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

[Chainsaw385]

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.

IF DA happened to say Holly was killed in a certain way (shot twice in back of head with a .22) for example and they were able to confirm that after her remains were found over a year later.It gives anything he said a whole bunch more validity........DA was never charged with murder until after her remains were found which a number of people on here said DA was only charged with Murder 1 so they could have all 3 on trial at once because they had no evidence.Now we have the prosecution trying to sever DA from ZA/JA blowing that theory out of the water.

IF JA is just making up the Holly at ZA's house he may have just sealed his doom.People will remember being with Holly just a couple days before her abduction making it easily possible to disprove that she was not at ZA's house when he claims she was........I don't think she was ever willingly at ZA's house and this shows how stupid JA really is because if he had said a month before her abduction it would be much harder to disprove where she was on a certain date/time.

Since they have released they have pings from Holly's phone and 5(?) phone calls between SA and ZA the day she was abducted.......I would say they did their homework on the phone records.

 

[pearl]

I think the prosecution wants to sever DA's case from the other two defendants so that he can receive a lesser sentence, life without parole instead of death penalty, in exchange for his testimony against JA and ZA.

 

[stephsb]

Agreed that if there is evidence to corroborate DA's confession, it gets a whole lot more credibility. Like I said above, if they are severing the case so they can use DA's confession and/or testimony against JA or ZA, they better have evidence to corroborate his testimony/confession or it's risky. Not only are there all of the credibility issues w. DA that I listed above, if they are doing it to offer him a deal, that has to be disclosed to the jury, and I'm sure the defense will use that to give even more reason for why DA would say what he did. Does that mean that the prosecution would be unable to get a conviction w. his testimony? Definitely not, but it all depends on how they play their cards. If they are going to rely on DA's testimony, they have to be prepared for the defense to tear him apart on cross, and they have to make him as credible, believable, and remorseful as possible. A great example of a circumstantial case that was successfully tried (brilliantly, IMO) w. the prosecution relying heavily on the testimony of a witness to the murders was the Manson trial and the testimony of Linda Kasabian. Kasabian came off as remorseful, honest, and she didn't have a prior record, and they did disclose she was receiving immunity in exchange for her testimony. If they want to use DA as a credible a witness, they'll have to take the same strategy (although they'll have to disclose his prior convictions). They also better hope his testimony on the stand (if they intend to use him on the stand) is consistent w. his confession, or the defense will attack his credibility on that as well. My problem w. your thoughts on DA's confession (that there was something they found w. her body that led to him being arrested, since he was arrested after) is that if some info he gave was corroborated by the evidence found w. her skull, why would he first be arrested then and not immediately. Something led them to believe his testimony regarding ZA and JA, but not arrest him until much later. I'm assuming he didn't confess to killing Holly or he would have been arrested immediately, so if his confession was corroborated when her skull was found, wouldn't that just make the case against ZA stronger and DA look more credible, not result in his arrest for first degree murder and rape? This is JMO, but I believe a lot of why DA was charged involves the prosecution probably being frustrated w. him either trying to recant his testimony or changing his story, or refusing to cooperate.

As for JA's statements against ZA, I don't think they hurt him at all. Anything JA says can and should be taken w. a grain of salt, but all he says is ZA told him Holly was there a couple days prior to the murder. He doesn't say he saw her there, he doesn't say when ZA told him this, he just says ZA told him that. If it turns out to be false, he can just use the statement to show ZA is a liar. I think that statement is a draw for JA, probably won't help him (unless someone corroborates that ZA told him that) but won't hurt him because he'll just say ZA lied to him, and neither he nor JA can be seen as very credible.

Thanks for the info on the pings, although in a town that small, I don't know helpful they can necessarily be (probably aren't a lot of cell towers). The phone calls between SA and ZA are interesting, but maybe that was the norm for them (something I'm sure prosecution has looked into). Also, SA isn't on trial...JA is. They've got to somehow link him back to this crime, and IMO, they're going to do it w. DA's testimony or confession.

 

[shefner]

Oceanblueeyes and I have a difference of opinion, albeit a respectful one, concerning the motive in this crime. She believes that it was sexual in nature. I believe it is primarily something else and any sexual crime committed was one of violent opportunity. I don't think we truly know why ZA was after Holly. There has been much rumored...such as she was an informant and was somehow, through the grapevine, privy to knowledge concerning ZA. Perhaps drug related?
I don't believe Holly was involved with ZA at all...not personally. But we do know that Holly had lots of family in the Darden area and not all of those family members are clean and upstanding citizens. So I wouldn't be surprised to find that Holly had learned something important and told it.
I really can't put my finger on it...but from the start I felt this crime was planned out and was one full of anger and rage, not only due to meth, but also due to something else that we know nothing about. I think that little tidbit put a kink in the case from the start and it kept the authorities from being able to be up front about this crime to the public.
Maybe I'm crazy. But....will we ever know the motive? Its such an important part to prosecuting any crime.

 

[stephsb]

@shefner I was going to ask why you believe the three defendants were charged w. rape if motive wasn't sexual, but I read closer and realized you said you believed that if there was a sex crime committed, it was one of violent opportunity, not the primary motive. I agree that motive is important to the case, but not crucial. Juries want a motive, but the prosecution has no obligation to prove one. I certainly hope they have figured out a motive by this point, because if they fail to provide one, it gives the defense the opportunity to try and show their case is weak- "They can't even give you a reason why they did this, they don't even know why this crime was committed, etc"

I have trouble deciding a motive in this case because I'm not sold on who all committed this crime and at what level they were involved. I tend to think ZA was the primary offender, and possibly the only initial offender, but that's just my gut feeling. Personally, I think JA knew/suspected ZA, and was possibly involved after the fact but wasn't involved in the kidnapping/rape/murder. I have no idea where DA fits in. If they are going to go w. the meth rage angle, they've got to show some strong connection to Holly that would fuel their rage, or at least SOMETHING that would lead them to kidnap/murder her. She was definitely targeted. These guys had been using/manufacturing meth for years, w. no history of kidnapping, rape, or murder, or any sort of sexual misconduct. ZA has a history of violent felonies, and so does JA to a lesser extent (not sure about DA) but most of their criminal behavior is drug or robbery related. So why Holly? What could Holly have done that would make them mad enough to kill her? I don't think talking about drugs or something of that nature would be enough. These guys weren't exactly criminal masterminds when it comes to staying out of prison...so how did they manage to pull this off for as long as they did? Meth addicts aren't known for great planning or carrying out any sort of task. They are irrational and impulsive. To be honest, the only thing drug addicts want to do for the most part is drugs, and that is their primary concern.

With the information we've been given, my best guess is that whatever motive there was, it starts w. ZA. I tend to think it was sexually motivated, at least until some personal connection to Holly can be established.

 

[Chainsaw385]

As for JA's statements against ZA, I don't think they hurt him at all. Anything JA says can and should be taken w. a grain of salt, but all he says is ZA told him Holly was there a couple days prior to the murder. He doesn't say he saw her there, he doesn't say when ZA told him this, he just says ZA told him that. If it turns out to be false, he can just use the statement to show ZA is a liar. I think that statement is a draw for JA, probably won't help him (unless someone corroborates that ZA told him that) but won't hurt him because he'll just say ZA lied to him, and neither he nor JA can be seen as very credible.

Thanks for the info on the pings, although in a town that small, I don't know helpful they can necessarily be (probably aren't a lot of cell towers). The phone calls between SA and ZA are interesting, but maybe that was the norm for them (something I'm sure prosecution has looked into). Also, SA isn't on trial...JA is. They've got to somehow link him back to this crime, and IMO, they're going to do it w. DA's testimony or confession.

I agree that everything JA says could be nothing more then a lie to try and protect himself.But there are some things that I find odd about this latest attempt at JA professing his innocence.

1)....JA did a video interview with the same reporter a long time ago that he recently sent a letter......her ever being at ZA's house during that interview was not brought up.This is something very important if true but it didn't seem important for him to release UNTIL AFTER he got to see the discovery and the evidence against him.If this letter is the first time JA ever claimed she was at ZA's house it is pretty easy to see it is an attempt to base his defense that any evidence found at ZA's house was left there before her abduction ever happened.The prosecution will have to prove she wasn't there when he says she was and shouldn't be too hard for any witness to remember if they were with Holly just a couple days before her abduction.

2).....why wasn't the whole letter exactly as he wrote it printed.If it was could someone post it up for me to read.All I have seen/heard is snippets from this letter.It is possible we have already seen the most damaging parts but it is also possible there could be more to it that is even more damaging that we have not seen yet.
I understand the reporter would want to run this story in full but he may have been offered a bigger scoop LATER to refrain disclosing crucial evidence NOW......this happens sometimes with LE and the media.

3)....the reason I think there is more because he says his wife may have said something that she will have to testify to........What is it?......Does this reporter already know what he is talking about or is JA's letter rambling and not very informative.Without seeing the whole thing or if there were more letters all we can do is guess.

Holly's phone also had GPS.If I remember correctly they started in the direction of ZA's home then looped around and came back towards her home before it went dead.......And I think her phone was found somewhere in this vicinity but on a different road.To be honest I am not 100% certain about what I just wrote about regarding Holly's phone and only going from memory.I may be off a bit on this information....but it could be accurate and if I am off it is only a little bit.

Her phone was about 1/4 mile from her home 2 hours after her abduction.......There was/is hope that the suspect vehicle may have been caught on dash cam by one the many responding and searching LE vehicles in that area.Was the phone still with her 2 hours later or was she being held at another location and a different suspect had her phone and trying to throw off LE after they discovered her phone during one of their stops shortly after her abduction and wanted to cover their tracks?

Her phone showed a couple stops (5 min and 20 min) during this trip......easily time for Holly to be separated from her phone and her going one way and the phone another.***** again I am going by memory will need to research further to confirm*****
But hopefully these phone questions will be answered at trial.

I do not think SA phone calls to ZA will have much affect on the trial without some other type of compelling evidence linking them with the crime but since they released they knew about them we can be pretty sure they looked at all the phone records while investigating and that was all I was trying to point out since you asked.

 

[~n/t~]

I haven't seen the entire letter printed anywhere but I believe the most pertinent information was published. IMO, I doubt this letter (s) will even be evidence in the case. His wife will have to testify if what he says is true about her being interviewed by TBI.

[video=youtube;0u_LH0f31q4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u_LH0f31q4[/video]

 

[shefner]

At this point in the case, its going to be challenging to separate what is fact from what is fiction, especially related to cell phone pings. We have had lots of rumor and misinformation about the pings. This came from the group who came in and did a "documentary" style report, which was shown on the news. Later, much of what they shared was either flatly refuted or at least brought into question by the authorities.
LE stated that the group's work and the subsequent video documentary was hurtful to Holly's case and was not based on what is truly known. And let's face it, this is what happens when LE gives out so little information and then years pass before we have suspects. Pure craziness, in my estimation, that these hoodlums were not on the radar very early on. Trust me, if LE wants to investigate someone...or get a search warrant, they will work to find a way. With all the trouble ZA had in his past, including his threats to gut people, etc., then LE should have had no problems getting into ZA's home for a search. He was heavily involved in thieving and drugs, that is a fact. And his name was one of the very first mentioned by locals. Most of us knew about the A-train long before the arrests came down.

LE has given us so little since day one.
*We have never heard the 9-11 calls
*We know very little about the sequence of the calls
*LE has never released a detailed timeline of events
*We don't know what Holly's activities were in the days leading up to the abduction
*We don't know Holly's ties, if any, to the accused (although we do know this was a small community and they probably had some loose knowledge of each other because Holly's family is distantly related to ZA)
*We do not know the exact items that were found in the woods
*We do not know how the authorities think Holly was transported ...we have heard maybe by 4-wheeler, by vehicle, by foot through the woods to an awaiting truck.
*We don't know what caused the searches to abruptly end at Easter
*We don't know what happened on Easter Sunday that led to comments that some significant clue had turned the case

Let's face it...we could go on and on as to what we don't know. And the lack of information shared with the public really hurt this case. That, coupled with the lack of skill and training of LE concerning how to handle abductions. Because that first hour was a mess. The 911 calls went to different centers and neighbors came pouring out and compromising the crime scene. There were no roadblocks around the perimeters. That's right...no roadblocks were set up around the area immediately following the 911 calls. That one thing could have helped this case so much. Because these were local guys...and immediate roadblocks would have had a chance of stopping their vehicles.

There is so much that we don't know that I have forgotten what we DO know. The frustration over Holly's case has been in place for me from the first days of her disappearance. Just look at the first headlines and reports we had: Home Invasion Leads to Disappearance.
Home Invasion? Where did reporters get that? It took a couple days for us to realize that this wasn't a home invasion at all. I mean, the members here posted for weeks on whether Holly was taken from a carport attached to the house..or a garage to the back of the house...or whether the garage was in fact closed in and made into a part of the house and she was taken from that area and perhaps that's why it was called a "home invasion." I hate to think of the hours we spent gnawing away at our thoughts....

So I can't even begin to discuss cell phone pings unless we have some links to show us where this information is coming from...because the truth of what we know is buried deep, my friends. LE has kept it that way. And it has undoubtedly hurt Holly's case and our search for justice.

 

[Hatfield]

Oceanblueeyes and I have a difference of opinion, albeit a respectful one, concerning the motive in this crime. She believes that it was sexual in nature. I believe it is primarily something else and any sexual crime committed was one of violent opportunity. I don't think we truly know why ZA was after Holly. There has been much rumored...such as she was an informant and was somehow, through the grapevine, privy to knowledge concerning ZA. Perhaps drug related?
I don't believe Holly was involved with ZA at all...not personally. But we do know that Holly had lots of family in the Darden area and not all of those family members are clean and upstanding citizens. So I wouldn't be surprised to find that Holly had learned something important and told it.
I really can't put my finger on it...but from the start I felt this crime was planned out and was one full of anger and rage, not only due to meth, but also due to something else that we know nothing about. I think that little tidbit put a kink in the case from the start and it kept the authorities from being able to be up front about this crime to the public.
Maybe I'm crazy. But....will we ever know the motive? Its such an important part to prosecuting any crime.

All JMO
I agree with you and have thought this from the very beginning. IMO there has to be something more that we just don't know about yet.

Like Stephsb has indicated these criminals were involved with meth and other crimes for a very long time and had never pulled off something so dramatic like a kidnapping/murder. It seems to me that something must have precipitated this and we just don't know what it was quite yet.

One of my very early theories involved the actual target being the other person at the house and when they couldn't get him to come out then they grabbed Holly instead to try to force the person to come out.

Other theories I have entertained was they may have tried to use Holly for bait to force some other person to do something. Whether it was money owed OR to prevent someone from testifying against them OR something along those lines.

If I have the right case and remember correctly, early on, there were rumors of an informant list that had recently become available and may have been sold. If those rumors were true, then there is no telling whose names may have appeared and other possible motives open up like using Holly to get revenge on someone OR to get someone to stop cooperating with LE.
The perps were even involved with a Pearl Theft ring and so the motive could be tied to that in some way.

The bottom line for me is I think there is some motive that we just don't know yet. If it involves informants in any way then we may never know the full truth. I think the sexual assault of Holly was these animals just using her while they had her anyway. And I tend to think the murder was when they realized they were in way too deep and they thought they could prevent getting arrested for her abduction by making her disappear.

Whatever it was their motives, it was a stupid plan from the very beginning. I don't think they thought things through and I think the crime escalated as they realized their mistakes.

 

[~n/t~]

Shefner, if I'm not mistaken Autry is the distant cousin. Also, I don't know why you think not releasing information to the public hampers the case. Maybe it's best to keep it for trial. We've seen cases where too much was revealed on shows like Nancy Grace, etc.

As much as I would love to know the answers to all the questions you posted, if it means revealing the info would jeopardize the trial, I'll wait. We all want a fair trial and JUSTICE for HOLLY

 

[Chainsaw385]

I haven't seen the entire letter printed anywhere but I believe the most pertinent information was published. IMO, I doubt this letter (s) will even be evidence in the case. His wife will have to testify if what he says is true about her being interviewed by TBI.

[video=youtube;0u_LH0f31q4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0u_LH0f31q4[/video]

This video has him saying that Holly was at ZA's house during a TBI interview.........this is much different then claiming this in a letter to the media and in turn negates my whole thoughts on this subject compared to when I thought it was a new reveal.

But it does say he sent "letters".......and also the one page they showed is X of 3.

I am still on the fence about how much and what kind of info those letters might contain until I see them in full........but I do now have more weight leaning over to useless drivel side.

 

[shefner]

Shefner, if I'm not mistaken Autry is the distant cousin. Also, I don't know why you think not releasing information to the public hampers the case. Maybe it's best to keep it for trial. We've seen cases where too much was revealed on shows like Nancy Grace, etc.

As much as I would love to know the answers to all the questions you posted, if it means revealing the info would jeopardize the trial, I'll wait. We all want a fair trial and JUSTICE for HOLLY

I will simply say that it is important to release information. I have been here since 2008 and seen so many cases stall due to the lack of it. You think more information would jeopardize this case? Not hardly. It took years to make an arrest. Who knows what other things have ruined the case since then...

One of the best and most memorable cases I have followed here was that of Jessica Ridgeway. LE gave so much information to the public about the death of this little girl...I had never seen LE do that with such forthright ease. Instead of holding back, they spilled almost all they had...and the community responded with vigilance.
At the scene of the body, LE found a small wooden cross. They decided to release a photo of it. The mother of the perpetrator saw it on the news and realized it was from a necklace belonging to her son. She immediately called her own son into the authorities.

Yes, a fair trial and justice is what we all want. I have followed this case since the first day...and pray I'm here to see it completed with convictions for the guilty.

 

[shefner]

Shefner, if I'm not mistaken Autry is the distant cousin. Also, I don't know why you think not releasing information to the public hampers the case. Maybe it's best to keep it for trial. We've seen cases where too much was revealed on shows like Nancy Grace, etc.

As much as I would love to know the answers to all the questions you posted, if it means revealing the info would jeopardize the trial, I'll wait. We all want a fair trial and JUSTICE for HOLLY

Oh yes, perhaps I have misspoken about ZA's relationship to the Bobo's. I believe it was said that Karen had taught Zach in elementary school but it has never been verified officially. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[shefner]

This video has him saying that Holly was at ZA's house during a TBI interview.........this is much different then claiming this in a letter to the media and in turn negates my whole thoughts on this subject compared to when I thought it was a new reveal.

But it does say he sent "letters".......and also the one page they showed is X of 3.

I am still on the fence about how much and what kind of info those letters might contain until I see them in full........but I do now have more weight leaning over to useless drivel side.

So Autry's wife possibly implicated his guilt in a statement to TBI..and then later, she tried to take it back. Mmm...
Who knows what she said but I would think the first statement would be more accurate than subsequent ones.

One thing that caught me off guard: Autry is strong and sounds clear-headed. His body language seems to be in line with his words. Is he innocent...or a good liar?

 

[SteveS]

I will simply say that it is important to release information.... You think more information would jeopardize this case? Not hardly. It took years to make an arrest. Who knows what other things have ruined the case since then....

Problem is, did they ever have any actual EVIDENCE that could help the public help them? I have seen lots of assumptions about "evidence" but so much of it just based on community gossip, which needs no evidence to support it. Perhaps LE indeed released all they knew to be reliable. Perhaps what else was known was flimsy. All they had led nowhere for years, and while some assume that meant LE was not trying, it may have been they simply had squat. You can't release, or act on, what you don't have.

It wasn't until less than 2 years ago that something emerged (of unknown origin or content) that was of sufficient value to create validation for a search warrant, and that search then produced unknown evidence that was good enough to lead to some arrests.

But was there anything in the product of that search that would have helped the public help the case, to release it? For example, if we knew they did find Holly's hair at ZA's house, that certainly gives us something to talk about here, but it doesn't really further the public's ability to assist the case if that were known.

 

[shefner]

Problem is, did they ever have any actual EVIDENCE that could help the public help them? I have seen lots of assumptions about "evidence" but so much of it just based on community gossip, which needs no evidence to support it. Perhaps LE indeed released all they knew to be reliable. Perhaps what else was known was flimsy. All they had led nowhere for years, and while some assume that meant LE was not trying, it may have been they simply had squat. You can't release, or act on, what you don't have.

It wasn't until less than 2 years ago that something emerged (of unknown origin or content) that was of sufficient value to create validation for a search warrant, and that search then produced unknown evidence that was good enough to lead to some arrests.

But was there anything in the product of that search that would have helped the public help the case, to release it? For example, if we knew they did find Holly's hair at ZA's house, that certainly gives us something to talk about here, but it doesn't really further the public's ability to assist the case if that were known.

Good points, for sure. But there was a "feeling" here in the early days that more was known than they were telling. Even the family felt that way.

I am very disappointed overall in the legal system, although its the best one in the world. But how ZA could even be out of jail, I do not know.

 

[Chainsaw385]

So Autry's wife possibly implicated his guilt in a statement to TBI..and then later, she tried to take it back. Mmm...
Who knows what she said but I would think the first statement would be more accurate than subsequent ones.

One thing that caught me off guard: Autry is strong and sounds clear-headed. His body language seems to be in line with his words. Is he innocent...or a good liar?

I will post up a link of statement analysis done by Peter Hyatt on the JA video interview.......take it for what you think its worth.
It seems awfully one sided to me and I don't give it much weight.It was interesting for me to read though especially when he states questions the interviewer should have followed up with.

If you do read this analysis you will find JA claims he is both somehow related to Holly* and also had her mother as a elementary school teacher....both of these have been recent questions the last couple days on here.

http://.blogspot.com/2014/05/-jason-autry-holly.html

* "her dad and my dad and some of our kin knew each other"....I guess this means they were somehow related.......but I have read and re-read this quote and i'm not sure exactly what he meant

 

[Tugela]

IF DA happened to say Holly was killed in a certain way (shot twice in back of head with a .22) for example and they were able to confirm that after her remains were found over a year later.It gives anything he said a whole bunch more validity........DA was never charged with murder until after her remains were found which a number of people on here said DA was only charged with Murder 1 so they could have all 3 on trial at once because they had no evidence.Now we have the prosecution trying to sever DA from ZA/JA blowing that theory out of the water.

You don't understand what was said earlier.

The way it worked was that initially DA made statements that implicated the other two, and they were arrested on that basis. SA's statements served as corroboration, and for that he got a deal.

Then, apparently, it turned out that SA was not telling them the truth and consequently they wanted to revoke his deal. Most likely the revocation went through and his attorney informed him that his original charges would be reinstated, and (since he would have had to admit to them to get his deal) he was pretty much going to jail. Since the prosecutors would have wanted to make an example of him for potentially endangering the HB case, they would be pushing for the max sentence and that meant SA was going to prison for the most of the rest of his life. There would be no getting out of it, it was a done deal, so he killed himself in despair.

Without SA to corroborate, that left DA. But, DA was unreliable and my guess is that his story was changing so that it no longer implicated the other two so much or at all. Obviously they would not be able to put him on the stand like that because it would kill their case, and they would not be able to use his earlier statements as evidence either since he was available to testify in trial. This is likely what caused the stalling and obstruction on the part of the state - they were trying to buy time to find other evidence or come up with an alternate strategy to get around this problem. This is the situation that Stowe found himself inheriting and my guess is that he had very serious ethical concerns about what was going on, and did not have a clear path forward to address them. For him it was a lose-lose situation. The prosecutor who replaced him probably did not have such reservations, and so continued on the track that the initial prosecutor and the TBI had set up.

The solution to the problem? Charge DA, and refile on all three with new more serious charges. That would allow them to be tried together and in turn would allow them to use DA's original statements without needing him to testify.

This also open up a new bargaining chip for them. Now that he was facing the death penalty, DA has a big incentive to get on board and testify in court that the original allegations did indeed happen as he said. But they cant just drop charges on him or offer him a deal, because that would be used by the defense to attack his credibility.

So how to get around that? Simple. Move to sever the trials and try DA AFTER the other two. That way he testifies that they were the guilty ones, and the defense can't bring up special treatment as a reason to question his credibility, because he will still be facing his own trial later. Of course the fix is in. If DA does not testify as the prosecutors want him to, then later he will be tried on the same charges and they will use is early statements to convict him. So he has to testify or go to the gas chamber. They have him over a barrel - either play along or die.

After he testifies and the other two are convicted, then DA's charges will be quietly dropped or converted to lesser charges.

The prosecutors have set this up as a win-win scenario for themselves. If DA doesn't testify then they use his statements to convict all three. If he does testify then they use his statements to ensure he stays on story or he will get fried.

The point of going to all of these lengths would be that there probably isn't very much else implicating the accused, so the process has to be jerry rigged to get the desired result.

That is my opinion of how this has all played out and why.

 

[stephsb]

Thanks chainsaw for posting the statement analysisI'm not sure how I feel about the credibility of statement analysis as a whole, but I do think they are very interesting to read. I've read a few of his for other cases and I think some of them are really good. The one statement that JA makes that stood out to me is when he says "I never bothered that girl". Not sure what it means, but it was certainly an interesting choice of words. As for the sentence about kin, I had to read it a couple of times too but I take him to mean that his dad and Holly's dad knew eachother, and some of their kin (both he and Holly's) knew eachother as well


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

Tugela, if DA had legal representation in making a deal, and that atty was of any value, then the scenarios you have drawn up simply don't exist. No atty worth his salt would position a deal to be played out in such a way, nor would they have to (assuming they have any legal competence at all). And I can't fathom a "snitch" trying to make a deal without legal expertise to protect his rights, but who knows.

To be specific, such an deal to testify (against self interest) uses a "proffer" which has several aspects:
1 the testimony - and the info it contains - is prefaced by an agreement that it, as well as evidence later found to corroborate it, cannot be used against the snitch in any court in any way
2 any dropping of possible charges, or reduction of charges, will also be generally outlined in such a deal
3 the proffer will be signed and effective before information is offered in the first place, and then again before any testimony at trial
4 the existence of such a proffer, and how it rewards the one who testifies, is fair game for the jury to hear and have to consider at the trial, and there would be no such thing as a deal that isn't yet a deal when a snitch is on the stand
5 the proffer cannot legally specify testimony - such as "if you say X, we will reward you this way" - but is only an agreement that the snitch will truthfully testify to whatever he knows about Subject Y, so the actual specific content of snitch's testimony is alluded to but not specific
6 after the proffer is signed, then the snitch tells what he knows and LE checks it out and so on, but his agreement does not and cannot demand he says this or that, only to tell the truth re Subject Y and be willing to testify in court on it
7 LE's protection is that they will get some broad specifics in the proffer as to what the snitch knows and will reveal to them, and be willing to testify truthfully about, in order to get the deal
...iow if the snitch got a deal and then when asked to tell specifics he says he didn't know anything or reveal what he promised he knew, that would violate and negate the deal itself
8 whether the snitch testifies in court is left up to the DA and if the snitch is willing but not called, then the deal still stands
9 if LE gave a reward for testifying that was NOT revealed to the court, or that came after the trial in order to keep it hidden, it would be grounds to overturn any verdict and probably get the DA disbarred ...simply not allowed legally

Most importantly, if DA testifies against JA and ZA, we can rest assured that the fact he is being rewarded for his testimony will be well vetted by the defense attorneys to try to cast doubt on what he is saying. The proffer itself will be made a part of the court record. It will not somehow go unnoticed by court and jury.