Do you think the state will rest Monday and will they have other witnesses?
Bummer. Someone posted on one of the threads earlier this week that something had happened in the courtroom and that a few years ago it couldn't have happened. I was hoping that meant they could show victims pictures now.Was just listened to a replay of show talking about the case...apparently no photo of Holly allowed in the courtroom...something not right with that.
I'm a fairly new "poster" here, so I apologize for the length of this post in advance. It may not even be worth the read
So, according to this news article...
http://www.wsmv.com/story/35861646/fifth-man-given-immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-case
...there are 5 people who have be given immunity in this case. Two have already testified (JA, VD), one committed suicide (SA), and two we have yet to hear from (MA, JK). So I assume we'll be hearing their testimony in the near future.
Up to this point, here are my questions (although only the trial will be able to provide answers to most) and my personal thoughts on this case.
Firstly, who called Agt Booth and what did they tell him that caused his investigation to proceed in an entirely different direction, as he testified to on the stand. Was this possibly JA and his new attorneys? Or was it someone we haven't heard from yet.
Secondly, in regards to the prosecution's opening remarks and the quote he kept repeating that he implies was something ZA said ("I couldn't have picked a prettier b****...it was fun. The world may never know what happened to Holly Bobo."). Obviously ZA didn't tell prosecutors or LE that. JA didn't testify to that, they can't bring in SA's prior statements, and I don't think they'll bring in DA's statements. So that leads me to believe another witness will be testifying that ZA talked about this with them.
Next, what made LE get a search warrant on the Bobo's financial records. I assume the defense will delve into this. In my mind, I'm thinking about the statement JA made about CB and teaching him to cook meth. I really don't believe that though.
The cast of characters in this case is just sad, to say the least. I think the prosecution has done a very good job considering everything they are working with is circumstantial evidence. And I really would like to believe they've got their man/men in this case. However...
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth. JA testified he never actually saw Holly, thus he only saw ZA shoot at a blanket with a gun he was familiar with.
Based on various trial testimony about height, weight, hair, and even camo clothing, it seems that it very well
could have been SA, rather than ZA, in the carport and leading her into the woods that day.
On top of all that, everyone is still waiting to see how the prosecution is going to try to prove that Holly was actually drugged and raped. There is no body and no other physical evidence at this point that would lead anyone to believe those points could be proven, unless the prosecution still has something up their sleeve that they've been able to keep secret all these years.
I find it a little hard to fathom that the prosecution would rely so completely on the credibility of these bad people to prove a DP case. But so far, that's all we seem to be getting. The circumstantial evidence seems to be very damaging, but if you really look at the big picture, there are so many holes the defense can poke at in this case...if the defense can step up her game.
As badly as I want to see all of these players behind bars, I really am beginning to question what conclusions the jury can truly come to by the end of this. If I we're on the jury, even though I think they belong in jail, I don't know that I could look past the lack of evidence and the fact the main eyewitness didn't even see her. Those poor jurors are going to have a lot to talk about. Am really hoping the prosecution can bolster it's case a bit before they hand it over to the defense.
Was just listened to a replay of show talking about the case...apparently no photo of Holly allowed in the courtroom...something not right with that.
it is correct for no photo to be shown of Holly
They put Holly's image on the projected screen in the beginning but does that mean they can't even show a hard copy photo or that it can't be displayed throughout the trial? They had no problem showing photos of what she looked like AFTER the monsters got a hold of her!!
I think he made both those statements and probably many more. Imo he would have used the statement about Holly for two reasons. One to keep his gf in line and two he just had to let someone know what he'd done. I won't be surprised to see others testify he boasted to them about Holly.This news story does not have an on-line date but I saw it posted elsewhere in 2014 back when Zach was arrested:
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/24898062/holly-bobo-suspect-has-history-of-violence-against-women
The line that grabs me in the article is this part from Rebecca Earp:
[FONT=&]Later, as she sat on the front porch of the house that was just searched, Earp claimed, "When I didn't look at him, he would squeeze my head till I would look at him in the eyes. Then, he would punch me across the porch."[/FONT]
[FONT=&]She added, "Adams stated that he would shoot me just like he did his mom."
****
Interesting considering she gave testimony where she stated Zach said,
He told me he would tie me up like he did Holly Bobo, and no one would ever see me again, Earp said on the stand
Link to that quote: https://lawnewz.com/live-trials/liv...-would-tie-me-up-just-like-he-did-holly-bobo/
****
I have no doubt Zach was probably not a stellar boyfriend and could have threatened her. I just find that between 2014 when she gave that interview after he was arrested, and her testimony on the stand, a few very choice words might have been changed.
Could he have said both of those things above? Quite possibly. I'm just left thinking for Rebecca, it was an easy substitute for the truth on the stand, and it made it more sensational.[/FONT]
I'm a fairly new "poster" here, so I apologize for the length of this post in advance. It may not even be worth the read
So, according to this news article...
http://www.wsmv.com/story/35861646/fifth-man-given-immunity-in-holly-bobo-murder-case
...there are 5 people who have be given immunity in this case. Two have already testified (JA, VD), one committed suicide (SA), and two we have yet to hear from (MA, JK). So I assume we'll be hearing their testimony in the near future.
Up to this point, here are my questions (although only the trial will be able to provide answers to most) and my personal thoughts on this case.
Firstly, who called Agt Booth and what did they tell him that caused his investigation to proceed in an entirely different direction, as he testified to on the stand. Was this possibly JA and his new attorneys? Or was it someone we haven't heard from yet.
Secondly, in regards to the prosecution's opening remarks and the quote he kept repeating that he implies was something ZA said ("I couldn't have picked a prettier b****...it was fun. The world may never know what happened to Holly Bobo."). Obviously ZA didn't tell prosecutors or LE that. JA didn't testify to that, they can't bring in SA's prior statements, and I don't think they'll bring in DA's statements. So that leads me to believe another witness will be testifying that ZA talked about this with them.
Next, what made LE get a search warrant on the Bobo's financial records. I assume the defense will delve into this. In my mind, I'm thinking about the statement JA made about CB and teaching him to cook meth. I really don't believe that though.
The cast of characters in this case is just sad, to say the least. I think the prosecution has done a very good job considering everything they are working with is circumstantial evidence. And I really would like to believe they've got their man/men in this case. However...
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth. JA testified he never actually saw Holly, thus he only saw ZA shoot at a blanket with a gun he was familiar with.
Based on various trial testimony about height, weight, hair, and even camo clothing, it seems that it very well
could have been SA, rather than ZA, in the carport and leading her into the woods that day.
On top of all that, everyone is still waiting to see how the prosecution is going to try to prove that Holly was actually drugged and raped. There is no body and no other physical evidence at this point that would lead anyone to believe those points could be proven, unless the prosecution still has something up their sleeve that they've been able to keep secret all these years.
I find it a little hard to fathom that the prosecution would rely so completely on the credibility of these bad people to prove a DP case. But so far, that's all we seem to be getting. The circumstantial evidence seems to be very damaging, but if you really look at the big picture, there are so many holes the defense can poke at in this case...if the defense can step up her game.
As badly as I want to see all of these players behind bars, I really am beginning to question what conclusions the jury can truly come to by the end of this. If I we're on the jury, even though I think they belong in jail, I don't know that I could look past the lack of evidence and the fact the main eyewitness didn't even see her. Those poor jurors are going to have a lot to talk about. Am really hoping the prosecution can bolster it's case a bit before they hand it over to the defense.
Huh, was just watching Channel 5 and they had a blurb of the opening statements on there.
The defense attorney said in her opening that ZA, "Didn't know Holly Bobo, in fact he had never even laid eyes on Holly Bobo." I thought I had heard this the first time but everyone was saying she had said "He never met Holly Bobo."
What I'm getting at is, wasn't it reported that he had attended the "Coon hunt" she sang at? (I think that's what it was called)
Omg, the state resting on Monday? I sure as hell hope not! I don't think they are anywhere near being done.Do you think the state will rest Monday and will they have other witnesses?
Great Post and welcome to this thread.
As it stands, you have JA's testimony. Even if you assume everything JA said is true, technically the only thing he has truly testified to is what ZA told him...which can't be inferred as truth.
I respectfully disagree with part I have quoted below while agreeing on the majority of your post. First, by law the jurors can take someone's testimony and are allowed to infer. They absolutely can conclude that JAs testimony is truthful. That is what jurors do in CE cases when weighing the testimony and what each one said.
That is the heart of CE and CE can be very powerful/weighty and can even outweigh direct evidence. All witness testimony given by lay witness, like JA, VD etc is consider evidence in a court of law that the jury can consider. So everyone that comes forth as lay witnesses will continue to add to the CE puzzle, (rope, chain) etc.
I think Madeline74 said it best in one of her prior post. (Paraphrasing) For the jury to find him NG they would have to believe everyone who has testified against him and will testify tomorrow are all lying. All of them. Imo, that will not happen. All of the witnesses brought forth have validated JAs testimony. Imo, he will be believed by the jury. Imo, the other witnesses for the state tomorrow will do the same thing.
There is just too much that has been entered for the jury to believe ZA didn't do this and think all he is ......is just the most unluckiest man in TN.
There have been countless cases won including death penalty cases that were won without forensic/DNA evidence. But they had strong CE like they do in this case.
The state prosecutors in just about every state have even gotten convictions numerous times without even having the body of the victim, nor knew where the crime scene was, no DNA/forensics and they didn't know how the victim/s were killed. Yet, they had powerful CE which most trials are CE cases and the defendants were found guilty.
Only the CSI type jurors would demand forensic evidence be in cases in order to find someone guilty. Thousands of cases have been won with CE way before forensic evidence/DNA was born. A prosecutor doesn't need an actual smoking gun. All they need to do is weave the circumstantial evidence pieces together, witness by witness. It doesnt even have to be all of the puzzle pieces just as long as there are enough CE facts linked together to show the image of the suspect where it is recognizable to the jury even if some of the puzzle pieces are left out. In every case there will always been unknowns and unanwered questions even after the trial is over.
IMO
Omg, the state resting on Monday? I sure as hell hope not! I don't think they are anywhere near being done.
WG
Please correct me if I am wrong but didn't Jason Autry testify that HB had been inside ZA home at least once before this terrible accident? Maybe I am wrong. My poor memory really being tested in this trial..especially w all the initials running togetherHuh, was just watching Channel 5 and they had a blurb of the opening statements on there.
The defense attorney said in her opening that ZA, "Didn't know Holly Bobo, in fact he had never even laid eyes on Holly Bobo." I thought I had heard this the first time but everyone was saying she had said "He never met Holly Bobo."
What I'm getting at is, wasn't it reported that he had attended the "Coon hunt" she sang at? (I think that's what it was called)
Please correct me if I am wrong but didn't Jason Autry testify that HB had been inside ZA home at least once before this terrible accident? Maybe I am wrong. My poor memory really being tested in this trial..especially w all the initials running together