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

[Tugela]

This is delusional. Not only is it illegal, but no one in their right mind would agree to this. Put yourself in his shoes. Would you agree testify without a formal deal in place? Keep in mind he is being charged with 1st degree murder and it is a death penalty case. No one will agree to assist the prosecution in any way without getting something in return. We will have to agree do disagree.

He doesn't need a deal, because if he testifies for the prosecution, and they secure a conviction of the other two on that basis, they will not be able to try to convict him of the same thing because to do so would mean that his testimony in the first trial was false and consequently the first trial result was in error. By using his testimony in the first trial they are implicitly accepting it as truthful, and they will not be able to turn around later and say, "no it was not and now we are going to convict you as well".

If he testifies he will implicate the other two but say that he had nothing to do with it, he just saw stuff. So that would not help the prosecution to convict him in his trial, because to do that they would have to claim that he was lying in the first trial. For the prosecution, if it gets them a conviction of ZA they will have to accept DA's version of events, and that means they can get a conviction of the first two guys, or they can get a conviction of DA, but not both. You don't need a deal if the prosecution accepts that you are being truthful, and it is certainly in their interests to do that.

But if he doesn't testify, then he will not be protected by that when it comes to his own trial. They can ask him to testify, and he can say yes or no, but if he says no then they will fry him with his own statements. He has to decide, does he want the other guys to go to jail, or does he want to go to jail.

To overcome DA's testimony the defense would either have to show reasonable doubt that he is being truthful, or put their clients on the stand, which they will definitely not want to do.

It is a catch 22 situation. The prosecution don't need to offer him anything, if he testifies the case against himself will go away simply because of how the system works.

 

[Tugela]

This is just not even close to being possible

The biggest reason is because it is illegal and will result in any convictions being set aside at the very least.
Another big reason is because DA will be asked a question worded almost exactly like this "Were you offered anything from the prosecution in return for your testimony".DA simply can not answer NO in any of your off the wall scenarios in this hide the deal from the defense theory.

The prosecution almost always brings up what they offered for testimony first because they know the defense will and don't want to seem like they are trying to hide things from the jury.

When a large number of people reply to a post saying it is incorrect it would be wise to re-think what you are claiming rather then just posting the same thing over again.

Actually, it is pretty common in the case of jailhouse informants (for example) to testify without the promise of a deal, but with the hope of getting a more favorable attitude later on when it comes to their own case. Because, you know, they can always recant later on if they don't get that, so it is in the prosecutions best interests to put a kind word in for them later on. The nudge nudge, wink wink backroom arrangements are not unusual in the justice system.

But you don't get it. They won't offer him a deal. It is not necessary if he is telling the truth. They will just explain to his lawyers how it will play out (and his lawyers will have figured this out by themselves, if they are any good at all).

If he testifies, and says that he witnessed ZA and friend do the deed, but that he just saw stuff, then he will be off the hook. It is not like the prosecution is going to try to impeach him (because if they do, they won't be able to convict ZA), and if they don't impeach him then they will have to accept his account as the truth when it comes to his own trial, which means that the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.

They can't say yes you were telling the truth in that trial, but no, you are not telling the truth in this trial even though you are saying the same thing. They can't have it both ways, it has to be one or the other. And given the choice they are going to accept his account as the truth.

 

[Tugela]

Good morning my friend! Yes, we most certainly do have a respectful difference of opinion and its so nice that we both can converse and be very civil when doing so.

I do agree that ZAs planned to get Holly but I don't think it was a long drawn out plan. It was one which would require him to setout in the woods waiting for her before she came out by herself to go to school. Imo, that is why he wore common camo hunting gear at the time of the kidnapping. So there was planning since he was there for that very reason (to kidnap). IMO

But I am very comfortable in believing the kidnapping of Holly was for a sexual motive although it is extremely heartbreaking.. I do respect that you believe otherwise.

By now the TBI would know if Holly ever spoke to others about the A-train. As far as we know and have been told for years now Holly did not associate with any of those who have been arrested for her murder so how would she know any details which could get her murdered by them? To be an informant against anyone the informant themselves must be present at the time so they can tell LE what they saw them do illegally or heard the criminals say while they were there around them...i...e the A-train in this case.

I just find it farfetched that Holly even knew anything about these criminals and their personal daily activities. While every family probably has a black sheep or two in their family I don't think anyone in Holly's family did something for Adams to kidnap her. Why would they kidnap Holly and not the family member?

The only place I have seen Holly being a so called informant was over on the Topix rumor and gossip mill which is filled with lies by attention seekers. To me based on what we have heard about Holly and how she led her life I think she was an all American girl working hard to become a nurse so she could take care of others. I do not think she was an informant. If she was an informant involving the Adams then she would have to pretend to be like them in order to obtain information and hang around them like a lot of the women who had criminal records did who did have so much in common with these meth heads. Now some of those women sure could be informants to try and get off when they get caught for something criminal. Not once though have we ever heard of Holly hanging around with meth heads much less these motely three or those who did hang around them. Holly lived a much different lifestyle than them and would stick out like a sore thumb among this group. SA did hang around them and Holly didn't even recognize the man who seemed to be stalking her at the coon hunt or she would have told her friend who he was and the particulars on him. It was later on when the composite sketch was put out that Holly's close friend thought SA looked like the man stalking them.

Informants are people who also do crimes themselves and will become a police informant to lessen charges on themselves should they be caught. Holly had no criminal history or criminal involvement with LE.

Foxfire has put up links showing how sadistic meth heads can be and they also can have heightened libidos. I think the very charges filed against these murderers shows what the motive really was. Imo, she was raped within minutes of being kidnapped. And if it was done for some type of retaliation they would have long talked about that. If you rely on Topix as a viable source all the A-Train talked about to others is how they raped and beat Holly (into submission imo) and what they put her through laughing about it.

IF it was truly because of retaliation if Holly was an informant (which I respectfully do not believe is the case) then they wouldn't remain silent on that because they would want to let everyone know at the time they were the ones who did this to Holly and why in order to instill fear in others that they better not rat them out. None of that ever happened.

But again, I do respect your opinion highly and always will. I know it is very frightening to even consider that some evil sadistic meth heads can decide to kidnap an innocent unsuspecting young woman to fulfill their primal lust and depravities. Often with criminals like this they will elevate their crimes from what they did prior and will rise it to the level of highly violent crimes of rapes and murders.

I don't believe one word that comes out of JAs mouth. It is all self serving because he knows he is facing the death penalty. The defense will not be able to prove Holly was at the Adams home two days before she was kidnapped. IMO They will never be able to prove she was at Adams house, period, or with this gang before she was kidnapped. It just mouth talk which he is good at and most psychopaths are very good with words and manipulation.

That is not correct. Informants are people who know things and relate that information to LE. They are not necessarily criminals themselves. They may be friends, family, neighbors or business associates.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Actually, it is pretty common in the case of jailhouse informants (for example) to testify without the promise of a deal, but with the hope of getting a more favorable attitude later on when it comes to their own case. Because, you know, they can always recant later on if they don't get that, so it is in the prosecutions best interests to put a kind word in for them later on. The nudge nudge, wink wink backroom arrangements are not unusual in the justice system.

But you don't get it. They won't offer him a deal. It is not necessary if he is telling the truth. They will just explain to his lawyers how it will play out (and his lawyers will have figured this out by themselves, if they are any good at all).

If he testifies, and says that he witnessed ZA and friend do the deed, but that he just saw stuff, then he will be off the hook. It is not like the prosecution is going to try to impeach him (because if they do, they won't be able to convict ZA), and if they don't impeach him then they will have to accept his account as the truth when it comes to his own trial, which means that the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.

They can't say yes you were telling the truth in that trial, but no, you are not telling the truth in this trial even though you are saying the same thing. They can't have it both ways, it has to be one or the other. And given the choice they are going to accept his account as the truth.

Where has it even been verified that DA is going to testify in the trials of ZA and JA for the state? As far as I know all three have been charged equally and that hasn't changed. I haven't seen one hint of any plea deal. Dylan cant get up there and bald face lie while he is under oath saying it was only his brother and JA who raped Holly and he just saw stuff going on. It wouldn't take the defense attorneys for ZA or JA but two seconds to let the jury know Dylan is also charged equally and is involved as the other two and the ADA knows that would happen already.

The best Dylan and his attorney can hope for is to get a lesser sentence in a written plea agreement if Dylan gets up there and tells the entire sordid truth including his own involvement. Hit men have done it before and were given a deal for testifying against the mastermind and they testified to their own involvement admitting they were the ones who murdered the victim at the direction of the one who wanted the victim dead.

And Dylan isn't just some jailhouse informant. He is one of the three who have been arrested and charged in Holly's case. None of this information he knows was done by eavesdropping while in jail.

I cant see how Dylan's attorney would ever agree to let him testify especially if there is no written deal in place. If no written deal is in place there would be nothing his attorney could legally do if the DA decided to try him on all the top charges and still pursue the death penalty. If he testifies then he is also going to incriminate himself as being involved. The Judge will allow impeachment evidence in if he says he only saw stuff but did nothing himself.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That is not correct. Informants are people who know things and relate that information to LE. They are not necessarily criminals themselves. They may be friends, family, neighbors or business associates.

Most informants are those who hang around criminals and become informants as a deal to lessen their own crimes. Holly would not have any information to inform the police about. It has constantly been reported she did NOT associate with any of them...not as a friend, not as a family member, not as a neighbor, and certainly not as a business associate since these weren't white collar criminals.

LE is very mindful of who they have as informants because they know the high risk the informant takes when they are informing on a gang of criminals like the A-Train. LE already knew how abusive ZA was to others ...even shooting his own mother when she displeased him. LE would not take a young woman who's lifestyle was totally different than these punks and make her an informant.

Imo, in Tennessee when someone is informing on a gang of meth-heads 99% of the time they are those who hang around them in their inner circle. I wont be surprised if some who were around them at the time Holly was murdered may even testify at trial. They probably have agreed to testify for the state in exchange for some of their own charges to be dropped or the sentence lessened.

Meth-heads are super paranoid anyway about informants and Holly Bobo would stick out like a neon flashing sore thumb. She wouldn't even know how to act around a bunch of criminals/meth heads so that they would trust her. That would be as foolish if they tried to make me an informant against wacked out druggies knowing I have never used any illegal drugs in my life .....not even pot and have no criminal record at all. I wouldn't have any concept on how to act around people I would never hang around with in the first place.

Imo, there will be no evidence that Holly was ever an informant of any kind against anyone. Imo, it will show she had no contact with LE about the A-Train prior to her kidnapping, rapes, and murder by them.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Actually, it is pretty common in the case of jailhouse informants (for example) to testify without the promise of a deal, but with the hope of getting a more favorable attitude later on when it comes to their own case. Because, you know, they can always recant later on if they don't get that, so it is in the prosecutions best interests to put a kind word in for them later on. The nudge nudge, wink wink backroom arrangements are not unusual in the justice system.

But you don't get it. They won't offer him a deal. It is not necessary if he is telling the truth. They will just explain to his lawyers how it will play out (and his lawyers will have figured this out by themselves, if they are any good at all).

If he testifies, and says that he witnessed ZA and friend do the deed, but that he just saw stuff, then he will be off the hook. It is not like the prosecution is going to try to impeach him (because if they do, they won't be able to convict ZA), and if they don't impeach him then they will have to accept his account as the truth when it comes to his own trial, which means that the case will be dismissed for lack of evidence.

They can't say yes you were telling the truth in that trial, but no, you are not telling the truth in this trial even though you are saying the same thing. They can't have it both ways, it has to be one or the other. And given the choice they are going to accept his account as the truth.

The jail house snitches you mention are usually exactly that.A cell mate while awaiting trial from county jail that had no involvement in the crime they are testifying about what so ever.....certainly not a defendant facing the exact same charges in the same crime as the people he is testifying against.
A person in jail for an armed robbery might well testify against a rapist/murderer and what he might have been told ...... rapists are only a notch above child molesters in jail and I have seen where people have testified on principal alone in situations like this.

BUT not a person facing the same charges in the same crime.They would have 0......I repeat 0 incentive to take the stand and testify which would possibly hurt their own case or later appeals without a deal.Unless they had a death wish because this is not only stupid but suicidal when it would involve DP cases.

You have D.A. going from murder1 and facing the death penalty and then after he testifies to being released for time served ....this would be a huge event that will not go unnoticed by ZA.JA or their attorneys.

If D.A. has a deal in place when he testifies he won't be going to trial.He will have agreed to plead guilty to something with a pre determined sentence in return for his testimony......for example guilty to murder2 and life/without.This would be disclosed during the trial and 99.99% of the time the prosecution will disclose this themselves before the defense does.

Another huge problem is you are assuming you already know everything D.A is going to say on the stand (if he even testifies at all) and that they have no other evidence then his testimony.It is easily possible they won't even offer or take a deal from DA.They might not feel they need it and they only reason they want to sever the cases is because they might not think they will get a death penalty from a jury for DA since he is reputed to have a limited mental capacity.

And the biggest problem is the whole hide the deal theory you are still proposing is it is illegal......Don't you think every prosecutor in the US would be making under the table deals that were not introduced in court in cases that involved more then one suspect?......or did you find the biggest loophole in the history of the Untied States justice system.

Rather then admit you are wrong or just let it go and move on to something else you are still trying and defend that DA will be testifying with some type of agreement with the prosecution ......all this will be kept from the defense......and after he testifies rather then face the death penalty,he will be walking out of prison a free man.The only way DA gets out of prison anytime soon is no deal and he gets acquitted.

You are right I don't get it......and no matter how many different ways you try and explain something that is simply not possible....I will never get it.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Where has it even been verified that DA is going to testify in the trials of ZA and JA for the state? As far as I know all three have been charged equally and that hasn't changed. I haven't seen one hint of any plea deal. Dylan cant get up there and bald face lie while he is under oath saying it was only his brother and JA who raped Holly and he just saw stuff going on. It wouldn't take the defense attorneys for ZA or JA but two seconds to let the jury know Dylan is also charged equally and is involved as the other two and the ADA knows that would happen already.

The best Dylan and his attorney can hope for is to get a lesser sentence in a written plea agreement if Dylan gets up there and tells the entire sordid truth including his own involvement. Hit men have done it before and were given a deal for testifying against the mastermind and they testified to their own involvement admitting they were the ones who murdered the victim at the direction of the one who wanted the victim dead.

And Dylan isn't just some jailhouse informant. He is one of the three who have been arrested and charged in Holly's case. None of this information he knows was done by eavesdropping while in jail.

I cant see how Dylan's attorney would ever agree to let him testify especially if there is no written deal in place. If no written deal is in place there would be nothing his attorney could legally do if the DA decided to try him on all the top charges and still pursue the death penalty. If he testifies then he is also going to incriminate himself as being involved. The Judge will allow impeachment evidence in if he says he only saw stuff but did nothing himself.

IMO

I replied to the post I was quoted in before I read this.It would have been easier for me to just do "X2" rather then type mine all out......my post is almost a carbon copy of yours.

Sadly I doubt either of our posts will make a mark with the intended target.

 

[Myvice]

I haven't been following this thread as closely as I would like so if this has been discussed I apologize. But I can't help but wonder if JA will testify. He reminds me of Jodi Arias, another JA that loves the spot light. I hope the trial/trials are televised.

 

[pearl]

I haven't been following this thread as closely as I would like so if this has been discussed I apologize. But I can't help but wonder if JA will testify. He reminds me of Jodi Arias, another JA that loves the spot light. I hope the trial/trials are televised.

I think JA will be a defense attorney's nightmare, a defendant who loves the sound of his own voice.

 

[Chainsaw385]

I haven't been following this thread as closely as I would like so if this has been discussed I apologize. But I can't help but wonder if JA will testify. He reminds me of Jodi Arias, another JA that loves the spot light. I hope the trial/trials are televised.

He has already given a video interview and has also wrote letters to the media.

So my guess would be he will also take the stand.

 

[ChristYTN]

Sorry.....jumping back in the WS world after a hiatus.

I've been following some and catching up just the past few days on a few cases I've had interest in .


This is way further back on this thread, but re: newschannel 5 Nick Beres....he's a local 'sensationalist' clickbait/sweeps 'journalist '

I don't respect much of his teasers or his info he gathers and hypes .

He deeply hurt the family and friends of the victim in Murfreesboro that was brutally horrifically murdered a few months ago . My niece was her best friend.
He posted 'maybe she liked rough sex' as a tease .

He received no less than 20+ private messages from those close to the victim and eventually removed the cold scathing "headline "



I absolutely can't wait to see Hollys case reach an end in a trial with every scum involved and convicted with the appropriate punishment.

All my.prayers to beautiful Hollys family.
My friend Kelly Sharpton (RIP sweet lady ) is watching over the Bobo family too.

Again. ..sorry for commenting on what's already been discussed. Nick just seems to be a thorn in a few victims side sometimes.

 

[Tugela]

He has already given a video interview and has also wrote letters to the media.

So my guess would be he will also take the stand.

You are not cross examined in interviews or letters. Nor are you required to be truthfull. He is unlikely to take the stand because once he does he loses control of the narrative. The prosecution gets to ask a witness questions as well, not just the defense attorney.

 

[Tugela]

The jail house snitches you mention are usually exactly that.A cell mate while awaiting trial from county jail that had no involvement in the crime they are testifying about what so ever.....certainly not a defendant facing the exact same charges in the same crime as the people he is testifying against.
A person in jail for an armed robbery might well testify against a rapist/murderer and what he might have been told ...... rapists are only a notch above child molesters in jail and I have seen where people have testified on principal alone in situations like this.

BUT not a person facing the same charges in the same crime.They would have 0......I repeat 0 incentive to take the stand and testify which would possibly hurt their own case or later appeals without a deal.Unless they had a death wish because this is not only stupid but suicidal when it would involve DP cases.

You have D.A. going from murder1 and facing the death penalty and then after he testifies to being released for time served ....this would be a huge event that will not go unnoticed by ZA.JA or their attorneys.

If D.A. has a deal in place when he testifies he won't be going to trial.He will have agreed to plead guilty to something with a pre determined sentence in return for his testimony......for example guilty to murder2 and life/without.This would be disclosed during the trial and 99.99% of the time the prosecution will disclose this themselves before the defense does.

Another huge problem is you are assuming you already know everything D.A is going to say on the stand (if he even testifies at all) and that they have no other evidence then his testimony.It is easily possible they won't even offer or take a deal from DA.They might not feel they need it and they only reason they want to sever the cases is because they might not think they will get a death penalty from a jury for DA since he is reputed to have a limited mental capacity.

And the biggest problem is the whole hide the deal theory you are still proposing is it is illegal......Don't you think every prosecutor in the US would be making under the table deals that were not introduced in court in cases that involved more then one suspect?......or did you find the biggest loophole in the history of the Untied States justice system.

Rather then admit you are wrong or just let it go and move on to something else you are still trying and defend that DA will be testifying with some type of agreement with the prosecution ......all this will be kept from the defense......and after he testifies rather then face the death penalty,he will be walking out of prison a free man.The only way DA gets out of prison anytime soon is no deal and he gets acquitted.

You are right I don't get it......and no matter how many different ways you try and explain something that is simply not possible....I will never get it.

People who are mentally deficient get sent to death row all the time.

Jailhouse informants never act "on principal". They do what they do because they believe that they are going to get some sort of advantage out of testifying. That might be involve a direct deal, but usually the way it works is that later on the DA will let the judge or parole board in their case know that they "cooperated" and they will get more a favorable outcome.

At least one of the original witnesses (SA) had just such a favorable deal in exchange for testifying. But he was going to lose that deal because they figured out that he was not being truthful. And that is probably why he killed himself.

DA I think was probably promised more favorable treatment on unrelated charges right at the beginning, but did not have a formal deal (like SA did). Maybe he unilaterally offered up a story LE wanted to hear in hopes that his other problems could be swept under the rug. Which IMO is the main reason he finds himself in the predicament he is in now. He offered up a bunch of statements implicating his brother and friends hoping to get out of other charges, but when his allegations did not pan out the prosecutors turned around and used them as a personal admission of culpability through association. So, either he gets on board and tells a story that is consistent with whatever else they know, or think they know, or he goes down himself for the same crime.

Both DA and SA dug holes for themselves IMO, but the difference is that SA had a lawyer help him construct that hole whereas DA did not. So SA could get out of it (sort of) but DA could not.

 

[Tugela]

Most informants are those who hang around criminals and become informants as a deal to lessen their own crimes. Holly would not have any information to inform the police about. It has constantly been reported she did NOT associate with any of them...not as a friend, not as a family member, not as a neighbor, and certainly not as a business associate since these weren't white collar criminals.

LE is very mindful of who they have as informants because they know the high risk the informant takes when they are informing on a gang of criminals like the A-Train. LE already knew how abusive ZA was to others ...even shooting his own mother when she displeased him. LE would not take a young woman who's lifestyle was totally different than these punks and make her an informant.

Imo, in Tennessee when someone is informing on a gang of meth-heads 99% of the time they are those who hang around them in their inner circle. I wont be surprised if some who were around them at the time Holly was murdered may even testify at trial. They probably have agreed to testify for the state in exchange for some of their own charges to be dropped or the sentence lessened.

Meth-heads are super paranoid anyway about informants and Holly Bobo would stick out like a neon flashing sore thumb. She wouldn't even know how to act around a bunch of criminals/meth heads so that they would trust her. That would be as foolish if they tried to make me an informant against wacked out druggies knowing I have never used any illegal drugs in my life .....not even pot and have no criminal record at all. I wouldn't have any concept on how to act around people I would never hang around with in the first place.

Imo, there will be no evidence that Holly was ever an informant of any kind against anyone. Imo, it will show she had no contact with LE about the A-Train prior to her kidnapping, rapes, and murder by them.

An informant is anyone who knows something and provides that information when asked, but doesn't otherwise volunteer it. Most are family members, friends, neighbors or work associates. When police suspect someone of doing something, or they are looking for someone, those are the sorts of people they typically go to looking for information that might be helpful. Criminals who know stuff generally do not assist police when asked, irrespective of what TV would have us believe.

There is no reason to think Holly was an informant, but not being in criminal activity doesn't mean that she couldn't have been one or couldn't have been aware of such activity. If you are using that as the logic to exclude the possibility, IMO your logic is based on erroneous assumptions.

Clearly someone kidnapped and killed her, and it seems fairly clear that there was significant malice involved. What was the source of that malice? Understand that and you will understand why this case happened.

 

[SteveS]

...SA had a lawyer help him construct that hole whereas DA did not. ....

Your scenario is admittedly based around the assumption that DA - a man who has been incarcerated in the past, and is now facing DP charges - does not have the benefit of top-notch (or even competent) legal representation, and is doing (and will continue to do) deals on his own with the prosecution.

However, if DA has been operating with no representation, that will create legal issues of its own for the prosecution, down the road, given that its a DP case, so there's that. Wonder who has been showing up in court and dealing with the legalities through this long drawn out process, if he has no atty?

I think such an assumption is simply absurd, and that "conclusions" being drawn from such an assumption would be equally lacking.

But that's the problem with the scenario you keep pumping. No competent attorney would let his client sign off on such a deal, and it's unrealistic to imagine he doesn't have an attorney, and one so qualified that he can qualify to handle a DP case.

 

[~n/t~]

You are not cross examined in interviews or letters. Nor are you required to be truthfull. He is unlikely to take the stand because once he does he loses control of the narrative. The prosecution gets to ask a witness questions as well, not just the defense attorney.

I'm not chainsaw but I don't think that's what he/she meant. Regardless of the interviews or letters (which may or may not be brought up at trial) , he has the right to testify. His attorney(s) may advise him not to but he has the right to take the stand

 

[Chainsaw385]

I'm not chainsaw but I don't think that's what he/she meant. Regardless of the interviews or letters (which may or may not be brought up at trial) , he has the right to testify. His attorney(s) may advise him not to but he has the right to take the stand

X2............

 

[Tugela]

I'm not chainsaw but I don't think that's what he/she meant. Regardless of the interviews or letters (which may or may not be brought up at trial) , he has the right to testify. His attorney(s) may advise him not to but he has the right to take the stand

Hence the "unlikely" bit.

Chainsaw's guess that he would take the stand "because" he had given interview and written letters. My point was that it was unlikely. Do you think that Chainsaw is probably correct, or that I am probably correct?

 

[Tugela]

Your scenario is admittedly based around the assumption that DA - a man who has been incarcerated in the past, and is now facing DP charges - does not have the benefit of top-notch (or even competent) legal representation, and is doing (and will continue to do) deals on his own with the prosecution.

However, if DA has been operating with no representation, that will create legal issues of its own for the prosecution, down the road, given that its a DP case, so there's that. Wonder who has been showing up in court and dealing with the legalities through this long drawn out process, if he has no atty?

I think such an assumption is simply absurd, and that "conclusions" being drawn from such an assumption would be equally lacking.

But that's the problem with the scenario you keep pumping. No competent attorney would let his client sign off on such a deal, and it's unrealistic to imagine he doesn't have an attorney, and one so qualified that he can qualify to handle a DP case.

Nope. It doesn't create any problems, provided that he was told his rights to have an attorney by LE beforehand. If he waives those rights, or otherwise chooses to talk to them without his lawyer present, then he does not have those Miranda protections. Remember, the stuff that he would have been telling them in his mind would not have involved him as a guilty party, he would have been "informing". You don't need a lawyer for that. It isn't unusual for LE to offer people the opportunity to turn in bigger fish in exchange for going easy on them prior to laying charges. This happens all the time when people get picked up in possession of drugs. LE try to get them to entrap their dealer, and in exchange they get to go free. I imagine that he would have been in that sort of a situation. He got picked up for something else and the topic of his brother's potential involvement in the HB case came up. Something along the lines of "we will put in a good word for you, or maybe turn a blind eye, if you happen to be able to help us with this other case", and things go from there. That might have appealed to him if he didn't particularly care for his brother, which he apparently didn't. Lawyers are generally not involved in those sorts of pre arrest arrangements since the snitch is acting as an informant. Usually a lawyer gets involved in the deal only after a full arrest and charges being laid, and the offer of co-operation takes place within a formal framework. SA had a deal like that, but DA clearly did not, so the mechanism and circumstances under which they came to be cooperating with LE were different.

Provided he is of sound mind, he is legally capable of making those decisions himself.

And in case you have forgotten, when he was first arrested on charges relating to the case, the basis for the arrest was specifically a result of things that he TOLD the TBI during interviews. So he did not have a lawyer handling this for him, he was doing it himself. There is no assumption about it.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Nope. It doesn't create any problems, provided that he was told his rights to have an attorney by LE beforehand. If he waives those rights, or otherwise chooses to talk to them without his lawyer present, then he does not have those Miranda protections. Remember, the stuff that he would have been telling them in his mind would not have involved him as a guilty party, he would have been "informing". You don't need a lawyer for that. It isn't unusual for LE to offer people the opportunity to turn in bigger fish in exchange for going easy on them prior to laying charges. This happens all the time when people get picked up in possession of drugs. LE try to get them to entrap their dealer, and in exchange they get to go free. I imagine that he would have been in that sort of a situation. He got picked up for something else and the topic of his brother's potential involvement in the HB case came up. Something along the lines of "we will put in a good word for you, or maybe turn a blind eye, if you happen to be able to help us with this other case", and things go from there. That might have appealed to him if he didn't particularly care for his brother, which he apparently didn't. Lawyers are generally not involved in those sorts of pre arrest arrangements since the snitch is acting as an informant. Usually a lawyer gets involved in the deal only after a full arrest and charges being laid, and the offer of co-operation takes place within a formal framework. SA had a deal like that, but DA clearly did not, so the mechanism and circumstances under which they came to be cooperating with LE were different.

Provided he is of sound mind, he is legally capable of making those decisions himself.

And in case you have forgotten, when he was first arrested on charges relating to the case, the basis for the arrest was specifically a result of things that he TOLD the TBI during interviews. So he did not have a lawyer handling this for him, he was doing it himself. There is no assumption about it.

Do you realize DA is now charged with murder 1 and facing the death penalty it doesn't get much worse then that for a defendant.

So what exactly did they promise DA for his statements?.......because they either broke their "wink,wink,nuge nudge" deal with DA in the beginning because there is nothing left other then maybe the nicest cell on death row that they could have offered him and still kept their bargain.

So,the only possible explanation to your quoted post is the prosecution broke their early deal with DA BUT now he is back on board with another under the table deal,while under the watchful eye of a death penalty attorney.....maybe if I put on a tin foil hat this would make better sense.

You are claiming they have no evidence other the DA's testimony.So they have offered him a deal to go from the death penalty to a free man to take the stand and tell his lies that the defense will rip apart since the prosecution has nothing to back up what DA says.If he doesn't then DA will get convicted by his own statements. All the while there is nothing to prove anything DA says happened or is correct.

There is no way the prosecution is going to use a witness that they know is lying about everything and let the defense tear him apart and torpedo their case.You expect us to believe this is what they are going to do and also offer him a deal of a lifetime for his lies that they are hiding from the defense.

Too many people here have a solid understanding of the Justice System to buy something this outrageous.

*IMO*
It's possible DA is going to testify with a deal but it will be disclosed during the trial and if this is the case they will have other evidence to back him up.How much and how strong that evidence is would be left open for debate at this point but using the testimony from someone with a deal to avoid the DP especially if the defense breaks it apart as your only evidence is not going to be enough for a conviction against ZA and JA.

I am still unsure if DA will testify or not because I can think of other valid reasons the prosecution would want separate trials that don't iblvolve DA testifying against the other 2.....I will just have to wait and see.