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

[Bali]

The motion is linked in this article: http://wreg.com/2015/03/17/attorneys-for-suspect-in-holly-bobo-case-want-indictments-dismissed/


I especially liked the line at the end:

Defense counsel are tempted to say that it is time for the government to fish or cut bait. After further reflection, however, the time for the prosecution’s fishing expedition – which in this case has included jailing people willy-nilly without bond, only to dismiss charges on the eve of an evidentiary hearing -- has long passed.

 

[angels among us]

Another little tidbit I just ran across was that another ex-boyfriend of Holly's, Blake Barnett, was arrested in 2014 for domestic assault and kidnapping unrelated to the Holly Bobo case. Coincidence? Maybe but weird all the same.

 

[Myvice]

Another little tidbit I just ran across was that another ex-boyfriend of Holly's, Blake Barnett, was arrested in 2014 for domestic assault and kidnapping unrelated to the Holly Bobo case. Coincidence? Maybe but weird all the same.

This incident involved BB beating his Uncle up and refusing to let him leave his home. It had nothing to do with this case.

I agree that this case has so many strange twists and turns. The only thing I can think is that there are just so many meth heads involved and no one wants to talk because they are afraid or don't want to lose their drug source.

Hopefully, Long's motion will get things moving again.

 

[Tugela]

I can tell you one thing if DA said something incriminating and 2 people (TBI agents) or even 2 inmates who just happened to overhear him talking.It is coming into these trials.

It makes no difference weather DA takes the stand and admits he said this or not.....and just because he now denies he said anything certainly doesn't mean they are going to be thrown out or charges dropped........the defense may call him to refute the incriminating remarks but it is coming into his trial and also the trials of other 2 if the remarks pertain to their case......I really doubt he would be willing to take the stand for the defense for the other 2.

There are so many laws to allow what I would deem hearsay to be admitted into evidence.....just about every case I have followed closely there has been an instance where something was admitted that I thought for sure was hearsay and these were much better examples of hearsay then what you have described in the post above.

When you use words like allegedly,supposedly,presumably and not very likely as much as you did in the above post(sometimes twice in the same sentence)you are not going to convince many people to switch over to your side.


Sandusky was a trail I followed closely .......in the 1990's a janitor saw something and told another janitor......by the time the trial came around the eye witness janitor had died but the second janitor testified at trial what the deceased janitor had told him.

I never thought this janitor testimony would be allowed ....but it was and has also stood up to appeals.....excited utterance I believe was the ruling letting it be introduced.

So before you accuse people of not knowing things it would be best for you to take time to understand them a little better yourself.Especially when you follow up with nothing more then flat out guesses to what you think may have happened

There has to be corroboration. There is no way anyone is going to get convicted solely on hearsay, particularly hearsay of hearsay. Hearsay may be admitted when there is significant evidence of the crime under certain circumstances, in which case it acts as partial corroboration for that evidence. But if it is the only corroboration, or if there is no corroboration, it won't be admitted.

In any case, in the main trial for murder/abduction, what DA may or may not have said, as reported by third parties, will NOT be admissible because he is available to testify himself (the part you keep missing). A third party cannot be used in trial under those circumstances. And as we know, he has pled not guilty to the charge on what he supposedly confessed to, so no matter what happens, he would be impeachable as a witness even if he did subsequently decide to testify to get out of his own legal troubles.

For example, to make this more clear to you, suppose someone shot your local mobster and another person witnessed this. That witness then told police what happened, but at trial they decide that they don't want to talk anymore because it would be bad for their health. The police who heard the account cannot be used in trial because the witness is available, and if they won't testify then the evidence won't be admitted. It happens all the time.

If he really did witness these things, by charging him with rape the prosecution has shot itself in the foot. The implication is that his account regarding the other two is unusable in trial and the prosecutor is going with what is left, which is to charge DA.

 

[wfgodot]

Sad that this case began in tragedy and at this rate may end in farce.

 

[~n/t~]

I am amazed and dismayed. wtf.

I'm with you, Amanda. So sad. Something is just not sitting well with me with this case. Never did from the beginning but now even more so.

 

[~n/t~]

Do any of you think something is happening behind the scenes with the DA and LE? Are they trying to protect someone? Perhaps a deal in the works?? Just a thought.

I have never come across a case like this........

So much evidence but yet here we are. WTF? It's like starting all over again. Where is Holly? ;(

 

[~n/t~]

I wish the Bobos would say something. I can't imagine they're just sitting around and watching Justice for Holly fall apart. They have a voice.

 

[OldSteve]

I'm with you, Amanda. So sad. Something is just not sitting well with me with this case. Never did from the beginning but now even more so.

Each case stands out for something that makes it different in some way from others - for me it was how so many turned out so quickly to search for Holly, along with how there appeared to be confusion about who was in charge of that and what to do... also, that so large reward was posted so quickly, and by the state's Governor, no less.
Then, after reading for so long about what a nice, an tight-knit, the community was, thugs seemed to be everywhere... Then as arrests were made, how those arrested appeared to be too meth-head like to orchestrate a precise abduction with so few clues.... and now we reach the point where arrests appear to be falling apart...
Wow!

 

[Chainsaw385]

This type of defense motion is what should have been filled months ago.......I don't understand why they waited so long.Especially if they had not seen any evidence.
I still think they waited for the sole purpose of giving their dismiss the charges case more weight.

Regardless this should get the ball rolling ....until they get the evidence then the defense will file a motion for a delay to study it ...which they will be granted.

 

[~n/t~]

This type of defense motion is what should have been filled months ago.......I don't understand why they waited so long.Especially if they had not seen any evidence.
I still think they waited for the sole purpose of giving their dismiss the charges case more weight.

Regardless this should get the ball rolling ....until they get the evidence then the defense will file a motion for a delay to study it ...which they will be granted.

I believe they did. What I want to know is when is the next hearing? What deadline was given to turn over the evidence? It's been so long, I lost track.

 

[SteveS]

This type of defense motion is what should have been filled months ago....

LOL it was.

The prosecution was never required to respond, but instead pulled a "change-the-prosecutor" stunt that created a delay. And the judge went for it.

So now we're months later and it's still nothing.

The defense motion here is a nagging reminder in one way, and evidence for an appeal later. The judge is being put on notice, so to speak. If you still don't want to believe me, wait and see.

 

[SteveS]

I believe they did. What I want to know is when is the next hearing? What deadline was given to turn over the evidence? It's been so long, I lost track.

The deadline was long ago. That's a big part of the problem for the state.

* The state isn't allowed to hide evidence.
* They had to have enough evidence to convict PRIOR to arresting and incarcerating, even if they were trying to add to it.
* The deadline to provide the evidence they planned to use, to get a conviction, was in August.
* After that, they were required to turn over new evidence as they got it.

So by August, the discovery should already have had evidence that, if believed by a jury, would convict.

And it should have been added to, whenever (and as) LE got more evidence. No exceptions, no hold-backs, immediately.

For example, when Holly's remains were found, everything evidentiary to this case about that find was required to be given to the defense at that time. And, whatever was said by DA, when he was arrested for rape, if it was in any way evidentiary to this case, it was required to be given to the defense at that time.

As for what the defense has actually been given (and whether it can prove a case), and what the state may be lacking or may have been hiding, I suspect we'll find out eventually.

 

[~n/t~]

The deadline was long ago. That's a big part of the problem for the state.

* The state isn't allowed to hide evidence.
* They had to have enough evidence to convict PRIOR to arresting and incarcerating, even if they were trying to add to it.
* The deadline to provide the evidence they planned to use, to get a conviction, was in August.
* After that, they were required to turn over new evidence as they got it.

So by August, the discovery should already have had evidence that, if believed by a jury, would convict.

And it should have been added to, whenever (and as) LE got more evidence. No exceptions, no hold-backs, immediately.

For example, when Holly's remains were found, everything evidentiary to this case about that find was required to be given to the defense at that time. And, whatever was said by DA, when he was arrested for rape, if it was in any way evidentiary to this case, it was required to be given to the defense at that time.

As for what the defense has actually been given (and whether it can prove a case), and what the state may be lacking or may have been hiding, I suspect we'll find out eventually.

Thanks Steve. I realize that. BUT what happens now? Did the State request an extension??? When is the next court appearance? Where is the Judge?

I guess that was my point. Where are we?

 

[SteveS]

Thanks Steve. I realize that. BUT what happens now? Did the State request an extension??? When is the next court appearance? Where is the Judge?

I guess that was my point. Where are we?

"When is the next court appearance?"

Afaik, none has been set.

"Did the State request an extension???"

If you're talking about back in Dec, I don't think so. From what we can tell, it was the judge who unilaterally inserted an arbitrary delay in the proceedings, of an indeterminate length.

IMO while the latest motion took well-deserved shots at the prosecution and its failure to perform under the law, it was also a message to the judge. It amped up the visibility on the issue, which also somewhat puts the judge on notice that "judicial discretion" can only go so far, and then basic issues of fairness and due process have to be be given priority.

More info on the motion
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...bobo-case-evidence-da-held-contempt/24938069/

 

[SteveS]

Re the bill of particulars that the state has promised and never provided, these notes were in the noted article:
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...bobo-case-evidence-da-held-contempt/24938069/

1 Herbison [defense co-counsel] said his office has requested that the state provide the time and date of each offense listed in the indictment against Autry, and to additionally submit the names of everyone present and any co-conspirators, the cause of death and the names of the people prosecution believe caused that death.
2 He also said his office has requested to know whether Autry is being considered a principal offender and what aggravating circumstances would lead the prosecution to request the death penalty in Autry's case.
3 Brothers Zachary and Dylan Adams also have been charged in the case. Zachary Adams has been charged with first-degree murder and aggravated kidnapping, along with Autry, and Dylan Adams has been charged with two counts of rape.
4 Herbison said his office also has requested an evidentiary hearing during which members of the prosecution state under oath why evidence has not been turned over.

 

[~Lyric~]

"When is the next court appearance?"

Afaik, none has been set.

"Did the State request an extension???"

If you're talking about back in Dec, I don't think so. From what we can tell, it was the judge who unilaterally inserted an arbitrary delay in the proceedings, of an indeterminate length.

IMO while the latest motion took well-deserved shots at the prosecution and its failure to perform under the law, it was also a message to the judge. It amped up the visibility on the issue, which also somewhat puts the judge on notice that "judicial discretion" can only go so far, and then basic issues of fairness and due process have to be be given priority.

More info on the motion
http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...bobo-case-evidence-da-held-contempt/24938069/

This right here say's it all :
The Shelby County District Attorney's Office could not be reached for comment at the time of this publication.
Every single article, every reporter, has said, The DA could not be reached.
In fact, they haven't said crap since Stowe left.
Why? Why? Why?

The defense has laid out what they want, why is this taking so long?

 

[murphy3k]

"When is the next court appearance?"

Afaik, none has been set.

"Did the State request an extension???"

If you're talking about back in Dec, I don't think so. From what we can tell, it was the judge who unilaterally inserted an arbitrary delay in the proceedings, of an indeterminate length.

RSBM for focus.

Typically, a hearing will not be set until after the response time for the motion has passed. Most states allow for 30 days to respond to any motion filed with the court, some allow 30, plus 3 days for mailing. Seeing as how there has still been no hearing scheduled on the original motion to dismiss (which was reported on in January 2015), I wouldn't expect a hearing date within the next 30 days. Just MOO.

Also, with regard to any request for extension, the most recent defense motion states: "Mr. Stowe requested additional time, but never complied." That is on page 3 of their motion linked here: http://wreg.com/2015/03/17/attorneys-for-suspect-in-holly-bobo-case-want-indictments-dismissed/

 

[SteveS]

Some statements of fact, asserted in the recent motion, that I find notable or that filled in some blanks imo. Most of this is cut-and-paste (ie, exact wording) directly from the motion itself:

1 In the initial hearing regarding discovery, in May of 2014, the Court granted the accused’s motion for a bill of particulars and directed the filing thereof, further granted the accused’s motion for notice of intent to use evidence, ordered that discovery materials be furnished by August 29, 2014.

2 The State of Tennessee did not furnish any discovery materials at all by the August 29, 2014 deadline ordered by the Court.

3 The State did thereafter serve a voluminous “document dump” on defense counsel.

4 This belated discovery, however, is conspicuously lacking in forensic reports relative to the alleged remains of Holly Bobo, which are said to have been found in early September 2014 – more than six months ago.

5 On Dec 12, 2014, in response to defense assertions about lack of discovery, the State's reply was, “At present, the State intends to offer at trial all relevant discoverable evidence.”

[Note: that is a joke of an answer, akin to "Before it's all over, I'll let you know what you need to know."]

6 Re the 12/12 comment just noted, the motion observed:
"Putting aside application of the law of the case doctrine to the Court’s May 2014 oral ruling, defense counsel wonder whether counsel for the State are conflating discoverability with admissibility. Did Mr. Stowe and Ms. Nichols seriously contend, when that “response” was filed under their auspices on behalf of the State, that “all relevant discoverable evidence” is ipso facto admissible? Does Ms. Nichols’ subsequent failure to supplement the State’s “response” following her reappointment indicate that she presently contends that?"

[Note: if that's what the prosecutors believe, that "we'll tell you what you need to know, when you need to know it," it's a massive indicator of incompetence as to duties re due process.]

7 Mr. Autry was charged in an indictment filed April 29, 2014, and 46 weeks later he and his counsel have still not been meaningfully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation.

8 Because this case was initiated by direct presentment without a preliminary hearing, there has been no judicial determination, nor any adversarial testing, as to whether probable cause to believe that Mr. Autry committed the crimes of which he is accused did, does or does not exist.

 

[steelman]

I just heard all the commotion about Autry.

It appears this entire case is in shambles.

The part about this that bothers me more than anything is not only the length of time it took to arrest someone, but how everything was always cloaked in a veil of secrecy. By that I mean how LE was constantly kicking down doors and serving warrants on this person and that person, and after they were jailed, almost no information at all was provided as to the evidence which led to that arrest.

Over and over again the public and media were told, "We can't give any further details because it might impede our investigation". "We can't divulge that at this time to insure the integrity of the investigation isn't compromised"

Really ??

Okay, you kept everything close to the vest, the media backed way off and quit asking questions...and this the end result of that "investigation" ??
People being arrested on hearsay and then released....people being arrested and then dying......the discovery process being completely ignored..... LE threatening their own witness with jail time for talking to the media, and one of the suspects may get sprung from jail in a very short time due to technicalities and lack of evidence.

So exactly what part of the investigation excelled by keeping everybody in the dark and refusing to answer even the most basic questions regarding the suspects ??

To this day, I have yet to hear one piece of damning evidence that is gonna insure that Zack Adams spends the rest of his life behind bars. The same ESPECIALLY applies to Autry.