Do we honestly believe they have no evidence? If that's the case, then wouldn't that make a DA "flip out"? Why are these thugs in prison if there is no evidence? Again, playing catch up and my post isn't directed at you but I'm trying to make sense out of this nonsense. Something just isn't sitting right with me.
Sorry for taking so long to get back to you! Haven't been on in a few days. What happened was, they arrested these guys, on the basis of witness statements and no physical evidence. Whether they have physical evidence at this point has yet to be seen, but someone else pointed out earlier in the thread that they put too much emphasis on the witness statements, which is what I was trying to say. I think they just got sucked in to believing that all the witness statements were good evidence and arrested the guys on that basis, then the physical evidence is either non-existent or doesn't match the witness statements so far. That's why they're stalling, that's why they're refusing to provide a bill of particulars. I'll go into the case below about what I believe happened in this case. But it's long, so you don't have to read it if you don't want.
The case:
From what I've been told, the initial tip that led them to Zach Adams was an inmate looking for a deal. Anyone who is getting something out of it is not a reliable witness. He may have just been passing along a rumor he heard. Now, when it comes to Zach Adams, I have no major opinions on the guy. He sounds like a dangerous individual with a lot of issues. He was wearing camo on the day she was kidnapped (as was her kidnapper) and he made some bizarre statement about looking for someone on his myspace. Which again, a little suspicious. But as to whether he's involved in this particular crime, I have no idea. There are lots of dangerous weirdos in the world who wear camo. But you have to be careful with witness statements, particularly the type they were relying on, and you have to be careful assuming that someone is guilty because they have a history of violence or are weird. After all, Charles Manson isn't guilty of every murder in California. There are other murderers in the world.
So they begin their investigation by interrogating his brother Dylan. Now, Dylan himself was facing some unrelated charges at the time and he is also, to some degree, mentally handicapped. He is apparently alleging misconduct on the part of the investigators now. Interrogating him for an extended amount of time without food or water and finally he cracked. The US has a
long history of false confessions under these same conditions. They may have threatened him then offered him immunity, we don't really know much about that encounter. But at some point, many months later, they changed their minds about the whole thing and charged him. That makes me think that either what he told them didn't pan out or he stopped cooperating. The time frame really sells it. If they wanted to charge him they could've done it months earlier.
Then they arrest Shayne Austin for the murder, interrogate him, and offer him immunity, which he accepts. He tells them some various things, which all turn out to be lies. And they rescind the immunity offer. But still haven't charged him. Now, if you have total immunity, why on earth wouldn't you just tell police what you need to to keep it? I think he genuinely didn't know anything.
So then Sandra King comes out of the woodwork and says she has seen a video tape of Holly tied up getting ready to be assaulted. She says she saw it on Jeff Pearcy's phone, or rather, it was his brother's phone, but somehow Jeff had it. She calls him and says something along the lines of "That video of Holly, I would've watched it if it had been you", to which he responds "I know". He says he didn't hear her and his ex-wife's name is Holly and he's not involved. So they arrest Jeff and his brother Mark Pearcy.
So on the basis of all this, it sounds pretty solid. We have whoever gave the initial tip (we don't know who or what the details are), we have Dylan Adams, we have Shayne Austin, we have Sandra King and the "I know" of Jeff Pearcy. The guys were arrested on this basis.
Then they found the body and they had a whole new set of evidence that they have to compare to what they already thought they knew about the case. It's not always easy for law enforcement to see that what you're getting might not be great evidence and I suspect that's what happened. These interrogation methods that they're being accused of using result in a lot of false confessions and false statements. Particularly when you're offering immunity or leniency. And when you have someone like Sandra King, whose son is in prison and could benefit from this testimony, you have to be careful.
I honestly have no idea if some of these guys are guilty, but I don't believe that
all of them are guilty. If there is some truth mixed in with what they've been told so far (which there may be), there are also lies mixed in.
Here are my red flags for the case:
1. The witness statements they're relying on don't appear to have panned out. They have yet to find the video. (I feel pretty confident in saying this because they have yet to re-arrest Mark Pearcy). Austin gave up his deal for immunity because he either couldn't or wouldn't tell them where the body was or any useful details. The most logical explanation is that he simply didn't know. And now they're charging Dylan Adams. That's not normally how you treat your key witness. And he's saying they basically forced him to talk. Not very convincing.
2. They played this weird game of adding and dropping charges that seemed to revolve around the hearings and doing other things seemingly to avoid disclosing any evidence either to the defense or the public.
3. They seemed to be simultaneously using the media to try the case and playing a game of keepaway with them. Typically the media leaks everything that sounds damning to sway the public. In this case, they're leaking all the witness statements, but keeping all the forensics private. If they kept the witness statements private, I'd have a little more faith when they claimed "ongoing investigation"
4. There are just too many people involved now. It's extremely difficult to have a criminal conspiracy with any large number of people.
Maybe two or three. But they've arrested 6 and then promised to arrest "many more". There is no way in hell that 10-15 guys conspired to kidnap and murder this girl and then kept it quiet for three years. It just didn't happen. Maybe Zach did it by himself or with one other guy, but all these people? Not likely.
5. His flip out at the TBI. If they had evidence, he wouldn't be panicking. Someone mentioned that they thought it might be intentional to keep everyone distracted...I don't buy it. It looks terrible for him. No one will want to hire him after that. I don't think it's anything other than, there is either no physical evidence or the physical evidence contradicts what the witnesses are saying.
6. Why do they keep stalling? Why won't they give the defense any evidence. That is not normal. They're hiding something from them.
