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

[Tugela]

Why hasn't the judge thrown out the charges if there is no evidence............and more importantly why is the defense not pushing hard to get this thing in front of a jury if there is no evidence?The defense could have this in a courtroom by now if they really wanted to and for some reason they are content to sit around and wait.

I do not know why they have not given the DNA results for the skull and YES,it is troubling.........but the defense attorney admitted it was identified by dental records and is only complaining about not getting DNA....classic smoke and mirrors deflection of the issue at hand by the defense.

For years before DNA they identified remains by dental records .......to surmise they made a mistake this time is a huge stretch of the imagination.

FWIW ....I don't think they have a cell phone video but am pretty sure the remains are certainly Holly's

It is pretty clear the prosecution is not going to turn over any discovery until they absolutely have too........maybe it is week or maybe it is pretty solid and they don't want it out there for a long time and give the defense a chance to change stories ala C.A. when it was clear there was no nanny and her story made no sense at all....I often wonder how this trial would have played out if all the evidence hadn't been made public well before the trial.

If there is no evidence linking the defendants to the Bobbo kidnapping/murder and these defense attorneys haven't been able to get the charges dropped yet or in front of a jury by now........they better be finding a different line of work.

The question is if that evidence strong enough to convict them ???????????

The prosecution "absolutely had to" turn over discovery to the defense about 6 months ago. They are not waiting the last minute, the last minute has come and gone a couple of times already with nothing happening, that is the problem with this case.

The defense can't challenge the evidence when they don't know what the evidence is, likewise the defense lawyers cannot in good faith take it to trial without knowing what the evidence is either, that is why the case is in limbo.

The prosecution is stonewalling and delaying, not the defense team. The defense team is not "deflecting" anything, the problem is that they are not been given the information required before the process can proceed, that is what they are complaining about.

The prosecution cannot do this forever however, what they are doing is unconstitutional. At some point (likely soon) they will have to put up or face having the charges dismissed.

 

[Chainsaw385]

^^^^
I respectfully disagree.....and I could easily stand corrected.

I am not an expert on law but from what I have learned following cases is.........you have to disclose all your evidence and witness lists before going to trial
You just can't hold everything back and then decide to introduce an exhibit that the defense had not seen before.........but there better be a darn good reason the evidence was just found or it will not be allowed.

A judge will usually give the defense a little more leeway with late evidence or witnesses then the prosecution.

If their attorneys have not seen evidence that somehow is linking their clients to the charges ............they would be adamant about getting this this rolling.Then if they they turned over a bunch of new evidence a delay would be granted to the defense for sure....if the evidence would even be allowed at all.

Please don't get me wrong ....I have no clue what the evidence may be or if it is strong enough to convict.But it is safe to say there is something and it is troubling for the defense.Otherwise these defense attorneys would have filed motions in every court there is to dismiss or move forward by now if they have not seen anything in way of evidence.

I don't agree with how it is being handled but if it is unconstitutional ....why have none of the them filed a motion with the upper courts?*

The attorneys for the 3 main defendants are acting much different then the ones who were charged in connection with the alleged cell phone video.There is a reason for this.

* is it possible they are sitting around and letting them get away without discovery in hopes it will not be allowed???...or a possible appeal ??????

My theory is they know their clients are guilty and content to sit around and wait ...thinking their best chance of an acquittal is having key evidence thrown out or a conviction overturned.

 

[Migmuu]

Honestly, the way the prosecution is acting makes me believe that some of the accused men are probably innocent.

I remember arguing with someone on YouTube (I know, I know) several months ago who was saying he believes this case has become a witch hunt and that the men may be innocent, while I was saying that they were likely guilty. But the more I think about it, the more I think that poster may be right - not necessarily that it's a "witch hunt" where the authorities are picking on people they don't like, but that at least one of the accused is genuinely innocent.

I mean, how are we supposed to believe Holly was murdered by this group of men when the prosecution is refusing to hand over any evidence to the defense or release it to the public? When they're basing rape charges partly on this mysterious video that's apparently protected by the most uncrackable iPhone password in the world that not even Apple can bypass? How can you trust the prosecution or put any faith in whatever evidence they have when they're so damn shady about it?

I'm not saying I think they're all innocent or they're good people. But right now I'm really questioning whether all of them truly are involved in Holly's murder. I'll also bet five dollars that at least some of the accused will be released due to lack of evidence sometime in the future.

 

[Bali]

Honestly, the way the prosecution is acting makes me believe that some of the accused men are probably innocent.

I remember arguing with someone on YouTube (I know, I know) several months ago who was saying he believes this case has become a witch hunt and that the men may be innocent, while I was saying that they were likely guilty. But the more I think about it, the more I think that poster may be right - not necessarily that it's a "witch hunt" where the authorities are picking on people they don't like, but that at least one of the accused is genuinely innocent.

I mean, how are we supposed to believe Holly was murdered by this group of men when the prosecution is refusing to hand over any evidence to the defense or release it to the public? When they're basing rape charges partly on this mysterious video that's apparently protected by the most uncrackable iPhone password in the world that not even Apple can bypass? How can you trust the prosecution or put any faith in whatever evidence they have when they're so damn shady about it?

I'm not saying I think they're all innocent or they're good people. But right now I'm really questioning whether all of them truly are involved in Holly's murder. I'll also bet five dollars that at least some of the accused will be released due to lack of evidence sometime in the future.

Lol, it was probably me. I argue with people on youtube all the time. As of yet, I have no idea whether these guys are guilty. It's entirely possible that Zach killed Holly, but it just seems so unlikely that they *all* killed Holly and then managed to keep it under wraps for so long, and then somehow are unable to give the prosecution any usable information (no video, Austin's confession falling through, they're now charging Dylan--make of that what you will). And now they're refusing to disclose evidence.

I don't think it's a witchhunt per se, but I think they acted on these confessions/statements without having the perspective to realize that confessions gleaned in that way might not be the most reliable. I'm not trying to defend these guys, it sounds like, without the exception of Jeff Pearcy, they're all people you probably want to stay away from. I'm just not sure they committed *this* crime.

 

[SteveS]

^^^^
I respectfully disagree.....and I could easily stand corrected.

I am not an expert on law but from what I have learned following cases is.........you have to disclose all your evidence and witness lists before going to trial
You just can't hold everything back and then decide to introduce an exhibit that the defense had not seen before.........but there better be a darn good reason the evidence was just found or it will not be allowed.

A judge will usually give the defense a little more leeway with late evidence or witnesses then the prosecution.

If their attorneys have not seen evidence that somehow is linking their clients to the charges ............they would be adamant about getting this this rolling.Then if they they turned over a bunch of new evidence a delay would be granted to the defense for sure....if the evidence would even be allowed at all.

Please don't get me wrong ....I have no clue what the evidence may be or if it is strong enough to convict.But it is safe to say there is something and it is troubling for the defense.Otherwise these defense attorneys would have filed motions in every court there is to dismiss or move forward by now if they have not seen anything in way of evidence.

I don't agree with how it is being handled but if it is unconstitutional ....why have none of the them filed a motion with the upper courts?*

The attorneys for the 3 main defendants are acting much different then the ones who were charged in connection with the alleged cell phone video.There is a reason for this.

* is it possible they are sitting around and letting them get away without discovery in hopes it will not be allowed???...or a possible appeal ??????

My theory is they know their clients are guilty and content to sit around and wait ...thinking their best chance of an acquittal is having key evidence thrown out or a conviction overturned.

You must not have been following this case closely, because what you are saying "cannot" happen is exactly where we are. In general, here's what has happened:
1 The defense said, "There's no evidence here that could possibly implicate our clients. If there's more, the prosecution is hiding it and did not disclose it."
2 The judge said to the prosecution: "I will not tolerate hidden evidence. I want to see an outline of the case evidence ("bill of particulars") and how you plan to use it to convict these defendants, with a copy for the defense as well. One week."
3 Prosecution: "Yes sir, no problem, you'll get it in one week."
4 One week later, no bill of particulars.
5 Defense files a motion to dismiss the case based on lack of evidence/lack of disclosure.
6 Within 24 hours (and before the motion can be argued in court), Stowe has (or, stages?) a tantrum at TBI, imo as a distraction and as an excuse to quit the case and cause a delay in things.
7 Prosecution changes prosecutors for the case, TBI says all is well, and the judge allows a delay for the new prosecutor to get up to speed.

And that's where we are. We still have not heard the motion to dismiss, and the judge has allowed an artificial delay in the process that's now stretched into almost 4 months (which imo has a great chance to create major problems for the prosecution if this case ever comes to trial).

 

[Tugela]

^^^^
I respectfully disagree.....and I could easily stand corrected.

I am not an expert on law but from what I have learned following cases is.........you have to disclose all your evidence and witness lists before going to trial
You just can't hold everything back and then decide to introduce an exhibit that the defense had not seen before.........but there better be a darn good reason the evidence was just found or it will not be allowed.

A judge will usually give the defense a little more leeway with late evidence or witnesses then the prosecution.

If their attorneys have not seen evidence that somehow is linking their clients to the charges ............they would be adamant about getting this this rolling.Then if they they turned over a bunch of new evidence a delay would be granted to the defense for sure....if the evidence would even be allowed at all.

Please don't get me wrong ....I have no clue what the evidence may be or if it is strong enough to convict.But it is safe to say there is something and it is troubling for the defense.Otherwise these defense attorneys would have filed motions in every court there is to dismiss or move forward by now if they have not seen anything in way of evidence.

I don't agree with how it is being handled but if it is unconstitutional ....why have none of the them filed a motion with the upper courts?*

The attorneys for the 3 main defendants are acting much different then the ones who were charged in connection with the alleged cell phone video.There is a reason for this.

* is it possible they are sitting around and letting them get away without discovery in hopes it will not be allowed???...or a possible appeal ??????

My theory is they know their clients are guilty and content to sit around and wait ...thinking their best chance of an acquittal is having key evidence thrown out or a conviction overturned.

You don't understand. The deadline for the prosecution to hand over discovery to the defense was in August or September last year IIRC. They didn't do it. The judge then demanded a bill of particulars, essentially to demonstrate that there actually is a case. They didn't do that either, and instead turned over prosecutors, effectively stalling that requirement as well. The defense has already filed a motion to dismiss due to lack of evidence, but that can't proceed until the new prosecutor has time to "get up to speed" (even though she was already on the case before and should already be up to speed).

What the prosecution are doing is a clear violation of due process IMO. The trial cannot proceed until the prosecution complies with their constitutional obligations, and the accused cannot be held in prison forever because the prosecution doesn't want to do it.

What will happen IMO is this: Once the new prosecutor has been given adequate time to "get up to speed", she will have to hand over discovery or the charges will be dismissed. When she hands over discovery, and it shows a lack of sufficient evidence (which is very likely given the extreme reluctance of the prosecution to fulfill their due process obligations), there will be a motion to dismiss on that basis.

 

[Chainsaw385]

^^^^^

#1........I could care less what the defense or prosecution says........being from Central Pa I remember one of Jerry Sandusky's once said he showered with pre-teen boys to show them how to put soap on their bodies.You simply can not take what these guys say as the truth......The defense will say anything that might help to keep their clients out of jail and the prosecution will be just as bad trying to put them in jail.

#2........Then why has the defense attorneys not been able to get the charges dropped?.........this makes no sense at all........Do you honestly think the charges are still hanging over these guys when there is zero evidence?.....if there was no evidence AT ALL they would be hammering and hammering every court,every day trying to get the charges dropped.The defense is not doing a darn thing except complaining a little in the media every once in a while......this is not what attorneys do when there is no evidence at all against their clients.

#3........... I don't have an answer for why this is happening...........it could very well be a huge problem for the prosecution later......but again it is one the defense would be exploiting this whole time if it could get them anywhere....and they are simply not doing anything about it at all.

#5.........The defense almost always files a motion to dismiss because of lack of evidence,regardless of how much or it's strength........... This in way means there is no evidence

#6&7.........This may delay the trial but would have nothing to do with turning over discovery items(maybe a few items but certainly not all).......and once again the defense should be all over this.Unless they already have a pretty good idea what they are going to get.

It seems that a few people are taking some of what the defense is leaking to be much more meaningful then it really is............the more people that start thinking they have no evidence,helps the defense in a huge way.Maybe this is why they are willing to sit and wait and is part of their strategy.

At this point I am just repeating the same things over and over.....and although I really enjoy a good debate...without something new to reinforce either side of the issue it is getting nowhere and will refrain from commenting further until future developments in the case bring up a new item to discuss.

 

[SteveS]

Chainsaw, your stance that we are taking the defense's claims at face value is silly. We are basing our views on what has happened in court, and what the JUDGE has said and done. I'm not sure why you want to deny the obvious, but facts are facts.

The judge allowed a "time out" which is where we are. But before that -

1 There is no factual question - none whatsoever - that the judge demanded the prosecution produce a bill of particulars in one week (to answer the defense's claim that the prosecution was either hiding evidence, or must not have any).
2 We couldn't know for sure that the defense was being honest in saying the prosecution was failing to disclose. But we could see and know:
a - the prosecution did NOT have an answer then and there (which tells us something),
b - the judge made a demand on the prosecution (which tells us more),
c - he did it as a stern reprimand (by the judge), and
d - it was accompanied by a demand to put up or shut up, so to speak, with a bill of particulars in one week.
3 All that happened in open court. It was not a defense statement of some sort.
4 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the prosecution did not provide that bill of particulars within a week.
5 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the defense then filed a motion to dismiss based on the failure to perform on the bill of particulars.
6 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the prosecution then replied by throwing a tantrum at the FBI, causing a delay in the case before the judge could consider the next item, the motion to dismiss.

Those items are all unquestionable FACTS. And your statement that these facts are simply "defense leaks" being taken at face value is absurdly untrue.

 

[Bali]

if there was no evidence AT ALL they would be hammering and hammering every court,every day trying to get the charges dropped.

I'm not an attorney but I'm fairly certain that's not how it works and would in fact not work for your purposes. They've already filed the motion to dismiss and they have to wait for the judge to rule on it. Showing up at the court house and badgering the judge every day is something I've never heard of and would probably do nothing but piss off the judge.

 

[Myvice]

Is the judge that has let these guys off with a slap on the hand in the past the same judge that would preside over this case?

 

[Bali]

Chainsaw, your stance that we are taking the defense's claims at face value is silly. We are basing our views on what has happened in court, and what the JUDGE has said and done. I'm not sure why you want to deny the obvious, but facts are facts.

The judge allowed a "time out" which is where we are. But before that -

1 There is no factual question - none whatsoever - that the judge demanded the prosecution produce a bill of particulars in one week (to answer the defense's claim that the prosecution was either hiding evidence, or must not have any).
2 We couldn't know for sure that the defense was being honest in saying the prosecution was failing to disclose. But we could see and know:
a - the prosecution did NOT have an answer then and there (which tells us something),
b - the judge made a demand on the prosecution (which tells us more),
c - he did it as a stern reprimand (by the judge), and
d - it was accompanied by a demand to put up or shut up, so to speak, with a bill of particulars in one week.
3 All that happened in open court. It was not a defense statement of some sort.
4 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the prosecution did not provide that bill of particulars within a week.
5 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the defense then filed a motion to dismiss based on the failure to perform on the bill of particulars.
6 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the prosecution then replied by throwing a tantrum at the FBI, causing a delay in the case before the judge could consider the next item, the motion to dismiss.

Those items are all unquestionable FACTS. And your statement that these facts are simply "defense leaks" being taken at face value is absurdly untrue.

Let's not forget the emails that were leaked quoting Stowe as yelling at the TBI that they had proceeded, "so slowly that the culprits were always one step ahead and that TBI... was leaking information and possibly covering up evidence."

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Good Day,

My opinions only, no facts here:

I have been away for quite awhile, because I occasionally have to write scientific reports. I make a modest but honorable income in retirement doing research papers.

I promised awhile back to post Part III of my sequential reports about the Holly Bobo case. I have written it, but I would like to talk about something else first.

Motive, means, and opportunity. I notice that crime shows now typically only refer to motive and opportunity, because they assume that means always exist. You know, for "means" all you need is a gun, your hands, a rock, a shove (off a cliff), etc. So "means" are irrelevant? Not at all! If a suspect is confined to a wheelchair, you cannot accuse them of chasing someone up the stairs. They do not have the "means". If a suspect is blind, you cannot accuse them of lying in wait to sharp-shoot the victim with a scoped rifle. If a suspect cannot read or write, you cannot accuse them of hacking the Pentagon with their computer. They lack the “means”.

Now, about "opportunity". Does "opportunity" always exist? No. A person who is a thousand miles away at the time of a murder cannot directly commit that murder, because physical opportunity does not exist. If the potential future victim hires 24-7 bodyguards, opportunity is equally removed. If the potential perpetrator is locked up in prison, they cannot directly kill somebody outside of that prison. And so on.

But "motive" is special and unique. "Motive" can ALWAYS exist, unless the suspect is shown to be deceased or brain-dead at the time of the crime. "Motive" is what it is; simply a personal desire to conduct some activity, legal or not. In the case of a completed crime, “motive” led to the evaluation of potential means and opportunity by the perpetrator.

So, in the Holly Bobo case, I am principally concerned about MOTIVE. This is the word that scares prosecutors, and increasingly forces them to present cases where they claim there was no sensible motive. Only means and opportunity. But MOTIVE is important, if not critical, to analyzing a crime and convicting the right people. When an attractive young lady is the victim of an inside-job crime (the layout, situation, and schedules of the victim/non-victims at the crime scene were known in advance) that does not involve robbery, the motives are generally jealousy-rage and/or revenge-rage.

What strikes me about the Holly Bobo case is that Holly’s brother saw only ONE perpetrator. And one perpetrator alone could have carried out the kidnapping, the placement of the remains AND the Gooch Road evidence AND made it to work or back home by 10-ish to establish an alibi.

Just saying.

Sleuth On!

 

[Chainsaw385]

And your statement that these facts are simply "defense leaks" being taken at face value is absurdly untrue.

Was Fletcher Long under oath when he gave his interview?.......would what he disclosed not be considered a "leak".....and did "a few people" read too much into what he said in this interview.

You think they have no evidence against people they arrested 3 years after her disappearance....roughly one week after a search warrant was executed at ZA's house he was indicted....about a month for JA.I guess they didn't find anything in that search and just decided ........ who cares it has been 3 years we don't have anything else let's blame these guys

They have one that confessed to raping Holly.....I guess that doesn't have any bearing on this case or who might have killed her.There was no confession until about a month after her remains were found.Which if I remember correctly were found about a mile from their house.

Oh wait ....even though dental records identified her remains it is not her because they have not yet given the DNA results to defense.

The confession alone is enough to get this to trial.......The strength of this confession could be debated but saying it is not evidence is "ABSURD"....there is also something out there about ZA threatening his brother.

There is nothing wrong with you thinking these guys are innocent.That is the way our justice system works.....but I don't understand your continued comments that there is no evidence when there clearly is....especially the confession.

Maybe you are confused about what evidence is ...it does not mean certain guilt.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

 

[Bali]

Good Day,

My opinions only, no facts here:

I have been away for quite awhile, because I occasionally have to write scientific reports. I make a modest but honorable income in retirement doing research papers.

I promised awhile back to post Part III of my sequential reports about the Holly Bobo case. I have written it, but I would like to talk about something else first.

Motive, means, and opportunity. I notice that crime shows now typically only refer to motive and opportunity, because they assume that means always exist. You know, for "means" all you need is a gun, your hands, a rock, a shove (off a cliff), etc. So "means" are irrelevant? Not at all! If a suspect is confined to a wheelchair, you cannot accuse them of chasing someone up the stairs. They do not have the "means". If a suspect is blind, you cannot accuse them of lying in wait to sharp-shoot the victim with a scoped rifle. If a suspect cannot read or write, you cannot accuse them of hacking the Pentagon with their computer. They lack the “means”.

Now, about "opportunity". Does "opportunity" always exist? No. A person who is a thousand miles away at the time of a murder cannot directly commit that murder, because physical opportunity does not exist. If the potential future victim hires 24-7 bodyguards, opportunity is equally removed. If the potential perpetrator is locked up in prison, they cannot directly kill somebody outside of that prison. And so on.

But "motive" is special and unique. "Motive" can ALWAYS exist, unless the suspect is shown to be deceased or brain-dead at the time of the crime. "Motive" is what it is; simply a personal desire to conduct some activity, legal or not. In the case of a completed crime, “motive” led to the evaluation of potential means and opportunity by the perpetrator.

So, in the Holly Bobo case, I am principally concerned about MOTIVE. This is the word that scares prosecutors, and increasingly forces them to present cases where they claim there was no sensible motive. Only means and opportunity. But MOTIVE is important, if not critical, to analyzing a crime and convicting the right people. When an attractive young lady is the victim of an inside-job crime (the layout, situation, and schedules of the victim/non-victims at the crime scene were known in advance) that does not involve robbery, the motives are generally jealousy-rage and/or revenge-rage.

What strikes me about the Holly Bobo case is that Holly’s brother saw only ONE perpetrator. And one perpetrator alone could have carried out the kidnapping, the placement of the remains AND the Gooch Road evidence AND made it to work or back home by 10-ish to establish an alibi.

Just saying.

Sleuth On!

Who had an alibi at 10ish?

In terms of motive, my money is on a drug debt--someone else's--and they took Holly to either bring them to that person or to hold her hostage until the debt is paid. The details of her abduction would be unusual for a sexual motive. And certainly if these guys really are the perps, it would be unusual for a large group of men to do a kidnapping for a sexual motive.

 

[SteveS]

And your statement that these facts are simply "defense leaks" being taken at face value is absurdly untrue.

Was Fletcher Long under oath when he gave his interview?

I understand quite well how defense attorneys work, and how they play the game. LOL But whatever Fletcher Long said in some interview is irrelevant to the point I made, because not a single point I made came from Fletcher Long's interview.

Instead, the issue is one of legal requirements being met. And the idea that the prosecution has not performed came from the court itself and the actions of the judge.

1 There is no factual question - none whatsoever - that the judge demanded the prosecution produce a bill of particulars in one week (to answer the defense's claim that the prosecution was either hiding evidence, or must not have any).
2 We couldn't know for sure that the defense was being honest in saying the prosecution was failing to disclose. But we could see and know:
a - the prosecution did NOT have an answer then and there (which tells us something),
b - the judge made a demand on the prosecution (which tells us more),
c - he did it as a stern reprimand (by the judge), and
d - it was accompanied by a demand to put up or shut up, so to speak, with a bill of particulars in one week.
3 All that happened in open court. It was not from a defense statement of some sort.
4 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the prosecution did not provide that bill of particulars within a week.
5 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the defense then filed a motion to dismiss based on the failure to perform on the bill of particulars.
6 There is also no question - none whatsoever - that the prosecution then replied by throwing a tantrum at the FBI, causing a delay in the case before the judge could consider the next item, the motion to dismiss.

If, as you say, there is plenty of evidence and it had been disclosed to the defense as required by law, then there would have been no reason for (a) the judge to reprimand the prosecution, (b) the judge to mandate a bill of particulars, and (c) the prosecution to fail to offer that mandated document.

Let me put it another way. If there IS plenty of evidence, then why did the prosecution jeopardize the ability to try the case at all, in this fashion? Because, they did. Make no mistake, even if there is plenty of evidence, Stowe's failure to perform has created very real 6th amendment issues that the defendants will be able to use if an appeal is needed. If you don't see that, then ...

 

[pearl]

We really don't know what has and has not been disclosed to the defense attorneys and suspects. I don't believe much of what comes out of the mouth of a professionally questionable attorney. Of course, a defense attorney isn't going to go to the media and say that there is sufficient evidence to convict his/her client. The defense attorneys I have heard give interviews have always claimed the evidence doesn't exist, they are not aware of it, or it is of questionable veracity. I do think evidence has been shared with the defense. Maybe they are asking for evidence that they think should exist based on what their clients have told them but in actuality does not exist. The claim that they are not even sure that the remains found was Holly is total BS to me. LE, the family, and the community know it was Holly and so does the defense and the suspects. This is smoke and mirrors. I think that if ZA and JA are truly innocent, they would be screaming to the rafters for different lawyers who do not fall under suspicion for misconduct (one of them) and have a clear record of being able to accomplish goals. The argument about the judge being not willing to let this thing drag on and on is moot because that is just what he is doing.

 

[Tugela]

Was Fletcher Long under oath when he gave his interview?.......would what he disclosed not be considered a "leak".....and did "a few people" read too much into what he said in this interview.

You think they have no evidence against people they arrested 3 years after her disappearance....roughly one week after a search warrant was executed at ZA's house he was indicted....about a month for JA.I guess they didn't find anything in that search and just decided ........ who cares it has been 3 years we don't have anything else let's blame these guys

They have one that confessed to raping Holly.....I guess that doesn't have any bearing on this case or who might have killed her.There was no confession until about a month after her remains were found.Which if I remember correctly were found about a mile from their house.

Oh wait ....even though dental records identified her remains it is not her because they have not yet given the DNA results to defense.

The confession alone is enough to get this to trial.......The strength of this confession could be debated but saying it is not evidence is "ABSURD"....there is also something out there about ZA threatening his brother.

There is nothing wrong with you thinking these guys are innocent.That is the way our justice system works.....but I don't understand your continued comments that there is no evidence when there clearly is....especially the confession.

Maybe you are confused about what evidence is ...it does not mean certain guilt.

Evidence, broadly construed, is anything presented in support of an assertion. This support may be strong or weak. The strongest type of evidence is that which provides direct proof of the truth of an assertion. At the other extreme is evidence that is merely consistent with an assertion but does not rule out other, contradictory assertions, as in circumstantial evidence.

No it isn't. This "confession" you talk about is being contested by the person who supposedly made it. It appears that the charge is based on one TBI officer claiming that he heard DA say something to that effect to another TBI officer. That would be pretty flimsy (like pretty much all of the other charges being made in this case, apparently). And in any case, something like that would have to be corroborated in some way beyond just comments made during an interview. You would have probable cause to make a charge under those circumstances, and consequently get an GJ indictment, but getting a conviction with only that would be difficult.

Also, it is irrelevant in the trial of the other two, since they have not confessed to anything. To be admitted in their trial the prosecutors would need to produce DA to make the claims in court, and since he is being charged separately, he is unlikely to do that. Not to mention that he was charged AFTER cooperating with police, which implies that whatever testimony he was offering them is highly dubious.

 

[Tugela]

Who had an alibi at 10ish?

In terms of motive, my money is on a drug debt--someone else's--and they took Holly to either bring them to that person or to hold her hostage until the debt is paid. The details of her abduction would be unusual for a sexual motive. And certainly if these guys really are the perps, it would be unusual for a large group of men to do a kidnapping for a sexual motive.

If these guys are the ones responsible, then I'm betting that Holly was just collateral damage in a different story going on in the background.

The random abduction theory does not get off the ground IMO. There is absolutely no way that she was snatched by someone who happened to be driving by, the logistics of that are just too impractical.

 

[OldSteve]

If these guys are the ones responsible, then I'm betting that Holly was just collateral damage in a different story going on in the background.

The random abduction theory does not get off the ground IMO. There is absolutely no way that she was snatched by someone who happened to be driving by, the logistics of that are just too impractical.

Agree! This was a very well planned and executed abduction. So much so actually, that I scratch my head wondering how those arrested were capable - but that's been something we've batted around here before...

 

[Bali]

Agree! This was a very well planned and executed abduction. So much so actually, that I scratch my head wondering how those arrested were capable - but that's been something we've batted around here before...

What makes you say that it was well planned out and executed? As far as I'm concerned, I don't think we have proof that this wasn't done by her boyfriend, alone, for normal jealousy/domestic violence reasons, on the spur of the moment. If it wasn't him, thus far I don't really see anything that proves it was heavily planned. So like, some drug deal goes bad, and a 30 second conversation ends in "Let's get Holly. She'll lead us to him if we put a gun in her face".

I do agree with you that aspects of it point away from a group of guys (well...this group anyway). Theres no way that many people kept this a secret for so long, particularly when you have people in the mix who hate each other and/or have mental disabilities. It's just so unlikely that you could have a successful criminal conspiracy with 6 guys, let alone with 10+ guys like they're saying. Maybe, maybe, Zach did this. We know he was involved in drugs and had committed other lower level crimes. I personally don't think Autry was involved, but it's possible. But if that's the case, I don't think it went very much beyond that. It's just really hard to trust all these people, some of whom hate your guts, to keep that kind of secret forever. Especially if there is a flipping video floating around like they're saying!