This info and bill from more than a year ago, posting it here repeatedly long after the fact, not sure of the point. It's not news anymore. That the defendants are bad guys in general? Don't see anyone arguing otherwise.
Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #7
- Thread starter Coldpizza
- Start date
Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread
- Status
This info and bill from more than a year ago, posting it here repeatedly long after the fact, not sure of the point. It's not news anymore. That the defendants are bad guys in general? Don't see anyone arguing otherwise.
Chainsaw385
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2015
- Messages
- 151
- Reaction score
- 0
@ pearl....from a page back
This is a good question......I do not know but with give my opinion anyhow.....lol
I would have to think if they had video evidence they would have used it to get the indictment.The cases I have followed in the past that involved some type of video or image evidence they always presented that to the GJ.I myself can't see the advantage of holding evidence this powerful back to the trial.It is game over if they have a video for anyone who is seen on it.
Although I do think there was some type of video taken ....I don't think LE found it.I am leaning towards they tried to make some type of ransom video.
DA said there was a video......another independent witness claims to have seen parts of a video.......and they had something strong on SA that they wanted to revoke his immunity so they could prosecute him.This points to a video existing but admittedly it could also point to absolutely nothing.
They would need to have some type of evidence involving the rapes.......but this could be any number of things not related to a video.The time that elapsed in finding her remains I think you could rule out that evidence coming from her body but DNA from clothing,bedding or on furniture could be possible.Once again I don't think a statement from one of the accused without some type of corroborating evidence would be enough for an indictment.....The other witness never claimed to see the actual rape so her testimony would not be real helpful(if they even used her) to get the indictments for rape.
The main reason I don't think they have the video is because no charges have been picked back up against the Pearcys......unless they cut a deal and produced it and we don't know about that yet......but I think that would be a huge stretch.
This is a good question......I do not know but with give my opinion anyhow.....lol
I would have to think if they had video evidence they would have used it to get the indictment.The cases I have followed in the past that involved some type of video or image evidence they always presented that to the GJ.I myself can't see the advantage of holding evidence this powerful back to the trial.It is game over if they have a video for anyone who is seen on it.
Although I do think there was some type of video taken ....I don't think LE found it.I am leaning towards they tried to make some type of ransom video.
DA said there was a video......another independent witness claims to have seen parts of a video.......and they had something strong on SA that they wanted to revoke his immunity so they could prosecute him.This points to a video existing but admittedly it could also point to absolutely nothing.
They would need to have some type of evidence involving the rapes.......but this could be any number of things not related to a video.The time that elapsed in finding her remains I think you could rule out that evidence coming from her body but DNA from clothing,bedding or on furniture could be possible.Once again I don't think a statement from one of the accused without some type of corroborating evidence would be enough for an indictment.....The other witness never claimed to see the actual rape so her testimony would not be real helpful(if they even used her) to get the indictments for rape.
The main reason I don't think they have the video is because no charges have been picked back up against the Pearcys......unless they cut a deal and produced it and we don't know about that yet......but I think that would be a huge stretch.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,716
Thank you for linking this again. Its good to have prior links in case a new reader/poster becomes interested in the case.
What it does show to me is ZAs was very addicted to meth at the time. So much so that he tried smuggling it into the jail.
The other link you have provided certainly shows how sadistic and violent meth addicts can be.
IMO
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,716
I don't believe the t-shirt belonged to Holly but I wouldn't be surprised if one of the ones involved in her death did it as a cruel taunt.
These are the people who constantly bragged about what they did to Holly so I certainly think they are capable of doing something like this to cause more pain and suffering to Holly's family.
That is, if it is true.
IMO
~n/t~
New Member
- Joined
- Jun 22, 2011
- Messages
- 17,670
- Reaction score
- 74
I don't disagree with you but your post (IMO ONLY) implies that they somehow knew Holly and she was targeted. IIRC, the Bobos denied any connection whatsoever to the suspects. Holly did not know them nor did the Bobo family. So, I guess my question is why Holly? Were they hanging out in her part of town? I find that hard to swallow.
I don't believe that Holly hung out with this gang of fools, but they surely knew of her. Her singing at Church and local events over the years, whether she was or was not prom queen she was known. Bottom line Holly was not one of the local girls that with a little meth and drugs they could muster to date or spend time with. They had been there and done that many times. IMO Holly was the prize that could only be had by force. I have no doubt in my mind that she was under the influence of morphine forced upon her that Zach had obtained when his grandmother was in hospice care at home. Also that it probably took a long time for the rapes that took place because even though they wanted to show off and "perform", they probably had to do it repeatedly so as not to appear "limp".
JMO's
JMO's
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
:seeya: Morning, Y'all !
Just got caught up on this thread ! I saw this posted above, but re-posting with my :twocents: ... lol !
--------------------------------------------------------
Snippets from this link:
http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...ion-TBI-Director-On-Bobo-Case--304638531.html
Attorney Seeks To Question TBI Director On Bobo Case
John Herbison, the attorney for Bobo murder suspect Jason Autry, filed a letter with the Circuit Court Clerk in Decatur County.
He has asked that subpoenas be sent to among others, TBI Director Mark Gwyn, compelling him to be in court in two weeks to answer some pointed questions about the Bobo case.
Herbison has requested subpoenas for TBI Director Gwyn and Decatur District Attorney Matthew Stowe. Gwyn and Stowe had a messy dispute over the Bobo case late last year, at which point the TBI temporarily stepped aside from the case. The reasons were never clearly explained. Herbison wants the specifics as to why the break happened.
Herbison said the subpoenas will call for Director Gwyn and General Stowe to be there at the next Bobo hearing on June 3.
--------------------------------------------------------
BBM: JMO but NO WAY will these 2 testify at this Hearing ... they may have to show up IF they receive a subpoena -- and they should show up if served with a subpoena because they are NO different than anyone else who receives a subpoena ... These 2 should NOT receive any special privileges because of their "status" ...
But testify, ain't gonna happen !
:tantrum: Oh, how I would luv to know what really happened between Stowe and the TBI :gaah: !
It may not answer all the questions we have in this case, but it may be a start !
:moo:
Just got caught up on this thread ! I saw this posted above, but re-posting with my :twocents: ... lol !
--------------------------------------------------------
Snippets from this link:
http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...ion-TBI-Director-On-Bobo-Case--304638531.html
Attorney Seeks To Question TBI Director On Bobo Case
John Herbison, the attorney for Bobo murder suspect Jason Autry, filed a letter with the Circuit Court Clerk in Decatur County.
He has asked that subpoenas be sent to among others, TBI Director Mark Gwyn, compelling him to be in court in two weeks to answer some pointed questions about the Bobo case.
Herbison has requested subpoenas for TBI Director Gwyn and Decatur District Attorney Matthew Stowe. Gwyn and Stowe had a messy dispute over the Bobo case late last year, at which point the TBI temporarily stepped aside from the case. The reasons were never clearly explained. Herbison wants the specifics as to why the break happened.
Herbison said the subpoenas will call for Director Gwyn and General Stowe to be there at the next Bobo hearing on June 3.
--------------------------------------------------------
BBM: JMO but NO WAY will these 2 testify at this Hearing ... they may have to show up IF they receive a subpoena -- and they should show up if served with a subpoena because they are NO different than anyone else who receives a subpoena ... These 2 should NOT receive any special privileges because of their "status" ...
But testify, ain't gonna happen !
:tantrum: Oh, how I would luv to know what really happened between Stowe and the TBI :gaah: !
It may not answer all the questions we have in this case, but it may be a start !
:moo:
OldSteve
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 4,946
- Reaction score
- 184
Yes, agree! Personalizing - having grown up in a very rough neighborhood, I saw first hand the jealousy, anger directed at anyone who for no other reason was better/smarter than the local ruffians. It was worst when a few got together as their malcontent personalities reinforced one another.
So, I see that here... I wondered way backthread about the swimming pool at the family house, and wondered if she and her friends had been watched and leered at by any of them...
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,716
Hi there n/t LTNS. I hope you are doing well.
Knowing of/about someone and knowing someone on a personal level are two very different 'knowings.'
This was a very small community so it is very feasible that the A-Train may have known who Holly was when they saw her but just as likely they had never spoken to her before this happened. I also live in a small rural community. I know some people's name only when I see them but I have never spoken to a lot of them. I may know their parents but as far as knowing their children personally I do not but I do recognize the teens or 20 year olds when I see them in passing.
So no, I do not believe Holly knew any of them on a personal level nor ever associated with any of these evil monsters. Holly's mom had taught ZA in school so if he was to see her out and about with Holly then he would know Holly was her daughter. Its not hard to put two and two together. In a small country town Holly would be very memorable to any young man who saw her even from afar. It has been said by an eye witness that Holly and the other female were being stalked by SA but the other young woman didn't know then who he was and she never said that Holly knew who he was either by name. They may have recognized him when seeing him around the small community but did not know him enough to even know his name then.
We could ask that very same question over and over again about every young woman who has been kidnapped, raped, and murdered that did not know the attacker. Why XXXX? is always asked when the victim had no close familiarity to her offender. I suppose the simple chilling answer is they chose her because they could just like other stranger offenders have done in the past. Unfortunately it could have been anyone they thought was attractive and vulnerable but this time it was Holly who was chosen by this group of suspects.
I think before the kidnapping ZA rode the woods behind the Bobo place casing it out, and that's another thing people know in small communities, and they know who owns land and where. He saw her routine was to come out about the same time everyday alone to get in her vehicle to go to school. When he saw the right opportunity he took it. Women have been kidnapped on a busy street in broad daylight and no one around them noticed a thing. He had more of a cover since it was a rural wooded area. I think he held a knife to her neck or even her ribcage making her bleed where it was left in the carport. He probably told her if she didn't do exactly as he said he would kill her. So many victims in the same situation are stricken with paralyzing fear and they will be compliant hoping that if they do as the offender says their life will be spared. Sadly many of them windup just like Holly.
So was she personally targeted because they knew her personally? In four years there is no evidence she knew any of them nor did she associate with them either. So no, she was targeted for the same reason other young women were targeted when the offender didn't know his victim either. She was selected to be the one because one or more of the gang leaders/meth addicts wanted Holly to be the one they could brutalize sexually for as long as they wanted. IMO
IMO
I don't think so. Want they are really doing is maneuvering to get around some of the issues presented by their decision to charge DA. By filing new charges for all three, they can get them tried together rather than separately, and that way try to weasel in evidence through the back door that might not otherwise be admissible. For example, the statements made by DA that were the basis of the charges against him would not have been admissible in the trial of the other two, and since DA's statements probably make up most of their evidence, it would have made dismissal of charges against ZA and JA a certainty. DA is an expendable pawn in all of this and they are using him to made up for the deficiencies in the case against the other two.
The other thing that may be achieved is that by dropping the previous charges and going forward with new charges they can restart the countdown for discovery. That would give them more time to dig up evidence and would get around the due process issues created by the failure to comply with earlier discovery requirements.
Essentially what they are doing, IMO, is resetting the clock and wiping the slate clean of all the earlier misteps.
It is all tactical and game playing, much like we seen so much in this case.
No, I don't think anything new has happened, all they are doing is restructuring the case so they can use DA's statements against the other two without needing to have him testify directly.
The implication is that they don't have much else, which doesn't bode well for their case.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,716
I don't think it is a tactical game she is playing. Once she has been assigned to this case I see no games being played and everything seems to be happening very quickly now. She not only added murder charges on to Dylan Adams but all three are now charged with aggravated rape x3. Each of those are specific charges she knows she has to prove and imo she can.
She would not go back just to set the clock back and add charges she cant prove in a court of law. That is just ridiculous and about as ridiculous as implying any DA can get an indictment as if that is their only goal when they are all fully aware each charge must be proven BARD and supported by evidence.
I don't think this ADA is playing any games. This has always been an ongoing investigation even after the two main culprits were arrested. She/LE have recently uncovered additional evidence that now supports a charge of murder on DA and three specific charges of rape on all three. An ADA can only return to a GJ if he/she has additional evidence in hand to support further charges. Its quite that simple. She now has it in her possession so she returned to get the proper indictments as she should.
They were re-indicted like a lot of other criminals have been when more evidence is uncovered to support the additional charges.
There is nothing supporting the speculation that Dylan Adams' statements makes up most of their evidence. I think that is nothing more than defense spin (wishful thinking) which I have seen repeated ad nauseum over the years by other defense attorneys. I have never seen any ADA, especially one in death penalty cases, put all their evidence in one basket hoping the words of one participant makes it stick. In fact after the trials are over we usually find out the state had even more damaging evidence they could have presented but felt they weren't needed due to the high volume of evidence that was entered or the evidence was ruled too prejudicial.
In almost all of the death penalty cases I have kept up with for over thirty years plus they were chocked full of evidence and more evidence was entered than we see in other cases that weren't death penalty cases. I don't see this case being any different.
I saw nothing said by the Judge that would even lead me to believe he was considering dismissing any charges on anyone. In fact his words said in court showed all of these cases were going forward to trial.
There is no assurance they will all be tried together and just because she got new indictments on all three doesn't mean they will be tried together either. That will be decided by the presiding Judge. I haven't even see this DA mention she wants the cases tried together. I have seen many multiple offenders tied to one case but were tried separately and I have seen one or two tried together and another one went to trial later on. So its no given they will all be tried together although that certainly would save a lot of time and money. Personally, I would like to see them tried together but I am not convinced they will be. I do think ZA & JA should be.
I have no clue what you mean weaseling evidence in through the backdoor although I do see you seem to take pro-defense stance in this case. Nothing gets in without the approval of the presiding Judge.
IMO
OBE, while I appreciate your post, and agree with the vast majority of what you said there, there are several points you asserted that (if TN is like Texas) are not necessarily so.
1 "She/LE have recently uncovered additional evidence that now supports a charge of murder on DA and three specific charges of rape on all three."
It's possible. But it's not a guarantee. There are all sorts of reasons new or additional indictments can be obtained later, and "new evidence" is possibly the reason but possibly not.
2 "An ADA can only return to a GJ if he/she has additional evidence in hand to support further charges."
In Texas, this is absolutely not true. LE can convene a GJ or go to a sitting GJ, and present evidence that seeks an indictment, at their discretion.
3 "I have never seen any ADA, especially one in death penalty cases, put all their evidence in one basket hoping the words of one participant makes it stick."
You make several claims about how strong the evidence would be for a "death penalty" case, and use that to make inferences about these indictments. However, it should be noted that to date, none of these indictments are booked to be tried as death penalty cases. So you can't make the assumption that the evidence is strong enough for a DP case here, until these are headed that direction (if that ever happens).
In fact, at this point, a legit argument can be made in exactly the opposite direction from yours - - that perhaps they decided they will NOT seek the DP here, and decided to go back and add some indictments with weaker evidence. Who knows?
4 "I don't think this ADA is playing any games."
If I am not mistaken, this ADA has had a history of being involved in cases using legally questionable tactics in her work in Memphis. So when she acts, I don't make any assumptions as to her motivation, as it could be for reasons you really don't want to hear about. Time will tell.
5 "I saw nothing said by the Judge that would even lead me to believe he was considering dismissing any charges on anyone."
Actually the judge has talked like a tough judge repeatedly, in regards to the non-disclosure. But I do agree that he's not going to dismiss, no matter how egregious the prosecution is in failing to provide due process.
It doesn't impress me much either. I'll be honest, my first thought was that either it was a hail mary pass to extend their deadline for discovery, or they were trying to try them together because they really only have Dylan's confession and without that, they have zero case against Zach and Jason. I read that the defendants will try to have their cases severed, so that means they aren't now. If Dylan refuses to testify against the other two, they can only use his confession against him alone.
I also want to point out that quite often, prosecutors use the death penalty to increase their chances of conviction in questionable cases. The way they select death penalty juries preloads the jury with prosecution friendly jurors. More minorities are stricken, more liberals are stricken, basically everyone who balances out the Nancy Grace crowd are stricken from the jury. Death penalty cases are more likely to end in convictions than non-DP cases. It was widely reported that that was why they went for the death penalty in the Casey Anthony case--they wanted that advantage. So, even if they do seek the DP, it doesnt' necessarily mean the case is especially strong.
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,716
From other cases I have seen the clock is usually reset when the case is turned over to a special/new or different prosecutor from when it first started. Every Judge I have ever seen will give ample time for the new SP or an ADA that has recently been assigned the case to go over the entire evidence to date and get completely caught up.
Tennessee has the reciprocal rule also. If the defense hasn't turned any of its evidence (discovery) over to the state either it is hard pressed for a Judge to set a discovery date in stone when the discovery rule must be adhered to by both sides.
Iirc, the Judge was wanting discovery to begin but I believe that was with another Prosecutor if I am not mistaken and not the newly assigned one. I don't remember him setting a firm date when discovery MUST be in for both sides. It really is left up to the discretion of the Judge. In the Cesar Lauren trial he allowed the state to turnover discovery to the defense 17 days before trial and it was pivotal evidence since it was the forensic results on the murder weapon.
It is obvious that none of the defendants filed for a speedy trial for that is a constitutional right that the courts must recognize no matter what. So I don't think due process has failed in this case. Usually defendants much prefer to wait out their time in a jail rather than going to trial and if they are found guilty then they are shipped out to a much more structured harsh prison.
Just jumping off of your post OS to say this so I don't have to post twice.
The reason I said that the Judge has given no indication he was going to dismiss any of these cases is his comment about the defense attorneys wanting this Prosecutor off the case and thought she should consider that as a compliment. To me that means he knows these cases are going to trial and will not be dismissed.
Also I read a TN law site that stated a Judge must first find probable cause for charges to go to the GJ for indictments. This seems to be the case here and I imagine she went back before the presiding Judge over this case and he indeed found probable cause to send it to the GJ.
I don't think she has held these additional charges in her back pocket. When I was on a GJ we true billed 18 cases and no billed 6 and all of them were current and the evidence had just become available to the lead detectives who testified for the state.
I am convinced she went back for the same reasons other DAs do and that is because she now has new evidence in her possession to support the additional charges.
I do know in other cases discovery was still coming back in all the way up to trial time and some of these were death penalty cases where the defendant was jailed for years. I don't know if these will be such cases (DP) but it has been mentioned several times in the past that the state is considering it.
IMO
oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,716
Most of the death penalty cases that I have seen ended with guilty verdicts showing the trial evidence wasn't weak at all. Many of them we at WS saw the evidence entered for ourselves. It was overwhelming evidence. Even though the DP may not have been given at the sentencing phase which is usually by one lone holdout the jurors agreed the guilt phase had been proven BARD and the aggravating factors too.
I don't know where you live but minorities sit on juries for death penalty cases all over this country.
Of course the state wouldn't want a liberal on there if it was a death penalty case. Why would they if they knew they were liberals? Liberals are known to coddle violent criminals and will protest in the streets their execution even for mass murderers who have killed multiple women and children. It would really be foolish on the state's part if they selected those who were anti-death penalty to be on a death penalty case. That makes no logical sense. Of course they wouldn't and they shouldn't be on a DP case either.
dog.gone.cute
Kyron Horman - Missing Since 6-4-10
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2011
- Messages
- 15,653
- Reaction score
- 1,949
Respectfully Snipped & RBBM:
:seeya: Just jumping off your post here:
- Could it be that the DA finally has that "mysterious video" ?
Maybe the IT people were able to finally retrieve the video off of someone's phone -- or -- maybe they found it on someone's phone ?
- Could it be that SA had a copy of that video hidden in his possessions or maybe on an old phone ?
I know, that's probably a stretch ...
- Could it be that SA is NOT "deceased" -- and he is going to re-surface at the trial to testify ?
I know, that's a really far stretch ... but nothing at all would surprise me in this case.
:thinking: Could it be that I am spending too much time in LaLaLand ... lol !
But seriously, I think the DA has that 'video' -- or -- something came back from forensics.
JMO and :moo:
Are you sure that the defense has to provide discovery in TN in a criminal case? It's only true in civil cases in Texas, or in federal court, and such a law would be rare at best.
In addition, having mutual and simultaneous discovery as you assert, in a criminal trial, would be highly impractical and simply make no sense. How can the defense tell the prosecution what evidence they are going to use to rebut the state's evidence, when they have not yet seen the evidence on which the charges are based? It's simply not possible.
- Status
DNASolves
Online statistics
- Members online
- 139
- Guests online
- 3,523
- Total visitors
- 3,662