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

[justwannahelp]

Actually, I am glad to see this. I want justice for Holly, but don't see how any real justice would be possible without full discovery and then full opportunity for the accused to examine and answer whatever has been dug up. I want to see the guilty executed, not the "obvious suspects" being accused because of gossipy suspicions.

And in my experience, quantity of "evidence" does not equal quality, and in fact can hint at a weak case or fuzzy prosecution (because a case built on one smoking gun is much better for a jury, and perhaps more incriminating, than boxes of random facts of varying and disputable value). I'm hoping there's actually a smoking gun or three in this case, but the existence of so much - combined with the difficulties they have had every step of the way - raises lots of questions imo.

Let me be clear - I am not saying these defendants are innocent or only arrested because they seemed like the guys to accuse. From where we sit, we don't have enough to truly know. I'm only saying that I want the guilty (and no one but the guilty) - whether they be these, or others - to pay for this atrocity, and to pay to the max allowed by law.

Question- I'm no law student so don't laugh at me. But let's say hypothetically, there's a video in the possession of the prosecutor of Holly being assaulted by the 3 suspects. Furthermore, HYPOTHETICALLY, there was blood found in the cabin and her clothing found in the bucket near her remains on their property. Hypothetically, Their DNA was found on the bucket and her clothing. I doubt that's what they found on abd in the bucket, but this is hypothetical. So with all of that evidence, it's a slam dunk case for the prosecutor, right?

So if this were actually what the prosecutor had, would they even bother going through ALL 200,000 pages and would even bother deposing the 600 witnesses?

It seems like if you've got the smoking gun, then there's no need to bring the other info into the courtroom. Seems like if you give the jury TOO much they could become cloudy with information overload, so it's best to stick with the most incriminating evidence that speaks volumes rather than present EVERYTHING that they have.

But at the same time, it almost seems negligent to NOT go through every single one of those 200,000 pages and to not depose all 600 witnesses.

So I can't decide if this 2017 thing just means they are being dutiful and doing what they are supposed to do even though they have the smoking gun or if it means they don't have the smoking gun so are having to string all the "small" pieces of evidence together to make something convincing.

 

[justwannahelp]

The video in question was of the rape...but we have no proof that its ever been found.
I have no doubt she was sexually assaulted. She deserves better than what we have going on in her case. This thing has taken forever...

And these perpetrators are lifelong criminals. They were notorious trouble makers. They had been in and out of jail.
I think Law Enforcement could have argued a search warrant on the pearl charges or drug charges and searched ZA's home early on in this case. And I think they would have found something related to Holly during the process.
Lots of frustrations with this one...

I too agree that when a young girl goes missing, she's likely been raped and murdered. Sadly, that's what I've learned here on websleuths

But did the girlfriend see the video or did she say that her boyfriend saw the video or had the video? I remember her saying something about not watching the video. But I could be wrong.

Either way, I hope LE has this video or something that proves their guilt to the jury. I believe in our justice system and hope that LE didn't screw this up in the early days of her disappearance by barking up the wrong tree. 😞

 

[~n/t~]

EXINGTON, TN (WKRN)--A longtime friend of Jeff Pearcy, one of four men charged in the Holly Bobo case, says she saw a video of the missing nursing student being sexually assaulted by kidnapping and murder suspect Zachary Adams.
Sandra King testified in a Henderson County courtroom Tuesday that Bobo appeared “emotional” in the video. She was also tied up.


http://www.localmemphis.com/news/lo...showed-emotional-holly-bobo-tied-up-assaulted

 

[stephsb]

I don't think it has been PROVEN that Holly was raped (that would be what the trial was for) but the defendants have been charged w. it...probably as a result of the confession, but that is JMO. Hopefully they have evidence they are not revealing in those 200,000 pages that would more definitely point to sexual assault/rape. I don't believe the video was ever found, and IMO probably doesn't exist.

@justwannahelp I don't think your question is stupid and I am a law student. I think it's fair to say a video alone would make the case for all three defendants (assuming they are all on camera) extremely easy for the prosecution, depending on what it depicted. For example, if she's restrained and being sexually assaulted (sorry for the graphic nature but I believe that is what was supposedly on the alleged video) they have a relatively easy case for aggravated kidnapping and rape, and it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury that first degree murder happened as a result of the actions on the video. If Holly's blood and DNA were found in ZA's residence, that makes the case stronger, especially if it was enough blood that she would have been unable to survive the injuries. If any of the defendants DNA was found on Holly's clothing or the bucket, that would be very damning evidence. Personally, I have a hard time believing any of this exists, because if it did we wouldn't be talking about a blonde hair in a closet and a footprint at Holly's house.

The reason I believe there is no smoking gun is not just because of the witness list, but also the delay of taking this to trial. Any prosecutor knows the longer it takes a case to go to trial, the better chance the defense has of prevailing, period. Witnesses move away, change their story, pass away, forget things and evidence can decay or be misplaced. If they had a slam dunk case, and they had the evidence to bring it to trial and convict these three men w.o a question, there isn't much reason why they would want to delay taking this to trial. I understand the argument of making sure their case is strong, and respect that (it should be strong, they only have one chance to do it right) but we are looking at pretty extreme time delays. As for the number of witnesses, I completely understand this is a high profile case, but 600 witnesses? I have never heard of anything so absurd. The Casey Anthony trial is probably one of the most high profile I can think of in recent years, and between both the prosecution and defense, they called less than 100 witnesses, and that is definitely on the higher end as far as trials go.

Obviously everything above is JMO, and like I've said before, I hope I'm wrong. I hope the State is just keeping all their cards close and releasing nothing, but their actions don't bring much comfort. For the sake of Holly's family, I hope this doesn't turn into a circus, and the right people are convicted and brought to justice.

 

[SteveS]

So if this were actually what the prosecutor had, would they even bother going through ALL 200,000 pages and would even bother deposing the 600 witnesses?

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking, but I'll try to answer based on what I think you're wanting to ascertain.

First, I agree with stephsb and appreciate those remarks.

Second, it sounded to me like you were asking if the defense should or would go through all the discovery info provided by the prosecution, examine what has been gathered, and depose all the witnesses that have been gathered, if there was a strong case, and the answer is yes and no.

Yes they really need to go through it all, just to know what they might face at trial. However for the most part in a criminal case they are not going to formally depose potential witnesses as a matter of routine in advance of trial, but they will selectively chase further information where it looks like it might be to their benefit to do so. I'm sure it's possible that some attorney might want to bail on going through a massive amount of discovery material if he found incontrovertible incriminating evidence off the top, but that's not responsible in the event that buried deep in those boxes, in hopes it won't be found, is the dynamite that will blow to pieces a supposed smoking gun.

And I'm kinda skeptical as to the existence of a "smoking gun" and echo what stephsb said: "Personally, I have a hard time believing any ["smoking gun"] exists, because if it did we wouldn't be talking about a blonde hair in a closet and a footprint at Holly's house ...not just because of the witness list, but also the delay of taking this to trial." Not saying that I think these guys are innocent or that the evidence is (or isn't) good, because ya don't know what ya don't know - - but this discovery in the context of the repeated delays has all the feel of throwing a bunch of stuff against the wall and hoping something sticks. Quantity (even 200,000 pages and 600 witnesses) is no substitute for quality, when it comes to evidence, and in fact offering up a ton of weak and semi-irrelevant info can turn off a jury.

As an aside, to me, the "200,000 pages" and "600 witnesses" sounds like something uttered primarily with an intent to impress the community at large. "Look at how well we've done, we've amassed all sorts of stuff trying to figure this out!" It's such overkill and hints of a lack of focus or clarity on what's important to proving these guys did it. And if you're playing to the community at this point in the process, you're really in the wrong game, because this should all be about catching and convicting the bad guys.

 

[Tugela]

If the state had a clear and compelling case the defense would be focusing most of their efforts on mitigating the sentence, not worrying about how much discovery there was.

Delays to hand over discovery and delays to go through all of discovery mean that the case is not compelling IMO, and both sides know it.

It used to be 30,000 pages. How did that balloon to 200,000 pages? Were there 170,000 pages that somehow fell through the cracks before?

 

[Chainsaw385]

Pretty easy to see JA is trying to cut a deal......that being said ZA might not have even claimed Holly was at his house at any time.If ZA has said this the timing of when he revealed this fact would be very important.

It could be the story about Holly hanging out at their house is a clear attempt to explain away evidence that the prosecution has that she was indeed in ZA's house.Next little tidbit might be he was also at her house shortly before the abduction to explain the footprint in the carport. .....UNLESS ....they had told investigators she was at their house from the start.

If ZA went to LE and said she was at his house a couple days before her disappearance or stated this when first questioned by detectives this would make the finding of her hair or other DNA plausible......as someone else stated a large blood stain that they tried to clean up would be problematic.

I would also like to point out the naysayers have often said they only recharged the defendants in an attempt to have them all in one single trial.In an attempt and get testimony allowed that would otherwise be inadmissible ......NOPE....They feel their case is strong enough to stand alone against each suspect.Now the consensus is it a delaying tactic.

One last point someone above posted that in their experience a large volume of discovery indicates a weak case.
100% BALONEY.
The amount of discovery does not point to either guilt or innocence ....only the amount of time and resources spent to try and solve the case

I enjoy reading true murder mystery books and how investigators solve tougher cases.......and they gain pages and pages of discoverable material every day the case goes unsolved....often times they have a solid suspect but they have to keep investigating and probing to get enough evidence for a search warrant and then "bingo" they have the evidence that seals the case.

Granted most of the discovery materials will never be used at trial by either side ....but the fact this case took so long for an arrest and it was high profile.

200K pages sounds about right........the current book I am reading involved one murder that I had never heard about in the news ....took almost 2 years for an arrest after the prime suspect was identified 2 days after the disappearance of the victim.The lead detective had 8 four inch thick binders of evidence he turned over to the DA to prepare the indictment
"MONSTER"....Thomas Luther case

 

[stephsb]

I respectfully disagree on the motion to sever having anything to w. confidence from the State. If they were "confident" why not try all 3 defendants separate? They are only severing DA from from the other two, so he can testify against ZA/JA. If anything, it signals how crucial DA's testimony is to the case against JA/ZA.

Also, just to point out a 4 inch thick binder holds 800pgs- so 6400 pgs. This case is dealing w. 200,000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chainsaw385]

I respectfully disagree on the motion to sever having anything to w. confidence from the State. If they were "confident" why not try all 3 defendants separate? They are only severing DA from from the other two, so he can testify against ZA/JA. If anything, it signals how crucial DA's testimony is to the case against JA/ZA.

Also, just to point out a 4 inch thick binder holds 800pgs- so 6400 pgs. This case is dealing w. 200,000.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Your veering off from everything the people who claim there is no evidence other then testimony from DA has been saying is proof their case is weak.

Above you question why the prosecution would use 600 witness and such a large volume of evidence rather then just their strongest evidence.......It seems you are confusing discovery and exhibits of evidence along with a witness list.

There is not even a trial date set yet ...let alone arguments of what evidence will be submitted nor a witness list presented.

The current delay in the trial is to give the defense a chance to review and investigate the discovery items and plan their defense.The prosecution is not the ones causing the delay.If the defense had said at this hearing they were ready to move forward the judge would have started moving the case forward.

You are right I should have pointed out to a law student that the case I referenced only had one prime suspect(instead of at least 2 other suspects that we know of in the Holly Bobo case),wasn't high profile and the 8 binders were only the reports from the lead detective himself.

The Thomas Luther case is interesting compared with this one though.....they had a CC video of him with the victim right before she disappeared,he was the last one seen with her,her vomit was found in his car,3 people claimed he buried her including Luther's own girlfriend BUT they did not charge him until they found her body.

Since you are a law student can you find me one murder case that went to trial excluding mafia cases....without a body.....only evidence was a lone witness....better yet find me a case that charges were even pressed without a body and only testimony from a single witness

*Again not mob related cases*.......these are just a different breed of cases when organized crime is involved.

 

[stephsb]

Christopher Edwards and Larry Moore are two cases that went to trial and the State (NE and MT, respectively) got convictions w. no body. I'm sure there are more, but you're right, it's rare (gives an easy argument for the defense- they aren't actually dead). I'm not sure how that relates to Holly's case tho because they DO have their body.

The State was being told by the judge to hand over evidence to the defense as early as December 2014, because of repeated complaints from the attorneys of no evidence to charge their clients. They didn't get them until July 2015. This case is being delayed because they knew they had volumes of evidence and a POTENTIAL witness list of 600, and failed to hand it over to the defense in a timely fashion, so now they have an unbelievable amount of evidence to sift through. I understand that the excessive discovery is the reason the trial is being delayed, but time could have been saved if prosecutors had handed over evidence the first time the judge requested they do so.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chainsaw385]

Christopher Edwards and Larry Moore are two cases that went to trial and the State (NE and MT, respectively) got convictions w. no body. I'm sure there are more, but you're right, it's rare (gives an easy argument for the defense- they aren't actually dead). I'm not sure how that relates to Holly's case tho because they DO have their body.

I am well aware there have been convictions on murder charges without the body being found but in the 2 you cited do not fit the parameters that I had set.

Edwards.........key to conviction was blood evidence found in his car
Moore............confessed(later recanted) but multiple pieces of DNA evidence were found in his camper including brain matter from the victim

Maybe I did not make it clear enough I want to see a case that went to trial with no body and only evidence was testimony from one witness.....I would even settle for a case where they pressed charges with such little evidence*.
*Once again non organized crime related cases"

The reason it is relevant is because all suspects were charged and facing trial when they did not have the body of Holly.......the fact it was found was basically luck.

They have way more evidence then just DA .......the very fact that JA did not mention Holly was at ZA's house in his interview with Nick Beres a long time ago.But is now writing letters that state she was at ZA's house a couple days before she disappeared.

This is bad for the defendants........very,very bad.And implies strongly that JA is now aware the prosecution has evidence that places Holly in ZA's home.Weather ZA said this or not and JA just made it up.....the fact he wrote this in a letter looks like a pure act of desperation to me.

 

[Chainsaw385]

I was thinking about it this afternoon, and this is the second person to place HB in a social position with ZA. Perhaps she did know them after all (IIRC, it was mentioned earlier that they were actually distant relatives - second cousins or something like that). That might account for what her friends said about the coon hunt, and provide a possible motive. Consider this, if she did know them, perhaps as a result of being related, when she was at the coon hunt with her friends she may have pretended to not to and ignored them because they were a rough bunch whereas her friends were college students. They would have been deeply offended by that and perceived her as seeing herself as being to good for them. They would have been looking daggers at her, and her friends may have noticed that, but not known why - to the friends it would have seemed that it was just some creepy guy/s who were staring at her. But these are violent guys into criminal behavior, they would have seen that sort of behavior on her part as being very disrespectful, that would have made them angry and inclined to do something about it. So they may have decided to take it up with her later and teach her a lesson. That could account for some of the things the accused were alleged to have said at the time. It could also account for why she was seen going off into the woods without too much resistance - she may have believed that she could calm them down and sort it out, only it didn't work out that way.

So in that scenario we would not need to invoke group stalking or unrequited obsession as a motive, just dented pride involving individuals with poor self control and boundaries.

So they were not out looking for Drew while he was turkey hunting then?...........a while ago you were upset that LE was not looking harder into them taking Holly to get even with Drew.You will still need to explain her blood on the carport floor to convince me that she willingly or with little resistance left that day.

 

[stephsb]

Ok I understand what you are saying now. I still don't understand how that relates to Holly though since they haven't gone to trial yet...and may not. Perhaps one or all of the defendants will take a plea as it gets closer. Since we don't know what is all in the evidence, we won't know until it gets closer if anyone will talk plea. As for getting a grand jury indictment w.o a body and only witness testimony, that's not impossible. Casey Anthony was indicted on first degree murder and aggravated child abuse charges (among others) w. no body and not a single witness willing to say she abused Caylee in anyway.

I do think JA's statements show he is desperate, but I think it has more to do w. the realization that he is facing the death penalty and the State is going forward with it. I do think ZA telling JA that Holly was at his house prior to the murder is pure covering his tracks- holly had no reason to be associating w. people like ZA, and I don't think she did. That doesn't necessarily make JA guilty and doesn't necessarily mean he's lying. ZA could have said Holly was at his house, to explain DNA being there. That hypothetical DNA at ZA's doesn't link JA to the crime,
and finding JA's DNA at ZA's wouldn't be unexplainable since they were friends. Personally, I think they have something linking ZA to this crime other than just DA's testimony- it's JA that I think was linked to this through DA's confession. DA placed JA with ZA and with Holly, while she was kidnapped and raped, and that's why he and he alone is being separated from JA and ZA- they need his statements to link JA to the crime. What would be the purpose of the State severing DA from the other two, when he is facing the same charges for the same crime, if they didn't need his statements? Motions to sever are far more often done by the defense than prosecution


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

One last point someone above posted that in their experience a large volume of discovery indicates a weak case.

You're referring to something I said, but you are misstating or misconstruing my point, because your "quote" was NOT what was said.

My point made was
1 at times some prosecutors try to substitute quantity of "evidence" for quality (and indeed, they do), but junk is junk even if you have a lot of it, and sometimes they will try to disguise their lack of quality by a mass of "stuff" (and sometimes there is both quantity and quality)
2 because of the 1st point, in combination with all the issues the prosecution has had to date in this case since arresting these suspects, it raises question marks that can only be answered when we see the quality of the evidence, rather than simply hear the large number of pages being bragged about

You called my point "100% BALONEY" yet ultimately you agreed with me, since your conclusion was the very same point I made then and later: "The amount of discovery does not point to either guilt or innocence."

Ultimately, there's nothing truly to be gained by trying to pick apart what others here opine on the case. The case will have to speak for itself. I hope it has the goods to be able to bring justice to the ones who did this atrocity, but we won't know what we really have until we get to trial. The number of pages and witnesses means - as you note - they looked a long time and talked to a lot of people, but it doesn't tell us whether they ever found anything truly compelling, or whether they finally caved to community pressure to "do something" and just went for it with a weak case.

 

[stephsb]

Has it ever been shown conclusively that Holly and/or Clint knew who ZA was and would have recognized him? I don't believe for a second that Holly was hanging out w. ZA..not only due to the age gap but the fact that they were from two entirely different walks of life and probably had nothing in common. With that said, Clint is a little closer in age to ZA and this is a rural area...would he have recognized ZA? The reason I ask is that Clint described the person Holly was last w. as 5'10-6' 180-200 lbs. Since the only three people that have been charged w. the kidnapping are ZA, JA, and DA, I would assume they believe one of those three marched Holly into the woods. JA is 6'6 and probably close to 250, and ZA is 6'3. I think we can assume JA was NOT the one Clint saw, but it's possible ZA could have been misidentified...6'3 is an entire foot taller than Holly, but then again, eyewitness identifications are notoriously unreliable. Has it ever been stated who they believe marched Holly into the woods, and what are people's opinions on this?

Also, I definitely agree that Holly did not go willingly w. whoever took her. The blood is pretty conclusive evidence of SOME sort of force or altercation, at least IMO.

 

[Chainsaw385]

And in my experience, quantity of "evidence" does not equal quality, and in fact can hint at a weak case or fuzzy prosecution

Here is your exact quote.
It makes no sense.......nor did I take it out of context

You are trying to claim since they have turned over a lot of discovery items it "hints" at a weak case.......all it hints at is a lot of time and resources trying to solve the case.

The smoking gun you are looking for may have come after they executed the search warrants .......after 3/4 of what they turned over in discovery had already been accumulated......but they still have to turn over everything under the scope of discovery not just the last 1/4 that is particularly damaging to the currents suspects.

 

[pearl]

I think Zach Adams is about to find out what a really good friend Jason Autry is (not).

 

[houndstooth]

I don't think it has been PROVEN that Holly was raped (that would be what the trial was for) but the defendants have been charged w. it...probably as a result of the confession, but that is JMO. Hopefully they have evidence they are not revealing in those 200,000 pages that would more definitely point to sexual assault/rape. I don't believe the video was ever found, and IMO probably doesn't exist.

@justwannahelp I don't think your question is stupid and I am a law student. I think it's fair to say a video alone would make the case for all three defendants (assuming they are all on camera) extremely easy for the prosecution, depending on what it depicted. For example, if she's restrained and being sexually assaulted (sorry for the graphic nature but I believe that is what was supposedly on the alleged video) they have a relatively easy case for aggravated kidnapping and rape, and it wouldn't be hard to convince a jury that first degree murder happened as a result of the actions on the video. If Holly's blood and DNA were found in ZA's residence, that makes the case stronger, especially if it was enough blood that she would have been unable to survive the injuries. If any of the defendants DNA was found on Holly's clothing or the bucket, that would be very damning evidence. Personally, I have a hard time believing any of this exists, because if it did we wouldn't be talking about a blonde hair in a closet and a footprint at Holly's house.

The reason I believe there is no smoking gun is not just because of the witness list, but also the delay of taking this to trial. Any prosecutor knows the longer it takes a case to go to trial, the better chance the defense has of prevailing, period. Witnesses move away, change their story, pass away, forget things and evidence can decay or be misplaced. If they had a slam dunk case, and they had the evidence to bring it to trial and convict these three men w.o a question, there isn't much reason why they would want to delay taking this to trial. I understand the argument of making sure their case is strong, and respect that (it should be strong, they only have one chance to do it right) but we are looking at pretty extreme time delays. As for the number of witnesses, I completely understand this is a high profile case, but 600 witnesses? I have never heard of anything so absurd. The Casey Anthony trial is probably one of the most high profile I can think of in recent years, and between both the prosecution and defense, they called less than 100 witnesses, and that is definitely on the higher end as far as trials go.

Obviously everything above is JMO, and like I've said before, I hope I'm wrong. I hope the State is just keeping all their cards close and releasing nothing, but their actions don't bring much comfort. For the sake of Holly's family, I hope this doesn't turn into a circus, and the right people are convicted and brought to justice.

I am most interested in your thoughts on the request for a Bill of Particulars.
Whether the case numbers changed or not, the pile of evidence used in both the trials is the same, (before it became a DP case and after).
It seems the Prosecution team should have complied with the judges ruling to turn it over in the specified time.
Rather than directly deny the request, I believe the judge merely offhand commented that the sheer amount of discovery he hoped would obviate "the need" for a Bill of Particulars. I would think it would be just the opposite and in the interest of saving time, which the judge professes time and again, that he'd like to move things along. Well, wouldn't this cut to the chase do exactly that?

Thanks.

 

[stephsb]

@houndstooth- I think anytime an attorney fails to comply w. a judge's deadline it reflects very poorly on them, be it the defense or the prosecution. From my understanding, the judge said he wanted a bill of particulars at a hearing in December, detailing why the defendants were charged, in 7 days. He also asked for discovery and for a decision to be made on the death penalty. This was after a hearing where the defense attorneys complained about having no evidence linking the defendants to the crime, as well as criticizing the evidence that had been handed over (Autry's attorney claimed to have received 9000 pages, ZA's said she received 5 terabytes) which the judge called an "evidence dump" March (roughly 3 months later) is when I believe Autry's attorney filed motions because he still had not received a bill of particulars or discovery. Not until 6 months later did they make it a death penalty case. I can't find anything about the judge saying the discovery would eliminate the need for a bill of particulars, but if he did I think that was a poor statement for him to make, and would seem to contradict his earlier criticisms. I can't understand why the State would not only repeatedly deny the judges orders to get the trial moving but wait months to finally comply, if they indeed had what the defense was requesting. JA's attorney asked for dates and times of the offenses he was indicted on, co-conspirators, cause of death, who is believed to have caused death, whether he was a principal actor, and the aggravating circumstances that would make it a death penalty case. Those are not crazy requests. Had they answered this in a timely fashion, it's possible it would have helped move the case forward, but the huge amount of discovery the defense has to go through that should have been handed over when the judge ordered it to is what really is stalling this case, IMO.

I can't understand why the State wouldn't give a bill of particulars or comply w. the judges orders- not only would it make them look better after all the criticism they'd already had, but it would at the very least get the defense attorney's off their back somewhat, because they'd at least understand why their clients were charged. For a defendant to be jailed for months w.o his attorney's having any understanding of why he is charged is completely unacceptable, particularly when they are repeatedly ignoring the judge's requests to start handing it over. It's interesting that they can hand over 9000 pages of documents, but not a simple bill of particulars that actually shows WHY the defendants are being charged the way they are.

 

[Tulessa]

I am well aware there have been convictions on murder charges without the body being found but in the 2 you cited do not fit the parameters that I had set.

Edwards.........key to conviction was blood evidence found in his car
Moore............confessed(later recanted) but multiple pieces of DNA evidence were found in his camper including brain matter from the victim

Maybe I did not make it clear enough I want to see a case that went to trial with no body and only evidence was testimony from one witness.....I would even settle for a case where they pressed charges with such little evidence*.
*Once again non organized crime related cases"

The reason it is relevant is because all suspects were charged and facing trial when they did not have the body of Holly.......the fact it was found was basically luck.

They have way more evidence then just DA .......the very fact that JA did not mention Holly was at ZA's house in his interview with Nick Beres a long time ago.But is now writing letters that state she was at ZA's house a couple days before she disappeared.

This is bad for the defendants........very,very bad.And implies strongly that JA is now aware the prosecution has evidence that places Holly in ZA's home.Weather ZA said this or not and JA just made it up.....the fact he wrote this in a letter looks like a pure act of desperation to me.

An Alva, Okla., jury deliberated two hours in September 2007 before convicting Katherine Rutan in the murder of her 6-year-old son, Logan Tucker. Prosecutors said Rutan killed her son on June 23, 2002, so she could be with her boyfriend. Key evidence included a boyfriend who testified that she told him she wished she could kill her children and get away with it. Rulan's other son, Justin, told the jury that his mother took his brother into the woods and returned without him. She was sentenced to life in prison.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/2008/10/15/notable-murder-convictions-without-body.html