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

[Tulessa]

There are more cases at that link.

 

[houndstooth]

@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.

I heard the judge make the statement regarding the evidence dump as "he hoped it would obviate the need for the Bill of Particulars", in the June hearing earlier this year. At least I think it was June. It is probably available on the media links for this case. It was probably the last public appearance in court by the defendants and their attorneys.
I do recall that the attorney just sort of laughed ruefully at the notion.

Can the attorneys still request this be granted? I mean it's still no Rosetta Stone for digging through such a ridiculously massive data dump, but it might help to cut to the chase.
Thanks for another great post.

 

[Hatfield]

It is another attempt to stall progress in the case. First file on some individuals. Then refile on new charges while dismissing the old, in order to get them together and restart the clock. Then sever the cases when things look like they will get moving again so that one accused can be offered a deal to testify against the others, or so that a weak case against one or more doesn't compromise the case against another. And restart the clock, lol.

WOW on the new news about trying to separate the cases.

All JMO
I was trying to think back to the original charges/cases and I agree that I think it first started as separate cases, then the State changed things to merge them all into one case, and now the State is changing their mind AGAIN for the 3rd time and asking the judge to have them separated.

Someone mentioned above that we don't want to see this case turn into a Circus. Unfortunately IMO the State has already turned this case into a Circus a long time ago.

It started to become crazy for me very early on with the tons of people that were allowed to trample the crime scene at Holly's house the morning she disappeared. Then with the huge delays in getting any real progress which finally culminated with the State playing the "Immunity or No Immunity" games with the person who ended up dead in Florida.
Then the craziness with supposed allegations from one of the people behind bars which caused a direct threat from another person behind bars.

And of course we cannot forget the prosecution/TBI in-fighting and people quitting.

And now lately the State is playing "Keep'em Separated" games.

The Circus wagons have been in full circle for quite some time and I have to put most all of the blame for it on the Prosecution side. I am just hoping they can get their act together before the trials actually start.

[video=youtube;XN32lLUOBzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN32lLUOBzQ[/video]

 

[SteveS]

Chainsaw, my point was this, and these are my exact words: " ...quantity of "evidence" does not equal quality ...". I have made that point multiple times in this forum. While making that point, I have tried to be clear that I am not saying this case (or other cases) can be assumed to be lacking in quality evidence somewhere in the mass, because we just don't know what we don't know.

If within my elaborating further, I somehow made you think I meant something different, my apologies for not wording things precisely enough. Let's go on, please.

 

[Tugela]

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.

He doesn't say she was at the house after the abduction, he says that ZA told him that she was at the house some time before the abduction.

People getting charged with no evidence outside of an informant or jailhouse confession is not that uncommon. Getting the charges to stick is a different story, but occasionally people get convicted on such a basis as well.

 

[Tugela]

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.

That was one scenario (or someone looking for her boyfriend). This is a different scenario. In both scenarios there is a connection between her and the abductors (not necessarily a direct one) and a reason why it happened. And, I didn't say there was or wasn't resistance in the first scenario, just that she was not the person they came looking for and was taken as a substitute for that person. In both scenarios there is a conflict that is the root cause for her being taken.

What I don't buy is that someone just driving by snatched her, or that some drugged crazed lunatics took her in some elaborate plot just because they thought she was pretty. Those are the plots of cheap novels, not reality. In general when these sorts of crimes happen in real life there is a connection and a reason - random stuff is quite rare and almost never happens under these particular circumstances. So far none of the popular theories here have provided either.

 

[Tugela]

@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.

The logical conclusion is the prosecutors didn't know why the accused were charged either (remember, the prosecutors have changed a couple of times since the charges were filed). That would make it difficult for them to comply with the judges order for fear of a dismissal before they understood the full nature of the evidence. Hence the stalling, to buy them time to get their ducks in a row in an arguably reasonable manner.

 

[Chainsaw385]

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

This is very close to a case that I am looking for after researching it http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ok-court-of-criminal-appeals/1488620.html

But
There was a long list of witnesses that testified to her numerous accounts of where her son was.
She told DHS he was with his father while telling family members he was with DHS
She had called DHS months before because she wanted rid of her kids
She was very upset a couple days before he disappeared after she called DHS and was told they could not take the child right away
Roommate was a key witness along with her younger son
Hair and blood was found on masking tape and a hammer in the basement that was a DNA match to the victim......which the masking tape matches the testimony that his brother was very white,not moving or talking and had masking tape over his mouth and eyes last time he saw him.

A sad case and it is shocking how similar it is to the Casey Anthony case ...except this time the jury got the verdict right

 

[Chainsaw385]

That was one scenario (or someone looking for her boyfriend). This is a different scenario. In both scenarios there is a connection between her and the abductors (not necessarily a direct one) and a reason why it happened. And, I didn't say there was or wasn't resistance in the first scenario, just that she was not the person they came looking for and was taken as a substitute for that person. In both scenarios there is a conflict that is the root cause for her being taken.

What I don't buy is that someone just driving by snatched her, or that some drugged crazed lunatics took her in some elaborate plot just because they thought she was pretty. Those are the plots of cheap novels, not reality. In general when these sorts of crimes happen in real life there is a connection and a reason - random stuff is quite rare and almost never happens under these particular circumstances. So far none of the popular theories here have provided either.

Just a couple pages back you argued at length that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.......now this post states she was targeted.

Your posts often contradict one another and I simply can't understand the point you are trying to make when only a short time earlier you were stating the exact opposite.

If you are now saying Holly was specifically targeted .......then we finally found something we can agree on

 

[pappa rob]

WOW on the new news about trying to separate the cases.

All JMO
I was trying to think back to the original charges/cases and I agree that I think it first started as separate cases, then the State changed things to merge them all into one case, and now the State is changing their mind AGAIN for the 3rd time and asking the judge to have them separated.

Someone mentioned above that we don't want to see this case turn into a Circus. Unfortunately IMO the State has already turned this case into a Circus a long time ago.

It started to become crazy for me very early on with the tons of people that were allowed to trample the crime scene at Holly's house the morning she disappeared. Then with the huge delays in getting any real progress which finally culminated with the State playing the "Immunity or No Immunity" games with the person who ended up dead in Florida.
Then the craziness with supposed allegations from one of the people behind bars which caused a direct threat from another person behind bars.

And of course we cannot forget the prosecution/TBI in-fighting and people quitting.

And now lately the State is playing "Keep'em Separated" games.

The Circus wagons have been in full circle for quite some time and I have to put most all of the blame for it on the Prosecution side. I am just hoping they can get their act together before the trials actually start.

[video=youtube;XN32lLUOBzQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN32lLUOBzQ[/video]

The "circus" started with the abduction and murder, the defense has had a large hand in it also. The craziness came from the crime, the criminals, and the media. I've no clue as to WTH is going on, I'm praying for justice.

 

[Tugela]

Just a couple pages back you argued at length that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.......now this post states she was targeted.

Your posts often contradict one another and I simply can't understand the point you are trying to make when only a short time earlier you were stating the exact opposite.

If you are now saying Holly was specifically targeted .......then we finally found something we can agree on

I am not saying anything of the sort, I am saying that she COULD have been specifically targeted in a reasonable scenario if certain assumptions are correct. If they are not, then the "wrong place at the wrong" time scenario is more likely, IMO. I was merely pointing out that if JA's claims in the article are correct, it opens up an alternative scenario, but one that doesn't play out in the same way or for the same reasons that are popular here. My mind hasn't "been changed" and I don't "believe something else now".

The thing about a hypothesis is that it is theory based off a speculative starting point, it is not a statement of what happened.

Both scenarios are viable explanations, but that doesn't mean both are right, or that I passionately believe that one or the other is right. Actually I don't believe in anything until the evidence for it is conclusive.

What we are missing in all of this the element of motivation. If we know what that is, we will know which hypothesis is correct. But since we don't know that, we have to play the "what if" game and look at a variety of possible motivations and examine how that fits with the evidence that is known.

So, depending on which motivation is correct, it could be either scenario. Or something completely different. But in the end, in order to put forward a plausible theory you need to have a plausible motive to begin with.

 

[Tugela]

This is very close to a case that I am looking for after researching it http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ok-court-of-criminal-appeals/1488620.html

But
There was a long list of witnesses that testified to her numerous accounts of where her son was.
She told DHS he was with his father while telling family members he was with DHS
She had called DHS months before because she wanted rid of her kids
She was very upset a couple days before he disappeared after she called DHS and was told they could not take the child right away
Roommate was a key witness along with her younger son
Hair and blood was found on masking tape and a hammer in the basement that was a DNA match to the victim......which the masking tape matches the testimony that his brother was very white,not moving or talking and had masking tape over his mouth and eyes last time he saw him.

A sad case and it is shocking how similar it is to the Casey Anthony case ...except this time the jury got the verdict right

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".

 

[houndstooth]

Just a couple pages back you argued at length that she was in the wrong place at the wrong time.......now this post states she was targeted.

Your posts often contradict one another and I simply can't understand the point you are trying to make when only a short time earlier you were stating the exact opposite.

If you are now saying Holly was specifically targeted .......then we finally found something we can agree on

The point of people posting is not to agree or disagree with you.
They are expressing their opinions on the case.
I find it fruitless and tedious for someone to attempt to cross-examine another's thoughts and opinions, and might be a deterrent to more people participating on the case.

 

[houndstooth]

The logical conclusion is the prosecutors didn't know why the accused were charged either (remember, the prosecutors have changed a couple of times since the charges were filed). That would make it difficult for them to comply with the judges order for fear of a dismissal before they understood the full nature of the evidence. Hence the stalling, to buy them time to get their ducks in a row in an arguably reasonable manner.

I think so, too.
They must not have settled on a motive in the case. Therefore, it would be difficult to submit a Bill of Particulars if they are not completely set on the actions of each alleged participant, and their motive for doing so.

 

[Chainsaw385]

I think so, too.
They must not have settled on a motive in the case. Therefore, it would be difficult to submit a Bill of Particulars if they are not completely set on the actions of each alleged participant, and their motive for doing so.

Motive does not need to be proven to get a guilty verdict nor for charges to be pressed.

This is not a disagreement it is fact that motive does not have to be proven or even presented at any point and would have no affect on any of the actions of the prosecution up to this point.

It certainly helps the prosecution to have a valid motive to present to the jury and without one the defense will hammer on that point in closing arguments.,,,,anyhow since the suspects have been charged with rape it is a pretty easy guess that will be what they say their motive was for abducting her.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya:

Happy Thanksgiving to All !

Link: http://www.bing.com/images/search?q...images of happy thanksgiving&sc=8-28&sp=1&sk=

 

[oceanblueeyes]

From WKRN:

Judge doesn’t expect Holly Bobo case to go to trial before 2017

The state filed a motion to sever Dylan Adams’ trial from a trial for Zachary Adams and Jason Autry. A date has not been set to review that motion.

None of the accused suspects appeared in court Wednesday and another status hearing is scheduled for March 2, 2016 at 10 a.m.


More at Link: http://wkrn.com/2015/11/18/status-hearing-in-holly-bobo-case-will-determine-trial-date/

2017 seems about right to me. They were arrested/charged in 2-2013, right? In criminal cases the clock starts ticking when arrests are made and not when the victim was murdered. Oh course it starts over if there are any changes to any of the parties along the way......for instance..... a new DA, new indictment or if a lawyer no longer can be someone's attorney due to being disbarred themselves. etc.

I remember in several death penalty cases where it took at least 3-4 years to come to trial and some even longer.

Jodi Arias murdered Travis in June 2008 but her DP trial did not commence until 2013 and she was sentenced in 2014.
Also in the Guy Heinz Jr. mass murders of his family members he was arrested in 9-09 and his DP trial and sentencing phase wasn't held until 8-2013. I remember Mark Geragos had a client facing the DP (not Scott Peterson) and he continued to stall the case back asking for motions to delay and it didn't even go to trial until six years later.

If it does go to trial in 2017 that is more inline with most I have seen.

And this case is far different than those I have mentioned. This one has three defendants.........not just one and we know it has a huge amount of discovery far from the norm from what is typically seen even in DP cases. SPs case had 10,000 pages of discovery and that was considered way above the norm.

I wouldn't be the least bit surprised due to enormity of discovery/multiple defendants that all parties involved on all sides may ask the presiding Judge for it to be continued even further out than 2017.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Motive does not need to be proven to get a guilty verdict nor for charges to be pressed.

This is not a disagreement it is fact that motive does not have to be proven or even presented at any point and would have no affect on any of the actions of the prosecution up to this point.

It certainly helps the prosecution to have a valid motive to present to the jury and without one the defense will hammer on that point in closing arguments.,,,,anyhow since the suspects have been charged with rape it is a pretty easy guess that will be what they say their motive was for abducting her.

Absolutely correct. Motive is not a burden any DA has to prove to the jury for anyone to be convicted.

I certainly believe your opinion will turnout to be the correct one and its the one I have held for some time now. Its very obvious why this monster kidnapped Holly and took her to his house where other men were. I have read from posted articles here that meth head addicts have a heightened libido when strung out on drugs. That's why they came to get this pretty young woman and once they had their way with her.....she then was murdered.

Also articles have been posted here about the other meth heads the TBI Director mentioned who also committed heinous murder. It seems if you look at that horrific case they like nothing better to torture their kidnapped victims for days just because they can.

This three are some very twisted evil individuals who had always gotten away with the violent things they had done to others so they arrogantly thought this time would be no different. This time though they selected the wrong victim to victimize who was much loved by her community and her wonderful family.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The point of people posting is not to agree or disagree with you.
They are expressing their opinions on the case.
I find it fruitless and tedious for someone to attempt to cross-examine another's thoughts and opinions, and might be a deterrent to more people participating on the case.

But that is what we do here at WS, houndstooth. If I put a theory out on this thread and someone questions me about it or tells me it doesn't make sense to them or they would like for me to clarify something or it is contradictory from other posts I have made.... I have no problem whatsoever clearing up anything I said. Why would I? Sorry, I just don't understand your line of thinking since this is done day in and day out here and you have been a member since 2009.

Asking questions on any social media site is not a cross-examination. Why would it deter anyone from posting? Surely if anyone feels passionate about their own opinion or theory they would willingly discuss it with anyone who may have questions. I think it is obvious that most all posters on this thread have no problems supporting their position/VP or theories about this particular case.

I think it is really simple for me at least. If someone asks me a question then I always believe they deserve a reply and for me to answer their questions to the best of my ability.

This thread is a perfect example of differing opinions being discussed back and forth with those who may have a different viewpoint. What I cant understand is why would anyone be offended because other posters may ask legitimate questions? I think it is sort of immature to not want to be questioned at all about anything one may post. That is the very reason we have a reply function on each post that is written in order to interact with each other's point of view.

Would you mind telling me what you find so offensive in someone simply asking questions about your theories and opinions? I truly would like to understand why this seems to be such a big issue for you.

IMO

 

[houndstooth]

But that is what we do here at WS, houndstooth. If I put a theory out on this thread and someone questions me about it or tells me it doesn't make sense to them or they would like for me to clarify something or it is contradictory from other posts I have made.... I have no problem whatsoever clearing up anything I said. Why would I? Sorry, I just don't understand your line of thinking since this is done day in and day out here and you have been a member since 2009.

Asking questions on any social media site is not a cross-examination. Why would it deter anyone from posting? Surely if anyone feels passionate about their own opinion or theory they would willingly discuss it with anyone who may have questions. I think it is obvious that most all posters on this thread have no problems supporting their position/VP or theories about this particular case.

I think it is really simple for me at least. If someone asks me a question then I always believe they deserve a reply and for me to answer their questions to the best of my ability.

This thread is a perfect example of differing opinions being discussed back and forth with those who may have a different viewpoint. What I cant understand is why would anyone be offended because other posters may ask legitimate questions? I think it is sort of immature to not want to be questioned at all about anything one may post. That is the very reason we have a reply function on each post that is written in order to interact with each other's point of view.

Would you mind telling me what you find so offensive in someone simply asking questions about your theories and opinions? I truly would like to understand why this seems to be such a big issue for you.

IMO

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.