth]

Who is giving extreme latitude to the prosecution?

The judge. The way the prosecution has handled everything would not fly in a run-of-the-mill court case and the charges would have probably been thrown out awhile ago.

 

[pearl]

Seems to me that if the defense is so concerned about the alleged missing discovery materials, they would not be petitioning the same court over and over. Seems to me they would take it to a higher court or federal court since they insist the constitutional right to a speedy trial is being withheld.

 

[Dogface]

I'm so torn over all this. I do badly want it to be the people behind jail because it gives me comfort to think the people who did this are caught and will be held responsible, but I want it to be them because it truly was them and they can be successfully prosecuted! If it wasn't them, then who? I hate how all it seems with this case is never quite as it seems.

 

[murphy3k]

Seems to me that if the defense is so concerned about the alleged missing discovery materials, they would not be petitioning the same court over and over. Seems to me they would take it to a higher court or federal court since they insist the constitutional right to a speedy trial is being withheld.

Legally that is not really an option. Generally, you have an appeal as of right (direct appeal) from any final order/judgment in a case. There has been no final order/judgment here as the trial has not occurred. Otherwise, you have the option of an interlocutory appeal, which is an appeal from an order issued while the case is ongoing. The trial court must grant permission for an interlocutory appeal. I'm not sure there has been an Order entered that they would be able to appeal. There could be once these two pending motions are ruled on, though. They also have the option of filing a habeas corpus petition, which would be a federal court action. However, those are generally reserved for post-conviction relief, in my experience. ALL MOO.

I think defense counsel is doing what they feel is required to set up their arguments for appeal if the defendant's are convicted. MOO.

Here is the TN rule of procedure for Interlocutory Orders, which would be their main option as there has been no Final Order or Final Judgment in this case.
http://www.tsc.state.tn.us/rules/rules-appellate-procedure/9

Also, here is a handy guide I found on the TN government website that goes over the general direct appeal process.
http://www.tn.gov/attorneygeneral/victim/pdf/09tnappeals.pdf

 

[jggordo]

I would be more concerned if Zach Adam's attorney was filing all these motions. Haven't heard a peep from that defense yet. It is my understanding that his trial will be first. The charges against him from this case are the only ones he is being held without bond on. If anyone's Constitutional rights to speedy trial are being violates IMO they are his. Jason Autry is incarcerated because of Federal charges not related to this case. Autry is not missing any Sunday Suppers because he was indicted on this case. I see no sense of urgency for a Court to rule on Mr. Long's motions or for basis for his screaming foul.

I don't get my boxers in a twist over Mr. Long asking for dismissals. It is standard practice for him in his trials that I have seen. I lost count of how many times he asked the Court for dismissal in the Vandy rape trial. I did however enjoy the look on the Judge's face each time he asked for it...especially right after the Jury had just seen the videotape of the night in question. The look was priceless, IMO.

JMO's

 

[tlcya]

I am glad you are unconcerned. Maybe some of it will rub off my direction. I admit to being very concerned about the case against every last one of those who have been charged or are being threatened with charges based on what I have seen thus far. I really really wish I could lose this concern.

 

[jggordo]

I am glad you are unconcerned. Maybe some of it will rub off my direction. I admit to being very concerned about the case against every last one of those who have been charged or are being threatened with charges based on what I have seen thus far. I really really wish I could lose this concern.

tlcya, don't get me wrong. I am very concerned about Holly's case. Just not about what JA's attorney's think at this juncture. What I am most concerned about is the evidence in those volumes and folders, the QUALITY of it and how it was obtained. We are now at a time when THREE different District Attorneys have seen the contents and as far as I'm concerned it has brought ALL three to not only pause but nearly stop in their tracks. To me that is not one inefficient DA and certainly not three. I believe there is more to that spat that Stowe and the TBI director had than we know (or ever will know). There MUST be some basis to what Stowe said about the investigation IMO.

I know one thing for sure. If it were my daughter I would ask the Department Of Justice to oversee Holly's case from this point forward. Since they are into looking Civil Rights violations lately they look out for Holly's. In my mind hers were violated in a horrific way, and the family cannot seem to find any Justice for all the shenanigans going on with the system there

JMO's

 

[tlcya]

I follow jggordo, I did not mean to imply you were wrong in what you said. No snark meant. I honestly wish I could view it glass half full the way you seem to. But for me, all the arrests and the behavior of prosecutors regarding what came after those arrests are all tied together in a heap. Just admitting I have a hard time viewing each defendant separately as I feel all the cases hing and are meant to build the strongest against my biggest culprit suspect = ZA

 

[Dr. Know?]

From a post I posted last night in regards to the Vandenburg case. It's something to follow. What is his comment?

Judge Monte Watkins, who presided over the trial, has yet to approve a substitution of attorneys request. Albert Perez Jr., a friend of Vandenburg's family who also represented Vandenburg, said he could not comment on "the departure" of Long and Herbison until it was "appropriately before the court."

 

[Steleheart]

Have we ever determined if JA's or ZA's attorneys had waved their right to a speedy trial? There are certain benefits to doing that, IMO.
It seems to me that I have seen this before, file a waver and then motion for quick discovery, more motions, delays - as I have observed, the waver is to gain time to get more info out there and not for the purpose of more discovery. Attorneys conducting interviews, grand standing in the court room, etc. are all contrived to later file change of venue due to too much publicity.

If your guy is truly innocent - even better, if you believe the state cannot prove their case, fulfill your duty and motion to dismiss. We only just got that motion.

In reality we have no idea what has been turned over, so believing the Defense Attorney at this point seems like swimming toward the chum bucket.+

ETA: but I am still not sure any defense Atty has filed a waver - sorry if that wasn't clear!

:cow:

 

[Tugela]

Have we ever determined if JA's or ZA's attorneys had waved their right to a speedy trial? There are certain benefits to doing that, IMO.
It seems to me that I have seen this before, file a waver and then motion for quick discovery, more motions, delays - as I have observed, the waver is to gain time to get more info out there and not for the purpose of more discovery. Attorneys conducting interviews, grand standing in the court room, etc. are all contrived to later file change of venue due to too much publicity.

If your guy is truly innocent - even better, if you believe the state cannot prove their case, fulfill your duty and motion to dismiss. We only just got that motion.

In reality we have no idea what has been turned over, so believing the Defense Attorney at this point seems like swimming toward the chum bucket.+

ETA: but I am still not sure any defense Atty has filed a waver - sorry if that wasn't clear!

:cow:

They can't realistically file a motion to dismiss until they have grounds to do that. Which is why the discovery aspect is so important. Once they have full disclosure of that, and especially the bill of particulars, they would then be able to argue such a motion due to lack of evidence. At the moment they can ask for a dismissal based on the failure to receive due process, which is what they are doing now. Probably just before that motion is heard, the rest of what the prosecutor is required to hand over will likely be made available to them, which would make the motion moot. Then they would have to file another motion for dismissal due to lack of evidence, which will take even more time, after which the case will be done unless LE uncovers something new (assuming of course, that there is insufficient evidence for a conviction at the moment, which I think is likely the situation the prosecutor is in at the moment - nothing else explains their behaviour IMO)

 

[Tugela]

tlcya, don't get me wrong. I am very concerned about Holly's case. Just not about what JA's attorney's think at this juncture. What I am most concerned about is the evidence in those volumes and folders, the QUALITY of it and how it was obtained. We are now at a time when THREE different District Attorneys have seen the contents and as far as I'm concerned it has brought ALL three to not only pause but nearly stop in their tracks. To me that is not one inefficient DA and certainly not three. I believe there is more to that spat that Stowe and the TBI director had than we know (or ever will know). There MUST be some basis to what Stowe said about the investigation IMO.

I know one thing for sure. If it were my daughter I would ask the Department Of Justice to oversee Holly's case from this point forward. Since they are into looking Civil Rights violations lately they look out for Holly's. In my mind hers were violated in a horrific way, and the family cannot seem to find any Justice for all the shenanigans going on with the system there

JMO's

Given the events around discovery and Stowe, IMO the problem is going to be that TBI was/is rationing out information to the prosecutors, so even they don't know everything about the investigation. Stowe might be aware that a whole bunch of things have happened in the investigation, and have a lot of questions about how it was done and who was investigated (and why). But the TBI apparently isn't required to hand everything over based on what some earlier posts have claimed about state law. That would put the prosecutor in a bind since they would be very dependent on whatever version of events the TBI came up with. I'm guessing that is what Stowe was up in arms about.

This has probably been going on for a long time state wide, where prosecutors are required to hand over discovery, but only the stuff they actually have. The TBI has no such obligation, so they could do the nudge nudge wink wink routine, and supply the state prosecutors with what they need to get a conviction, but keep all the other stuff back so that it isn't subject to discovery which might compromise the chances of a conviction. That would be a very handy tactic in giving prosecutors a big advantage in any trial, and it would work provided that the prosecutors play along with the game. They would get to convict people while limiting the possibility that the defense could defend against an allegation. Star chamber stuff, back room arrangements rigging the game. When Stowe came along this was how things were being done I think, and either didn't know he was supposed to play the game or felt morally opposed to it. So he had a big fight with them, and therefore he had to go to ensure that the "system" was not compromised. The new prosecutor knows how the game is played I think, but she still has to deal with the fallout, so her tactics will be deny/stall/deny/stall etc etc until maybe a Hail Mary happens.

That is my conspiracy theory for the day anyway

 

[tlcya]

I must admit, what you describe tugela, is what I fear, ever since reading about the TBI's seeming ability to be the "keeper of the stuff" about all things investigative, and yet only be bound to turn over what they want to the prosecution, thereby excusing the prosecution from its duty to turn over anything exculpatory.

 

[SteveS]

But the TBI apparently isn't required to hand everything over based on what some earlier posts have claimed about state law.

I must have missed what was said earlier, but the idea that TBI can legally withhold relevant evidence of any sort from the defendant in a trial can't possibly be true. Someone must have misunderstood.

 

[tlcya]

So, after reading what everyone had to say, I thought I would just kind of look around.

First let me say this, DA Amy Weirich has had her own bit of problems within her department. BTW this involves 2 separate cases.



http://www.commercialappeal.com/new...-prosecutors-of-withholding-evidence_34467425

http://wreg.com/2014/11/25/district-attorney-amy-weirich-testifies-on-how-she-handled-murder-case/

http://www.prosecutorialaccountabil...om-hendersons-illegal-and-unethical-behavior/

Just a tad bit more On Weirich..the article title says Weirich asks to be removed, but unless her whole office is removed from yet another case of questionable ethics, she would still over see the case and the defense does not want that at all. She also got her hand slapped from the State SC.



http://www.commercialappeal.com/new...o-be-removed-from-noura-jackson-case_85135370


Interesting Read....and so in looking at DA Weirich, I ran across this article about the TBI:

Memphis legislator ready to unveil secrecy of TBI, DCS







http://wreg.com/2014/11/07/memphis-legislator-ready-to-unveil-secrecy-of-tbi-dcs/

http://wreg.com/2013/11/21/secrecy-of-tbi-files-keeps-public-in-dark-on-high-profile-cases/ (very interesting read as well )


So I'm gonna do a little more digging around, but what I find really interesting is that little law, where the TBI, doesn't have to tell anyone diddly squat.

BUMPing the basis for my recently expressed concern that some loophole exists allowing TBI not to opt to release investigative results unless they want to, even if they are exculpatory or relevant to a trial.

 

[SteveS]

BUMPing the basis for my recently expressed concern that some loophole exists allowing TBI not to opt to release investigative results unless they want to, even if they are exculpatory or relevant to a trial.

Sorry, but those articles don't say that at all. They pertain to investigative evidence being made available to the general public (such as FOI requests). Not to defendants in a trial.

There is no legal way for the TBI to withhold ANY perhaps-relevant evidence from defendants on trial, and to do so would cause convictions in TN to be overturned right and left. Such a practice would be a fundamental violation of defendant rights as defined in the US.

 

[Dr. Know?]

I beg to differ somewhat, if there is evidence in a current trial on a federal level, involving any of the defendents or ? The feds take precidence. If it were that.

 

[SteveS]

I beg to differ somewhat, if there is evidence in a current trial on a federal level, feds take precidence. If it were that.

Wait, what? Feds "take precedence" in what way? Not sure what this has to do with TBI, but please clarify what you're saying here.