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

[CanManEh]

hello....i use to keep up with this case but stoped.Last i heard though was that there was a arrest but they have not found her body is that still the case or have they found her body now.

 

[pappa rob]

hello....i use to keep up with this case but stoped.Last i heard though was that there was a arrest but they have not found her body is that still the case or have they found her body now.

So far only the head.

 

[~n/t~]

I disagree. I think the jury got it right in the Anthony case, because there was no evidence implicating her in the crime. Just speculation but not a whole lot of fact. Obviously something happened, but exactly what, and (more importantly) WHO was responsible for it was not clear. Maybe it was the mother, but it could equally well have been one of the grandparents who was responsible, and the rest of the family circled the wagons to protect them. Therein lies the problem. You can't just say "It must be Mom, because she isn't very trustworthy and we just don't like her". The consequences of a DP trial are serious, and you can't just guess at what might have happened, you need to be right. That would constitute reasonable doubt on the specific charges she was facing, and an acquittal was the proper thing for a jury to have done. It is NOT ok to say "well someone did it and maybe it was her, so lets just say it was her so we can be done with it".

There was a ton of circumstantial evidence in the Anthony case. Sadly, the prosecutors failed to connect the dots. I'm hoping that won't happen with this case. There is evidence (no question in my mind) but they have to put a compelling case against the 3 suspects.

Happy Thanksgiving Everyone! Have a safe and blessed day with your loved ones! Thoughts and prayers going out to Holly's family.

 

[SteveS]

Sadly, the prosecutors failed to connect the dots. I'm hoping that won't happen with this case. There is evidence (no question in my mind) but they have to put a compelling case against the 3 suspects.

Prosecutors can certainly make or break a case, especially high profile ones, which is why I've been so critical of the Stowe's actions in this case and wondering if they have compelling evidence at all. (Smoking guns tend to get mentioned and bragged about to the media, when they exist, and we've been offered nothing of the sort in this case). Hopefully the ones who did this to Holly will get justice.

When I think of high-profile cases that were bungled at trial, the first one I think of is OJ Simpson. Those prosecutors had a compelling set of evidence and yet their ineptitude trumped the compelling evidence. It was the right verdict - there's no way a jury could take what they heard at trial and convict - but it was a failure to get justice. (And it was a sort of poetic justice to see OJ end up locked away for years on a relatively minor charge in Las Vegas ...a case that stemmed from his mistaken belief that he was bulletproof legally and could do pretty much as he pleased after his earlier acquittal, that stemmed from his narcissistic zeal to try to keep the civil judgment from being enforced whatever it took, and that had a sharp prosecution team. He was stunned to find out that justice is possible, even on him, and now he rots in prison.)

 

[justwannahelp]

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.

Thank you for your reply. I think I was hanging my hope on the delays being attributed to their being "responsible in going through sooooo much discovery" but it sounds like my hope is Just wishful thinking. 😔

Now I'll just hope they can piece something convincing together.

 

[justwannahelp]

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.

Yes that's what I was asking. I was hoping the delay was their going through everything even though they had the smoking gun. But I agree now that the smoking gun is highly unlikely. 😔

 

[~n/t~]

Prosecutors can certainly make or break a case, especially high profile ones, which is why I've been so critical of the Stowe's actions in this case and wondering if they have compelling evidence at all. (Smoking guns tend to get mentioned and bragged about to the media, when they exist, and we've been offered nothing of the sort in this case). Hopefully the ones who did this to Holly will get justice.

When I think of high-profile cases that were bungled at trial, the first one I think of is OJ Simpson. Those prosecutors had a compelling set of evidence and yet their ineptitude trumped the compelling evidence. It was the right verdict - there's no way a jury could take what they heard at trial and convict - but it was a failure to get justice. (And it was a sort of poetic justice to see OJ end up locked away for years on a relatively minor charge in Las Vegas ...a case that stemmed from his mistaken belief that he was bulletproof legally and could do pretty much as he pleased after his earlier acquittal, that stemmed from his narcissistic zeal to try to keep the civil judgment from being enforced whatever it took, and that had a sharp prosecution team. He was stunned to find out that justice is possible, even on him, and now he rots in prison.)

Stowe is out so, in my opinion, we shouldn't be focusing on his theatrics. What's important is whether or not TBI gathered enough compelling evidence for the prosecutors to try these 3 and get a conviction and hopefully the DP. I don't know if there is a smoking gun (I hope there is) but is it required? I don't know. I believe they need to connect the dots for this jury. Put ZA at the scene of the crime (hoping they have his DNA taken at the Bobo property). We assume Holly was at his residence. There was no reason for her to be there. Possible witnesses. Perhaps not all 600 but some knew about the crime. And probably much more evidence......

We keep looking at the 'failed' trials. Perhaps we should look at some of the ones that were victorious and the victim and their families got justice. IE Scott Peterson, Drew Petersen and others.

 

[jggordo]

IIRC the statements that were made by Stowe was to the effect (paraphrasing) of the fact that the suspects in this case were always one step ahead of the TBI. Which to me agrees with what so many of us here at WS have said all along, that this case could have and should have been solved a long time before it was and has been. It was these statements that infuriated the director and others. And it was the TBI who said they would pull out of the case and the county's that Stowe is over, after releasing the statements to the media. In no way did Stowe say the evidence is not there to prosecute the case. But it was more than obvious the Stowe and the director could not play in the "same sandbox" because of the conflict. To protect the case Stowe assigned the prosecution to another DA from another County.

The voters of not only Decatur County but the others as well showed at the polls to vote out the previous DA and to elect Stowe. The voters were not happy with the job the previous DA had been doing for a long time, ? years.
On the other hand the Director of TBI is an appointed position by the Governor. There is nothing both the voters
or Stowe can do about it.

JMO's

Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters in Nashville on Thursday that his administration had been involved in discussions to resolve the dispute between the TBI and the local prosecutor, and that "it's in everybody's interest to get that worked out."

"Obviously the DA's independently elected and the TBI is an agency of ours that we feel like has been real effective, and they should continue to do that," Haslam said, according to the Associated Press.


ETA link: http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new.../matt-stowe-removes-holly-bobo-case/20624805/

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Woah, no need for the condescending attitude.
Everybody's opinion here is valid. There is no need to try to sway anyone's overtly. If you read something you agree with great. Expound on it. If you disagree, that's fine, too. Feel free to show where you disagree based on whatever facts you used to arrive at said opinion.

But, what I feel is rude, and unproductive is to grill another poster because their opinion is different than yours. Or try to play gotcha.
It serves no purpose. It isn't going to change anyone's mind. Only facts as they emerge in the case will do that.
I hope this response was satisfactory to you. If you had not specifically asked me to respond, I would have scrolled and rolled your post, for the sake of avoiding further unnecessary drama.

I wasn't being condescending in the least.

I really wanted to understand your position about why you were offended.

That's all.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Prosecutors can certainly make or break a case, especially high profile ones, which is why I've been so critical of the Stowe's actions in this case and wondering if they have compelling evidence at all. (Smoking guns tend to get mentioned and bragged about to the media, when they exist, and we've been offered nothing of the sort in this case). Hopefully the ones who did this to Holly will get justice.

When I think of high-profile cases that were bungled at trial, the first one I think of is OJ Simpson. Those prosecutors had a compelling set of evidence and yet their ineptitude trumped the compelling evidence. It was the right verdict - there's no way a jury could take what they heard at trial and convict - but it was a failure to get justice. (And it was a sort of poetic justice to see OJ end up locked away for years on a relatively minor charge in Las Vegas ...a case that stemmed from his mistaken belief that he was bulletproof legally and could do pretty much as he pleased after his earlier acquittal, that stemmed from his narcissistic zeal to try to keep the civil judgment from being enforced whatever it took, and that had a sharp prosecution team. He was stunned to find out that justice is possible, even on him, and now he rots in prison.)

I really don't think Stowe was ever the problem. His problem was he dared to criticize the TBI. I think he saw the evidence and knew they should have arrested these three long before they did.

Many whistleblowers wind up taking the fall and that's why he was out.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

I really don't think Stowe was ever the problem. His problem was he dared to criticize the TBI. I think he saw the evidence and knew they should have arrested these three long before they did.

Many whistleblowers wind up taking the fall and that's why he was out.

Nah it was 100% on Stowe imo and his failure to do his own job - he was lazy and/or incompetent and trying to blame others for his own failures, not some sort of valiant "whistleblower" - THAT's why he QUIT the case. His drama statements preceding his quitting were completely unsupported and designed to excuse his own lack of performance, and the timing (when the court was about to censure him and perhaps blow up the case too) was not a coincidence. Stowe himself was CLEARLY the problem. The entire investigation was done and the suspects were arrested BEFORE he was ever elected, he campaigned on the promise that he would do a better job on the Bobo case, and then he essentially did nothing when it was time to cross the t's and dot the i's needed to get a case to trial, missing deadlines and jeopardizing the case, and instead he went into a little drama act to get himself off the case.

The Bobo family - who knows way more than anyone outside LE of how this is proceeding, and who certainly would support Stowe if he had been doing the right thing and then taking the fall - has had nothing good to say about Stowe and his performance on Holly's case.

 

[jggordo]

Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters in Nashville on Thursday that his administration had been involved in discussions to resolve the dispute between the TBI and the local prosecutor, and that "it's in everybody's interest to get that worked out."

"Obviously the DA's independently elected and the TBI is an agency of ours that we feel like has been real effective, and they should continue to do that," Haslam said, according to the Associated Press.

It seems obvious to me that not only the Governor but also his "administration" was involved in the decision made as according to TBI Director Gwyn himself as a "compromise". To me that is not QUITTING, it is the reality of an uphill battle with everyone from the Governor's administration and down to the prosecutorial witnesses from the TBI. That is a selfless compromise to continue to get Justice for Holly Bobo and her family IMO.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

Gov. Bill Haslam told reporters in Nashville on Thursday that his administration had been involved in discussions to resolve the dispute between the TBI and the local prosecutor, and that "it's in everybody's interest to get that worked out."

"Obviously the DA's independently elected and the TBI is an agency of ours that we feel like has been real effective, and they should continue to do that," Haslam said, according to the Associated Press.

It seems obvious to me that not only the Governor but also his "administration" was involved in the decision made as according to TBI Director Gwyn himself as a "compromise". To me that is not QUITTING, it is the reality of an uphill battle with everyone from the Governor's administration and down to the prosecutorial witnesses from the TBI. That is a selfless compromise to continue to get Justice for Holly Bobo and her family IMO.

JMO's

Yeah, I really don't see it as Stowe being some sort of white knight who was abused and misunderstood, regardless of how the governor spun things last December. The state certainly had good reason to paint things in positive terms to try to make everyone look good, but Stowe was the one who was missing deadlines, grandstanding by firing the TBI, and playing the drama queen, before he quit the case.

http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new.../matt-stowe-removes-holly-bobo-case/20624805/
Matt Stowe removes himself from Holly Bobo case
The Tennessee Bureau of Investigation resumed its services in the 24th Judicial District on Thursday when District Attorney General Matt Stowe requested a special prosecutor to handle the Holly Bobo case, effectively taking himself off the case.

 

[shefner]

I hate to say that I don't care about any of the characters and personalities on Holly's case, but I don't care about any of the characters and personalities on this case.

Grow up. Take responsibility for your mistakes (and there have been plenty on all sides). Push forward in spite of obstacles. Fight this case like Holly was your own child. Let's get this done.

 

[jggordo]

I found an interesting article that IMO may explain the behind the scenes drama regarding the characters held responsible for prosecuting this case.

http://ballotpedia.org/Tennessee_Attorney_General_Elections_Amendment_(2014)

Governor=Elected
State Supreme Court Judges=Appointed By Governor
State Attorney General=Appointed By State Supreme Court Judges
TBI=Appointed By Governor

State District Attorney General=Elected By Citizens Within District

'Sen. Dewayne Bunch argued that while the current practice of having the state supreme court take responsibility for hiring the attorney general made sense when justices were elected, it no longer applied. Since supreme court justices are appointed by the governor, argued Bunch, there is a lack of accountability for the attorney general. "The citizens now have no accountability for the Supreme Court, and thus there is no accountability for the attorney general," said Bunch.[1]'

Seems to me that Stowe got the short straw in the "compromise". I believe TN is the only state with this setup. In the article it explains the procedure required to get a change on the ballot.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

Stowe quit on the job he campaigned for and was elected to do. That was preceded by him NOT fulfilling his responsibilities to the court, and by him demolishing his relationship with the TBI, whose help he needs. Other DAs around the state do their jobs, and don't need a change in the TN constitution to get the job done. There was one common denominator in all the issues, and that was Stowe and his inability (simply laziness, imo, since a "Harvard Grad!" shouldn't be incompetent) to do the job.

 

[Ibiz]

I've tried to gather some info about this case, and after reading many articles on different fast food media sites, I keep seeing the same reprinted run of the mill articles.

Can anyone tell me if it's known whether or not Holly Bobo ever knew or had contact with any of the suspects prior to her abduction?

 

[SteveS]

I've tried to gather some info about this case, and after reading many articles on different fast food media sites, I keep seeing the same reprinted run of the mill articles.

Can anyone tell me if it's known whether or not Holly Bobo ever knew or had contact with any of the suspects prior to her abduction?

As to who she might have known, at a minimum ...
1 one was acquainted with her via school (same school, it's a small town, her mom was a teacher), and
2 another was distantly related to her.
But simply by small town setting, it's possible she had at least some knowledge of all of them.

Regarding any possible contact with any of them in the days and weeks prior to her kidnapping, some has been theorized or assumed or speculated about but AFAIK none is actually provably known to have occurred.

 

[stephsb]

A few posts above a user mentioned whether or not the prosecution actually needs a "smoking gun" and said they thought all they had to do was connect the dots for the jury. I agree that is the best strategy if they end up not having a smoking gun- they certainly don't need one, there have been plenty of cases dealing w. circumstantial evidence only that HAVE been successfully tried. The problem becomes when you are relying simply on circumstantial evidence, or weak physical evidence (like hair strands or footprints of a common shoe) it not only becomes essential that you connect the dots to the jury, but it also allows the defense the opportunity to connect their own dots for the jury, and all the defense has to do is put reasonable doubt in the mind of one juror. What I mean is, if they had, for example, articles of clothing from JA or ZA that had Holly's blood on it, that's pretty damning. If they found a weapon of some sort or Holly's blood at ZA's house, then that is pretty damning for ZA (not necessarily JA). If the bucket that Holly's skull was found in had ZA or JA's DNA on it, that at least connects them to the dumping of her body. Do I think the a prosecutor could get a conviction w.o evidence of this nature? Absolutely, but it makes their job that much harder. We've already seen JA outline a potential defense ZA has if a hair of Holly's is found at his house- she was their by choice. I'm not saying that is for sure the route his defense will go (mainly because I have no idea what evidence was found at his house) and I also find it will be a tough sell to a jury (unless someone can come forward and say Holly had a reason to be at ZA's) but my point is arguing away fingerprints or hair strands is possible- arguing away blood is A LOT more difficult.

There are two main reasons I doubt they have evidence of the nature I mentioned above: if they did, there would be no need to sever the defendants (something that almost always helps the defense) and there would have been no need to collect the amount of discovery they did OR delay handing it over to the defense. If you have Holly's blood at ZA's residence, especially if it is in significant quantities, then what is the point of not giving that to the defense? You want them to know how strong your case is, so you don't have to waste the time and money taking this to trial, and you can show the public what a great job you are doing of keeping them safe and getting justice for Holly.

I have said in earlier posts I think the motion to sever DA from ZA/JA is telling. I've seen users argue that they are severing the trial because they are confident in their evidence, which IMO is ridiculous from a legal standpoint, especially since if confidence was the reasoning, why not sever all three? My guess is that they are severing DA because his confession is crucial to getting a conviction of JA, at the very least. AFAIK, there has been NOTHING released that connects JA to Holly's kidnapping, rape, and murder, w. the exception of DA's testimony. Much has been made of JA's long criminal history and friendship w. ZA, both of which are true, neither of which make him guilty of Holly's murder. Granted, the prosecution could have something connecting JA that we don't know of- but if they did, there would be (IMO) no reason to sever DA from the other two, or to use his confession at all. He's already hinted it was coerced after being held w.o sleep, his family has already mentioned his lower intelligence, JA has provided three motives for why he'd give a false confession- he was in prison at the time, he had a horrible relationship w. ZA, and he had a diminished mental capacity, AND he's a convicted felon who's served time in prison and was also charged w. the same crimes as the people he's testifying against. I'm sure at some point his IQ will be tested and we'll see for sure just how competent he is, but all of those reasons above are great points for JA's and ZA's attorney's to bring up during cross examination if the State is dumb enough to use his confession in the trial against JA/ZA, which I imagine they are at least planning on doing at this point, since they are going through the trouble of severing him from JA/ZA. Placing JA at ZA's house isn't going to be enough- they were friends, there is no reason for JA's DNA/fingerprints at ZA's to be suspicious. JA doesn't fit the description of Holly's kidnapper (he's 6'6-6'7), and because only the skull has been found, they probably don't have a semen sample that they could match to JA to prove he at least raped her. What they do have is DA's confession, which raises countless credibility issues, but I'm guessing they are hoping that is enough, at least for the time being.

I do hope that they looked into cell phone records/locations of the defendants at the time of Holly's kidnapping, as well as communication between them in the hours/days/weeks after she went missing. More and more, these are being used to get successful convictions and verify alibis. Would be interesting to know what, if anything, they found there.

 

[stephsb]

One last thing about DA's confession and potential problems using it creates- since DA's confession appeared to implicate only his brother and I'm assuming JA, not himself, the prosecution has already shown they don't believe he was telling the truth (at least not the whole truth), since he has been charged along w. JA and ZA. The confession becomes hard for the State to use, since the defense is given a simple argument- DA is a liar, believe nothing he says. You can't pick and choose- either DA is credible, or he isn't. As I've said, he has serious credibility issues, so hopefully the State has something good to corroborate or explain his inconsistent statements if they plan to actually use him.