Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #7

[AmandaReckonwith]

Usually, but not always.
Gang rape happens, and in this case it may have been drug-fueled.

 

[Rayemonde]

Yeah, gang-rape definitely happens, sadly

 

[Steleheart]

Usually, but not always.
Gang rape happens, and in this case it may have been drug-fueled.

Sadly yes, drug fueled, yes.

In slang, a gang rape is also referred to as a "train" or "running a train" as in the A-train. Ironically. (or not)

MOO

 

[Steleheart]

RE My above post about the A-train HB connection - I forgot about the fact that Autry is Holly Bobo’s second cousin.

 

[Mercurydime]

RE My above post about the A-train HB connection - I forgot about the fact that Autry is Holly Bobo’s second cousin.

Do we know that for a fact? I remember rumors about second/third cousin, but never hear it mentioned anymore.

 

[katydid23]

Thanks. But wow that still seems strange to me. If ONE man were involved, then I would drop it at that. Sometimes one crazy dude gets something in head about a female. But how did several men get involved in this? And they're all rapists to boot? It is one thing to help cover up a crime if you are worried you might get into serious trouble, but rape? I do not want to get too gross or detailed, but we're talking "performing" when the female is in a terrified state and is detained and possibly being threatened with a weapon. I always just assumed that it took a special kind of nutcase to do something like that.

Or maybe they're just all being charged with rape under the law that if four men kidnap a woman, and one of them rapes her, then all get charged with rape.

But yeah, most of the time when a group that large gets together to commit a crime, it is something like robbing a bank or drug trafficking.

Gang rapes are not all that uncommon.

 

[Tugela]

Gang rapes are not all that uncommon.

Relative to rapes by single individuals, they are uncommon.

It is the same as abductions. While we hear lots about the abductions by strangers on the news when they happen and that registers higher in collective awareness, it is quite a rare event considering how many people there are in the country.

 

[ThoughtFox]

The way the story was told, it sounded like the bucket was upside down. The Ginseng hunter saw it, was curious, and so flipped it over. I have never understood how the bucket could remain there covering human remains for a long period of time. Holly's body may have been moved. The TBI would not allow the Ginseng hunter to tell what all he found. His statement was that he found a skull near the bucket, and other human remains. Something made him think it was Holly Bobo.

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...obo-It-Will-Be-With-Me-Forever-274824611.html

I don't know for sure, of course, but the remains and the bucket were found in a deciduous forest and everything was covered with fallen leaves for many months. Leaves tend to keep things in place. Possibly the bucket was buried in leaves to begin with and maybe rain had washed it out of the ground.

You can see what the woods were like in the video of the ginseng hunter:

[video=youtube;dwNEX4dm960]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwNEX4dm960[/video]

 

[ThoughtFox]

Also more stuff in this video from the case file about the croc print in the garage, Holly's blood and hair, and other evidence:

[video=youtube;tKv3ETdo3_4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tKv3ETdo3_4[/video]

 

[SteveS]

TF, thanks for posting those. Very informative, although some of what it said (along with so many maybe's, and other what if's offered) creates as many questions as it does answers.

 

[Tugela]

TF, thanks for posting those. Very informative, although some of what it said (along with so many maybe's, and other what if's offered) creates as many questions as it does answers.

It doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know. That information has been known for quite a while, so it is rehashed news to fill a time slot. They haven't seen the case file, they are just referring to known stuff (such as the search warrant affidavits) which they assume to be in the case file. Other than that it is speculative.

In essence what they are saying is that the probable cause basically was DA's statements.

 

[shefner]

It doesn't really tell us anything that we didn't already know. That information has been known for quite a while, so it is rehashed news to fill a time slot. They haven't seen the case file, they are just referring to known stuff (such as the search warrant affidavits) which they assume to be in the case file. Other than that it is speculative.

In essence what they are saying is that the probable cause basically was DA's statements.

Did we watch the same video clip? They have several pieces of evidence such as a hair, a shoe print, blood...this in addition to the eyewitness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[~n/t~]

Did we watch the same video clip? They have several pieces of evidence such as a hair, a shoe print, blood...this in addition to the eyewitness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Hi Shefner,

I can't answer for Tugela but can only speculate on what she/he might be trying to say. Yes, they do have all this evidence but the evidence has to be connected to the defendants. In other words, DNA! I believe they have that and more.............

 

[Chainsaw385]

In essence what they are saying is that the probable cause basically was DA's statements.

Only if you view the video with the aid of "Smoke and Mirrors"

 

[Chainsaw385]

Most here myself included think they probably could have gotten an indictment on DA's statements/confession .....whatever it was alone.

We know for sure Holly's blood was in the carport........maybe this is all they have in the way of blood evidence and they presented this for the aggravated kidnapping charges.I myself don't think this is all they have but some type of blood evidence was presented to the GJ.

The fact they used some type of shoe print evidence is very telling.
Why would they present a shoe print that they could not tie to the suspect as evidence when they didn't have too.This would not help gain an indictment.

For example.........There was a Crock brand shoeprint at the crime scene and the defendant owns a pair of crocks but we can't match the 2 together.This is only going to create doubt in the minds of the GJ members.

They could have easily excluded the footprint from their GJ presentment and still got an indictment so them including it is a very strong hint that they can in fact tie it too the suspect.

I firmly believe DA's statements alone lead to the search warrants but they clearly used more then his statements when getting the indictments from what has been released it is too far outside the box to think otherwise.

 

[stephsb]

I disagree that getting an indictment from a GJ strengthens the evidence they have. GJ proceedings are done in secret, so unless I'm missing something, we don't know if they presented the blood evidence or the Croc shoe print.

As for the rest of the evidence (blood, hair and shoe print) it's not strong evidence unless it can link the defendants to Holly's kidnapping and murder. Holly's blood being found in her garage can help them determine how the crime occurred, but it doesn't link any of the defendant's to the crime. Now, if they had found evidence of Holly's blood at ZA's during the search, that would be compelling. Perhaps they did find Holly's blood at ZA's, but so far, all they've said is that they found a blonde hair in a closet at ZA's. As for the croc print, unless a pair of croc's was found at ZA's, the only evidence we have connecting the croc print to ZA is the confession of DA.

I've been following this case since before Holly's remains were found, and like everyone else on here, want justice for Holly and her family, but the lack of evidence, DA's confession, and the stalling tactics of the prosecution all send up huge red flags for me. Hopefully they have stronger evidence that they aren't releasing to the public, especially considering this is a death penalty case.

 

[Tugela]

Did we watch the same video clip? They have several pieces of evidence such as a hair, a shoe print, blood...this in addition to the eyewitness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The probable cause they are talking about in the video comes from the affidavit to get the initial search warrant, as well as items listed as being taken in the course of the warrant.

The blood was at the Bobo's house. We already knew that. It proves nothing other than HB was at the Bobo house.

The shoe print might be from a croc, but there are lots of those around. And the only connection to the accused in the video was from DA's allegations that one of them was wearing crocs on the day in question. The source material in the video was the search warrant affidavits, so there is no way there could be any connection other than DA's statements.

The hair found was a blond hair. Nothing to suggest it came from HB. Half the women in America have blond hair. The probability is that it is far more likely that the hair came from someone else.

None of those things would represent probable cause in an indictment, which leaves DA's allegations as the evidence used to get the indictment.

My guess is that they got the indictments on the basis of DA's statements (this is not unusual) and expected to find corroboration in the form of physical evidence during the searches because they believed him (and SA). I think that didn't happen and that left them in a difficult situation because DA's statements would be challenged in court and likely would not stand unless they could be corroborated. That is what led to all the stalling and public fights as they tried to figure out a way to proceed. To get around that problem they charged DA with the same crimes and refiled on all of them together. That way they could admit DA's statements as evidence under hearsay exceptions, but the content would not be directly challengeable. That would allow them to be in a position to get a conviction if they could convince a jury to believe the statements as true. There is not a lot the defense could do about it either. To overcome the statements they could call DA as a witness to say that he made it all up, but then the prosecutor would rebut by saying that he had motive to lie about the truth of the statements since he was being charged as well. It is sort of a catch 22 situation for the defense. And the prosecutors don't really need much more than that if they can be sufficiently emotive to rile up the jury.

All that news station was doing was rehashing old news and presenting it as new stuff, when really it isn't.

 

[Tugela]

Most here myself included think they probably could have gotten an indictment on DA's statements/confession .....whatever it was alone.

We know for sure Holly's blood was in the carport........maybe this is all they have in the way of blood evidence and they presented this for the aggravated kidnapping charges.I myself don't think this is all they have but some type of blood evidence was presented to the GJ.

The fact they used some type of shoe print evidence is very telling.
Why would they present a shoe print that they could not tie to the suspect as evidence when they didn't have too.This would not help gain an indictment.

For example.........There was a Crock brand shoeprint at the crime scene and the defendant owns a pair of crocks but we can't match the 2 together.This is only going to create doubt in the minds of the GJ members.

They could have easily excluded the footprint from their GJ presentment and still got an indictment so them including it is a very strong hint that they can in fact tie it too the suspect.

I firmly believe DA's statements alone lead to the search warrants but they clearly used more then his statements when getting the indictments from what has been released it is too far outside the box to think otherwise.

Because it probably wasn't used to get the indictment. Remember, the stuff about the shoe came from the affidavit to get the original search warrants, in other words it was presented as a plausible connection to corroborate what DA as claiming for the purposes of getting a search warrant. The argument would go like this: DA said he saw this and that, and one of the accused was wearing crocs at the time. And in fact we found a croc print at the crime scene. It doesn't prove that the crocs the accused was wearing made the prints (since they would not have had them at that stage), or even that the crocs existed. But it does link the scene and DA's statements, and that is why it was in the affidavit.

 

[shefner]

Do we really think the DA is going to hand us the case facts in a ziplock bag? I think the defense will also withhold things. Been a member here almost 8 years and followed cases without membership for 4 years prior. This is how it works.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Most here myself included think they probably could have gotten an indictment on DA's statements/confession .....whatever it was alone.

We know for sure Holly's blood was in the carport........maybe this is all they have in the way of blood evidence and they presented this for the aggravated kidnapping charges.I myself don't think this is all they have but some type of blood evidence was presented to the GJ.

The fact they used some type of shoe print evidence is very telling.
Why would they present a shoe print that they could not tie to the suspect as evidence when they didn't have too.This would not help gain an indictment.

For example.........There was a Crock brand shoeprint at the crime scene and the defendant owns a pair of crocks but we can't match the 2 together.This is only going to create doubt in the minds of the GJ members.

They could have easily excluded the footprint from their GJ presentment and still got an indictment so them including it is a very strong hint that they can in fact tie it too the suspect.

I firmly believe DA's statements alone lead to the search warrants but they clearly used more then his statements when getting the indictments from what has been released it is too far outside the box to think otherwise.

While its titillating for us if we know evidence beforehand it rarely ever happens. Since becoming a member here in 2004 I cant even begin to count the hundreds of cases I have followed all the way through trial. In the majority of them very little evidence was released, if any, to the public. The only way we may be able to learn a small part of the evidence in a case against a defendant/s is if there was a preliminary hearing held before a trial or we get to read an affidavit. And over the years I have kept up with several cases involving the TBI. They are very tightlipped about any evidence they have collected and not just with this case. So honestly we have no clue what all the evidence entails. This is not limited to TN trials either. Many times before a trial the subject is brought up where some believe the State doesn't have enough evidence to prove their case and that is based on the fact they have not come out and stated what they have leaving the public in the dark. Some seem to think that if a DA or investigation agencies doesn't come forth to the media and reveal all of their evidence. I haven't seen any who does that nor do I know why they would do so since the evidence is to be entered at trial.

In fact in recent years I am seeing less and less being said by DA/LEs about any case in public now since defense attorneys complain to the Judge their client is being tried in the media stating they cant get a fair trial because of evidence being released against them before trial.

I totally agree with you about the Croc shoes. They would not enter the shoes if they didn't have evidence linking it to the suspect. That is just common sense. A Croc shoe is not just a Croc by any means. It has a soft sole and much can be learned from shoeprints. Every human being has their own way of walking and the pressure points and wear spots on the soles become like an identifying footprint. For example: In the Scott Dyleski murder trial he left his shoe impression in blood on a box lid and it matched perfectly with the shoes that were found at his home including the wear pattern on his soles. So no two soles are ever alike once worn. And they are also able to track the shoes back to the store it was purchased from. I find shoeprint evidence fascinating and its very easy for jurors to look at and understand when they are shown a match from the crime scene to the shoes they are seeing in the courtroom.

I honestly cant see Adams throwing these shoes away nor the camo suit either. He was so arrogant and thought he and his fellow rapists and murderers had pulled this off. They may have even found the exact same shoeprint inside of his home. The possibilities to link the shoes back to him are many. Since Holly was bleeding in the carport they may have also found the camo suit he was wearing the day he kidnapped her and also may have found her blood inside of the vehicle when he transported her back to his place. As far as the blond hair if there was a root attached then DNA can be extracted with HBs DNA profile. They wouldn't tell the results of that testing in the affidavit for there was no need to expose what they have learned about the hair and for all we know there may be more than one hair found.

I saw a case a few years back where a case had very little evidence other than CE witnesses but they did have the perps shoes and there were three tiny blood specks from the murdered victim that couldn't be seen with the naked eye and he was convicted. He had tried to clean them and thought he had removed all blood evidence but he didn't. Since none of us really knows what evidence they have collected in this case they may have found the shoes (imo they have) and they may have the blood of Holly on them. In the GJ they would only produce enough evidence to get probable cause. No DA ever puts in his/her best evidence in a GJ for there is absolutely no need to do so at the time since the burden is much lower than BARD when it goes to trial.

I think it is going to be like a lot of cases that have been discussed here before a case goes to trial and some may be rather shocked at all the evidence they really do have against the defendants. Maybe its just human nature for some to believe a case is weak because the State and the investigating agencies refuses to reveal that evidence publicly even before a trial is held. It seems to be an automatic assumption for some. I really don't understand that though since this case isn't really any different than most where we don't know the evidence amassed before a trial is held. I actually like it that way and fully understand why evidence is not revealed beforehand. It makes the trial/s so much more interesting to me to see the evidence entered from the witness stand at trial.

IMO