Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #5 ***ARRESTS***

[SteveS]

The neighbors are far away. How could they hear it, but not him, since he would have been awake at that point as he observed them outside and subsequently leaving?

Your time sequence is mistaken, and a better sequence makes sense.

CB was asleep. As he slept, there was a scream. The dogs started barking. He awoke to the sound of dogs barking, and peeked out the window to see why. There he saw Holly's car still there, and he saw Holly talking with man (he didn't get a good look at them but who he assumed to be her bf) in the garage.

Later he looked again and saw them walking into the woods side by side.

There was no scream that occurred from the time he awoke to the time they were (as he saw it) talking a stroll.

 

[SteveS]

There is another scenario that occurred to my cynical mind - perhaps LE knows they can't convict on the abduction charge because the evidence is too weak, but they might be able to convict on these lesser charges where a jury/court would hold a lower bar for proof on the allegations. So, in that case they would look to convict anyone who might have anything at all to do with the case on some charge so they can go to the public and say "Hey! We couldn't get them on the main charge, but we got them anyway! Objective achieved!". That could explain all these minor peripheral charges - they are "plan B" so to speak

That would not be possible, legally.

If they don't get a conviction against JA and ZA, none of the others can be convicted because they are accused (in simplified terms) of covering up knowledge of what JA and ZA did. if there is no conviction that JA and ZA did the crime(s) against Holly for which they have been charged, then there can be no conviction for in some way doing something that affected the investigation of JA or ZA.

That again underscores the fact that the only crime that really matters is what was done to HB, and the only ones accused of that are JA and ZA. The others - according to the charges - were not accused of doing anything to HB.

 

[Bali]

Both above express my concerns about the way things have happened and been handled - will there be a turn-around when the trial(s) begin or will it be more of the same?

My concern with this situation is that in many cases, someone cracks, takes a deal, and testifies against others. Now, that may be a good thing if they really are guilty, but unfortunately that scenario also wrongfully convicts people too. We saw this with the Central Park rape case. The guys testified falsely against the other guys. I think they're banking on these guys cracking and testifying against the others.

 

[Bali]

That would not be possible, legally.

If they don't get a conviction against JA and ZA, none of the others can be convicted because they are accused (in simplified terms) of covering up knowledge of what JA and ZA did. if there is no conviction that JA and ZA did the crime(s) against Holly for which they have been charged, then there can be no conviction for in some way doing something that affected the investigation of JA or ZA.

That again underscores the fact that the only crime that really matters is what was done to HB, and the only ones accused of that are JA and ZA. The others - according to the charges - were not accused of doing anything to HB.

The fact that MP hasn't been charged with murder yet is weird if you ask me. In what possible scenario is someone at a crime scene video taping a sexual assault and a murder and is only charged with destroying said video. It's not like he's a security guard and erased a surveillance tape to help a buddy...they're trying to say he was there. At the home. While she was being murdered. Videotaping it. I feel like this is going to be an uphill battle if they get to trial with this trying to explain why this guy hasn't been charged with anything more serious.

 

[tlcya]

Did police ever locate the video? So far all I have heard was a woman's allegation that she had an opportunity to see a video that featured a blond named Holly being raped and that she "couldn't watch it". I did not hear that she had testified she watched the video and further that it contained the murder of Holly Bobo. Those are assumptions we don't have teh evidence to back yet.

I believe Holly Bobo may have been subjected to horrific abuse and killed by ZA and likely JA, possibly on video. I don't know that I buy the witness saw it or that it was shown her by JP or that MP could be heard on it as the videographer. I sure would like to know if LE ever managed to secure the video. You know from that pesky phone. That the experts have had in their possession for many months now.

I must admit, this case bothers me a lot. I think some of the arrested are guilty as sin itself. I suspect others are simply hail Mary arrests attempting to twist the screws or suggest they have more evidence than they have in effort to crack their main nuts (ZA and JA). That worries me a great deal.

 

[Tugela]

Tugela, investigations always continue throughout the trial process. Once arrests are made, especially if there is no bond, citizens will no longer fear retribution by the suspects/defendants, and will come forth with new tips to follow up on.. Prosecutions are marathons, as opposed to sprints...especially when there are multiple offenders involved..

Except that most of the people making these peripheral allegations are already in legal trouble of their own, retribution is the least of their worries. On the other hand they have a strong motive to tell LE what they want to hear, and that is troubling, especially if the allegations themselves are being used as tools to get themselves out of trouble. The motive of most of these people is not fear of retribution, it is the desire to wriggle off their own hook.

 

[Tugela]

Personally, I believe it. He was inside the house, the neighbor was outside. You wouldn't necessarily hear a scream from outside if you have all the doors and windows closed. There was another case a few years back where people farther away heard the scream and gunshots and people just inside didn't. I can confirm that there was a shooting outside my dorm in college, everyone else heard it, I didn't. There could be any number of reasons he didn't hear the scream: he's a heavy sleeper, he sleeps with a fan, the house is just well insulated. I don't think it's unreasonable.

Except that he apparently wasn't sleeping while all this went down.

This is not an urban area where all sorts of other things are going on, this is a rural area where noises of that sort would attract attention.

Plus, your argument overlooks the fact that HB would have known her brother was in the house and had every incentive to kick up a sustained ruckus in order to get help. The fact that she apparently did not makes me question exactly what happened there that morning. As I said, it does not make sense, and extraordinary questions demand extraordinary evidence/answers.

 

[Tugela]

Your time sequence is mistaken, and a better sequence makes sense.

CB was asleep. As he slept, there was a scream. The dogs started barking. He awoke to the sound of dogs barking, and peeked out the window to see why. There he saw Holly's car still there, and he saw Holly talking with man (he didn't get a good look at them but who he assumed to be her bf) in the garage.

Later he looked again and saw them walking into the woods side by side.

There was no scream that occurred from the time he awoke to the time they were (as he saw it) talking a stroll.

According to him that is.

And the question is: Why not? Why would she not have been kicking up a fuss at this point, or at the very least acting in distress? Is abduction by a stranger an everyday occurrence for her? Given the situation and the circumstances I can't imagine that any brother would think that this is normal and go on with what he was doing. Lets see, screams, dogs barking, sister crouched outside with an unknown man when she should be at school talking in low voices. Frantic phone calls back and forth to mom. Sisters supposedly walks off into the woods with a person who looks like her boyfriend and in no apparent distress, and he thinks that "oh, everything is ok". These things to not go together IMO. Sorry. There is stuff missing.

 

[Tugela]

Yup. I have just about zero confidence that they have much evidence at all aside from what they have released. It would be one thing if they weren't releasing any evidence at all. But they're releasing stuff that sounds bad, but really has no solid basis. Why release that evidence if they're playing it close to the vest?

Some woman claims she saw a video...that they can't find. And then they never release that they actually found the video and MP's hearings keep getting postponed. ZA threatens his brother...in a way that doesn't match where the body was actually found. They've searched his property on multiple occasions, the most recent time they ripped up the floors and walls and took them out. Why would they need to do that if they had found any evidence the first couple times they searched? Why would they charge DA with tampering with evidence? He's their star witness. I'm going to go ahead and say that he's recanted and refused to testify. They're getting desperate. These guys may still be guilty, but I don't think they have any solid evidence and they're trying to cover that fact and salvage a case out of this.

My impression from the affidavit regarding DA was that they got him confused in one of their interviews, and they are using what he said literally and ignoring the part where he is confused.

 

[Tugela]

That would not be possible, legally.

If they don't get a conviction against JA and ZA, none of the others can be convicted because they are accused (in simplified terms) of covering up knowledge of what JA and ZA did. if there is no conviction that JA and ZA did the crime(s) against Holly for which they have been charged, then there can be no conviction for in some way doing something that affected the investigation of JA or ZA.

That again underscores the fact that the only crime that really matters is what was done to HB, and the only ones accused of that are JA and ZA. The others - according to the charges - were not accused of doing anything to HB.

Ummm..they can do it legally. These other charges are independent of the HB charges and do not depend in what happens in those cases. The abduction charges against ZA and co can be dropped or dismissed due to lack of evidence, but the evidence in the secondary charges is based on witness testimony and what the accused themselves have said. That would be the basis for getting a conviction, not the success of the abduction charges.

 

[SteveS]

The fact that MP hasn't been charged with murder yet is weird if you ask me. In what possible scenario is someone at a crime scene video taping a sexual assault and a murder and is only charged with destroying said video.

Why would he be charged? Based on what? There hasn't even been an allegation that he videotaped a murder or was at a murder scene, much less that he was involved.

He was allegedly present but out of sight and supposedly heard talking (although I don't think it's been said that he was the one taking the video) when a video was made that had Holly in it, so whatever was being done didn't involve him.

It's certainly possible he was involved up to his eyeballs, but at this point they can't even produce the video in which he didn't appear and in which some lady claims she thinks she recognized his voice when quickly viewing part of it once.

 

[SteveS]

According to him that is.

And the question is: Why not? Why would she not have been kicking up a fuss at this point, or at the very least acting in distress? Is abduction by a stranger an everyday occurrence for her? Given the situation and the circumstances I can't imagine that any brother would think that this is normal and go on with what he was doing. Lets see, screams, dogs barking, sister crouched outside with an unknown man when she should be at school talking in low voices. Frantic phone calls back and forth to mom. Sisters supposedly walks off into the woods with a person who looks like her boyfriend and in no apparent distress, and he thinks that "oh, everything is ok". These things to not go together IMO. Sorry. There is stuff missing.

With all due respect, what's "missing" is that you are making up your own facts, and inventing facts that make no sense then wondering why they make no sense.

Meanwhile, what we know makes perfect sense. So there's that.

Again, CB was asleep when the scream happened. Once he awoke, he heard the dog barking, took a look, nothing seemed amiss, and he didn't worry. There was no reason to.

There were no "frantic phone calls back and forth" until later. CB called his mom wondering why Holly was still at home, and he left a message. His first moment of real concern would have been when his mother called him back, AFTER he had seen Holly walking into the woods, and she told him that wasn't Holly's bf, and it's at that point when the frantic calls began, not before.

 

[SteveS]

Ummm..they can do it legally. These other charges are independent of the HB charges and do not depend in what happens in those cases. The abduction charges against ZA and co can be dropped or dismissed due to lack of evidence, but the evidence in the secondary charges is based on witness testimony and what the accused themselves have said. That would be the basis for getting a conviction, not the success of the abduction charges.

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, you are simply wrong. None of the others can be convicted without there being a conviction of JA or ZA. It's the law.

One of the elements to be proven, to get a conviction on an "accessory after the fact" charge, is that the underlying crime occurred and that it was done by the ones charged (in this case, JA and ZA). The law on an "accessory" crime mandates a conviction for that underlying crime in order for the accessory charge to be possible.

 

[pearl]

]My impression from the affidavit [/B]regarding DA was that they got him confused in one of their interviews, and they are using what he said literally and ignoring the part where he is confused.

I must have missed this affidavit and would like to read it. Can you provide a link? TIA

 

[Bali]

Except that he apparently wasn't sleeping while all this went down.

This is not an urban area where all sorts of other things are going on, this is a rural area where noises of that sort would attract attention.

Plus, your argument overlooks the fact that HB would have known her brother was in the house and had every incentive to kick up a sustained ruckus in order to get help. The fact that she apparently did not makes me question exactly what happened there that morning. As I said, it does not make sense, and extraordinary questions demand extraordinary evidence/answers.

Do you have more basis for him not being asleep aside from the thought that most people in that scenario would wake up?

I disagree with that statement. There have been many cases where people nearby didn't hear something that people farther away did. The David Camm case for example. There were three gunshots and a loud scream. The scream was heard a couple streets over by dog walkers, but by none of the residents of the homes next door to the murder even though they were all home at the time. Maybe Clint sleeps with the tv on so he didn't hear something outside, but the dogs were inside and thus louder. But let's work this all the way through. There are only two conclusions that I could come up with:

1. Either the neighbor is confused/lying and didn't actually hear the scream and it's a total coincidence that he reported a scream at the same time that a woman was being abducted.

Or

2. She screamed and Clint heard it, but he's lying.

I don't think either one of those scenarios makes much sense. There's no proof that the neighbor was lying or involved and I think that's a little too coincidental that they thought they heard a non-existant scream at a time when a woman was actually being abducted. Second, Clint Bobo hearing a scream, but lying about it...I know some people are a little suspicious of him, but I think it's unlikely he was involved. The scream pinpoints the timeframe for the assault and we know he was in the home at the time of the phone calls and the time frame when the police arrived just minutes later. He wouldn't have had time to kidnap his sister and take her somewhere, plus he had no injuries or blood on him. Based on this, I think we can safely conclude that she screamed but he didn't hear it.

It's likely that he's a heavy sleeper or sleeps with a fan/tv on or maybe the way the house is built the sound just wasn't all that loud in his bedroom.

 

[Bali]

Did police ever locate the video? So far all I have heard was a woman's allegation that she had an opportunity to see a video that featured a blond named Holly being raped and that she "couldn't watch it". I did not hear that she had testified she watched the video and further that it contained the murder of Holly Bobo. Those are assumptions we don't have teh evidence to back yet.

I believe Holly Bobo may have been subjected to horrific abuse and killed by ZA and likely JA, possibly on video. I don't know that I buy the witness saw it or that it was shown her by JP or that MP could be heard on it as the videographer. I sure would like to know if LE ever managed to secure the video. You know from that pesky phone. That the experts have had in their possession for many months now.

I must admit, this case bothers me a lot. I think some of the arrested are guilty as sin itself. I suspect others are simply hail Mary arrests attempting to twist the screws or suggest they have more evidence than they have in effort to crack their main nuts (ZA and JA). That worries me a great deal.

They have not released anything about finding a video as of yet. She apparently testified that she watched enough of it to see Holly tied up in the home, but stopped watching before she was sexually assaulted or anything.

 

[Bali]

Why would he be charged? Based on what? There hasn't even been an allegation that he videotaped a murder or was at a murder scene, much less that he was involved.

He was allegedly present but out of sight and supposedly heard talking (although I don't think it's been said that he was the one taking the video) when a video was made that had Holly in it, so whatever was being done didn't involve him.

It's certainly possible he was involved up to his eyeballs, but at this point they can't even produce the video in which he didn't appear and in which some lady claims she thinks she recognized his voice when quickly viewing part of it once.

Wait...I think I missed some reports. Are you saying that he somehow videotaped her tied up through a window or something and they didn't know they were being videotaped. Or that someone else stole his phone and video taped it? I had this image in my head that he was inside the home with them and was videotaping the goings on. Sure, the woman didn't testify that she saw any murder, but if my vision of the scenario is the correct one, he was part of the whole plot to kidnap Holly. I just can't think of any other scenario where you're video taping a woman tied up who later is murdered without being intimately involved.

Again, I think the woman is lying and there is no video tape, but it sounds like your vision of this is different from my vision of this. Do you have any news reports that can clear this up what they're alleging?

 

[SteveS]

Wait...I think I missed some reports. Are you saying that he somehow videotaped her tied up through a window or something and they didn't know they were being videotaped. Or that someone else stole his phone and video taped it? I had this image in my head that he was inside the home with them and was videotaping the goings on. Sure, the woman didn't testify that she saw any murder, but if my vision of the scenario is the correct one, he was part of the whole plot to kidnap Holly. I just can't think of any other scenario where you're video taping a woman tied up who later is murdered without being intimately involved.

Again, I think the woman is lying and there is no video tape, but it sounds like your vision of this is different from my vision of this. Do you have any news reports that can clear this up what they're alleging?

What I'm saying is that the statement that he was somehow involved in a murder, and a video of a murder, is way different from anything that has ever been claimed or even implied.

He is charged with, in essence, not supplying evidence. He is not charged with anything to do with a murder. The lady witness says she saw part of a video in which she thinks she heard his voice. So, based on that, they have charged him with destroying evidence, since they don't have the video, want it, and he apparently says he doesn't have any such video. And that's the entire extent of his relation to the HB case, as far as anyone knows.

 

[Bali]

I'm sorry, but with all due respect, you are simply wrong. None of the others can be convicted without there being a conviction of JA or ZA. It's the law.

One of the elements to be proven, to get a conviction on an "accessory after the fact" charge, is that the underlying crime occurred and that it was done by the ones charged (in this case, JA and ZA). The law on an "accessory" crime mandates a conviction for that underlying crime in order for the accessory charge to be possible.

I spoke with a few defense attorney friends and they said it depends on the jurisdiction. In their area, defendants can and have been convicted of accessory charges when there was an acquittal on the main charges. They said the acquittal isn't even a basis for an appeal. That doesn't mean you're wrong here, just that it's not across the board. Do you have specific knowledge of how Tennessee handles those cases? That might help.

 

[SteveS]

I spoke with a few defense attorney friends and they said it depends on the jurisdiction. In their area, defendants can and have been convicted of accessory charges when there was an acquittal on the main charges. They said the acquittal isn't even a basis for an appeal. That doesn't mean you're wrong here, just that it's not across the board. Do you have specific knowledge of how Tennessee handles those cases? That might help.

Laws in other jurisdictions are irrelevant.

In Tennessee, as I've been saying, there must be a conviction on the underlying crime, in order to charge anyone as an accessory. That conviction is one (but not the only) of the required legal elements that must be proven to obtain a conviction.

Not that it matters in this case, but I'm curious as to which jurisdictions allow a person to be convicted of being an accessory, without a conviction of the underlying crime. It really doesn't make sense to me to be able to convict a person of helping someone who legally didn't do anything wrong.