From a post of about Feb. 1, 2016:
some links of this older post might be dead now.
Quote Originally Posted by Mr. Noatak View Post
My opinions only, no facts here:
What do I really know? What does anyone here really know when the authorities possess ALL of the factual, or at least the legally-admissible evidence and have been unusually tight-lipped for three years? I have talked about most of this before on Websleuths, so let me try to refer to previous posts by me and expand a bit.
Look, the authorities may have iron-clad DNA for all we know and all three incarcerated suspects may plead guilty tomorrow. I find it remarkable that in a potential death-penalty case, that the three incarcerated suspects have not already made a guilty-plea for a life sentence to avoid the chair. If this case makes it to trial in mid-2017, I will assume that the three incarcerated suspects actually believe that they are not guilty. I want to clear up some misconceptions here, in the spirit of discussion. The idea that Prosecutors seek ultimate revenge (including the death penalty) for its own sake flies in the face of reality. Prosecutors make deal-deals, as per the recommendation of Don Rickles near the end of the movie Kellys Heroes. In 2013, 97% of non-dismissed Federal criminal charges were settled with plea-deals (
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2014...-plead-guilty/). I have every reason to believe that the three incarcerated suspects in the Holly Bobo case have been offered deals to plead guilty. Prosecutors are VERY practical. They rarely, if ever, pursue the death penalty if a suspect will make a plea of guilty, even in egregious cases:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/07/26/justice/ohio-castro/. In fact, if the death penalty is allowed in a trial, there is an almost 400% increase in plea deals for murder vs. murder trials where the death penalty is not allowed (e.g. the scientific study at
www.cjlf.org/publications/papers/wpaper09-01.pdf). Prosecutors are very aware of this situation and commonly seek a plea-deal from suspects to avoid the death penalty and quickly close the case. This is the Prosecutors hole-card. Unfortunately, innocent people also may plead guilty to avoid a potential death-penalty. This is one drawback.
In some criminal cases, a tipping-point is reached, where the prosecutors cannot turn back. One possible example of this phenomenon can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolando_Cruz_case, eventually involving three men, Cruz, Hernandez and Buckley. This case has all of the elements- prior criminal record, usual suspects, pressured confession, attempts to get the reward, desperate authorities, etc. Anyway, all three men were INNOCENT, as history has proved. You might conclude, OK, the Rolando Cruz case is an exceptional rarity; an example of abuse that can never be exceeded. Well, then remember my excerpt from 8-01-2014: Well in the Wenatchee child abuse case, different grand juries had to approve of or at least generally sympathize with 43 indictments of citizens and 29,726 charges on behalf of 60 victims. This goes infinitely beyond indicting a ham sandwich, when you consider how history has exonerated the whole kit-and-kaboodle of suspects in this case. And now the state is paying millions to settle lawsuits, with many more to come.
OK, back to the main issues at hand. Either after the Jan. 28, 2014 FBI state-wide drug sweep or after the Feb. 26, 2014 Camden incident that followed the earlier fresh-water pearl-heist (see my timeline for more details), somebody arrested may have began singing like a canary, maybe to get a better deal for themselves. This is when the older brother suspect (the main suspect) could have become a primary investigative target in the Holly Bobo case. There was an immediate need to put him on ice and this led to his arrest on an unrelated assault charge (of his then-girlfriend) by March, 2014 (charges later dropped!). Since the bond was set at a MILLION DOLLARS for a simple aggravated assault charge (possibly an all-time record), it seems clear to me that the authorities wished to keep the main suspect on ice until they were ready to charge him with the murder of Holly Bobo. The excessive-bail clause of the 8th amendment to the Constitution is worth a read. See
http://www.wsmv.com/story/24871331/b...search-warrant to show that the million-dollar bond PRECEDED the later murder charge. My gut-feeling about all of these developments is that while on drugs, the main suspect bragged (truthfully or untruthfully) to someone (in late 2013 through early 2014) about involvement with the Holly Bobo murder case. And that someone made a deal with the police to avoid a longer potential sentence for their own unrelated criminal offenses.
The Dec. 16, 2013 announcement of a consolidated $250,000 reward in the Holly Bobo case may have had unintended consequences (after all, the road-to-Hell is paved with good intentions). For example, we have a guy who claimed to know where the body was but could not deliver (and later committed suicide). In my opinion, he had no association with, or meaningful inside knowledge about the crime. There was a claim by a woman that she had seen an incriminating cell-phone video of Holly being abused after her kidnapping and thus enter the potential tragedies of the un-indicted cell-phone brothers. The cell-phone story does not work for me. Besides, if authorities have located this cell-phone video, they will certainly not need 200,000 pages of evidence OR 600 witnesses. And who knows how many other tips authorities had to sift through from people looking for attention or hoping to win the lottery or buy a shorter sentence for themselves? Voluntary false confessions (
http://www.jaapl.org/content/37/3/332.long) are recognized, if not expected in high-profile criminal cases. I have studied these types of confessions and opine that the false confessors are seeking rewards, attention, recognition, evidence of power, or to fulfill a fantasy of committing a crime that they strongly desire to do but lack the will to do.
The land of the two incarcerated brothers was said (by neighbors?) to have been searched very early on after Hollys disappearance and nothing was found at that time that would lead to an arrest. This, if true, cannot be ignored. It may indicate that authorities were on the correct track from day one. But remember, NOTHING justifying an arrest was found on their land at that time AND authorities also investigated a boatload of other local POIs around the same early time period. What about these other guys? Who are these guys? Why were they excluded?
Of the three currently-incarcerated suspects, I believe that the big guy may be able to show that he was out-of-town when the crime occurred. And frankly, as one man looking at another man, he does not turn my crank as a good solid suspect. Like when you drag a net for minnows and you accidentally snag a whale, and call the whale a minnow. At this very late date in time, even if the authorities feel he is definitely uninvolved, releasing him could jeopardize their entire case. He is along for the ride at this point, regardless. It is what it is. The younger of the two incarcerated suspect brothers is said by his relatives to have learning disabilities (I believe this, from my research) and could theoretically be coerced into making many sorts of claims in a high-pressure police interview (particularly in prison without counsel present). This is probably why the police went after him first- he was viewed as the weakest link in all ways. In many aspects, he could ironically be the worst nightmare for the prosecution at a trial during cross-examination by the Defense. I have posted previously about the possibility that his stories have changed with time (he said some things under pressure during a police-interview to get out of prison, and then would not play ball with authorities and was unceremoniously dumped back into the system as punishment).
The older of the two arrested brothers (the kingpin and main and original suspect) supposedly posted a seemingly-incriminating photo and caption of himself on-line (around Dec. 2013), many months before he was arrested. Is this really what guilty people (who are not yet named-suspects) do? I personally saw this post as a cruel joke in very poor-taste, but not as a valid-claim of true guilt OR future evidence of guilt. Regardless, if he actually made this post, to say it was a huge mistake on his part would be an equally huge understatement. Mistakes like this get you hung, regardless of guilt or innocence. Naivety, driven by ego, bravado, and drug-use is the worst mistake of all, and commonly results in conviction. Better to be a fool and keep your mouth shut, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!
OK, I love everyone here at Websleuths all to death, but let us move on in an impassive Mr. Spock-like fashion. The ONLY potential material witness to the kidnapping in this case who is not a suspect (Hollys brother) described the kidnapper in this fashion: Well, I stated originally and never wavered from the description of the man being approximately 5`10 and 200 pounds, at
http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/04/ijvm.01.html
Please do not get hung up on whether Hollys brother made an incorrect estimation of the actual kidnapping suspect (maybe the suspect was actually 7 foot tall and weighed 500 pounds or was 4 feet tall and weighed 80 pounds and Hollys brother could not determine the difference). I prefer not to insult this material witness by implying that he cannot determine the height/weight-difference between his own sister and a person who is shoulder-to-shoulder with her outside his own window. I must take Hollys brother at his word (if the CNN transcript is correct) and regardless, prior statements can be entered in a future trial as EVIDENCE. This IS the internet age, and all juries know that. I previously posted an image corrected for scale of the incarcerated big guy and the older brother suspect and the mystery man at:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/att...6&d=1409900036 Note that in this image, the actual described (by the only material witness-Hollys brother) suspect is on the far right (the mystery man). I have based the mystery man upon a real-life active non-obese male of the described height and weight, relative to Holly Bobo. Of the three incarcerated suspects, only the younger brother may be of the approximate height of the mystery man, BUT in my opinion alone, he is much too skinny to fit the weight-profile of the mystery man. The mystery man as described by the material witness does not soundly or convincingly fit ANY of the three incarcerated suspects in the Holly Bobo case (and it does not matter if you agree- the Defense will likely point this out to a jury). BUT, there are other young local men the police should think about who could easily fit the right-hand mystery man profile in my previously-posted image, above. I have names; the police have names. And the Defense can pursue these names in a trial-setting to cast reasonable doubts. Also, if I were working for the Defense, I would point out that whomever grabbed Holly knew well the habits, timing, and manners of the Bobo household far better than any of the three incarcerated suspects could possibly know. However, let us pretend that the three incarcerated suspects are factually guilty, but did not know the manners of the Bobo household. This would indicate a fourth conspirator, a mastermind; someone well-acquainted with the manners of the Bobo household, who possessed a true motive and convinced the suspects to carry out the crime. But now we would be up to FOUR potential suspects. Simple snatch-and-grab crimes should not involve a potential conspiracy larger than the JFK assassination! I would prefer two suspects. For example, what if there was a troubled woman who felt slighted by Holly or was insanely jealous of her, and played a part in promoting the kidnapping scheme to another male who knew the manners of the Bobo household? Then we would only have the hypothetical troubled woman and the single witnessed male kidnapper. Two people only. Again, I am not saying that this is my favored theory, but this represents the kind of story a clever Defense could and should propose in court, with names.
The grandfather of the two incarcerated brothers lives full-time on the same property where Holly Bobo was purportedly held for a time. From my post of 6-11-2015, I excerpt: My problem is that the Adams family Grandfather (who seems sincere, cooperative, and sharp) LIVES ON THE SAME PROPERTY and apparently saw nothing unusual going on after Holly was kidnapped. The Grandfather is naturally supportive of his younger relatives, BUT also was the first to call the police whenever they got out-of-hand. He could represent a problem for the prosecution if he did not witness a single anomaly on the property in the days after Holly disappeared. The Defense could expand upon this detail, right? In fact, you should definitely read my entire post at
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sho...ests*-7/page33, post #487. I try to keep my posts entertaining and RELEVANT, and this is a sensible and representative example. This post also refers to the incarcerated younger brothers initial release from prison and return to jail for not playing ball.
There is something odd about the timing of the discovery of Holly Bobos remains. This would require an entire new post to explain, so let me simply repost what I have earlier said on Websleuths about the discovery of her remains:
I have previously acknowledged that it is possible that Holly's remains were moved (once). If this happened, I still doubt that she was originally in a well on the main suspect's property. Even a fool would not put, for example, a deer in their own water supply. Another problem is that after three years in a well, the ability to recover 100% of the remains (for removal to another location) is quite unlikely. The pertinent wells were searched by authorities, and if the authorities are to be believed, they did not initially find partial remains in those wells. But, let us pretend that the suspects in 2014 got scared that the authorities would discover the remains and moved them to a "SAFER" place. Yeah, a much safer place, right on top of the ground with a plastic bucket too! (remember that if the remains were recently moved, we cannot talk about them having been buried at the new location). This is crazy- suspects do not move damning evidence to more conspicuous locations! Even barely-rational suspects would have re-buried the remains at least 3 feet down (maybe 15-20 minutes of shovel work) and the remains would have never been found. In my opinion, if Holly's remains were dug-up and moved to the discovery location with the intent to hide them better, this did not happen in 2014. This is unfortunately, NOT a Sherlock Holmes moment, where all but one possibility has been eliminated. Based upon what I said above, here are some of the avenues that I would explore further:
1) Holly was placed there on or about the day of the abduction, shallowly buried, and skeletal remains were later dug up by animals. The bucket was coincidentally left there by a ginseng hunter when the remains were not yet visible at the surface.
2) Holly was placed there on or about the day of the abduction, shallowly buried, and skeletal remains were later dug up by animals. The bucket was placed there so the location could be found again to move the remains OR the bucket represented a "headstone monument" because of remorse by the perpetrator(s).
3) skeletal remains (from an earlier burial location) and a bucket were placed at the same time; the bucket was added as a visual clue in the hopes that the remains would be more quickly found by ginseng hunters or another outdoorsman. The convenient and serendipitous timing of the discovery of the remains could suggest that a clever unnamed lone-wolf perpetrator took advantage of all the arrests and disinterred the remains and placed them where they could be discovered and strengthen the authorities' present cases.
4) skeletal remains IN a bucket (collected from another location) were placed there as a deliberate taunt. In this scenario, the remains could have been placed not long after the abduction (remains from a fire pit) OR re-transported there from another burial location, years after the abduction. The bucket was then knocked over and skeletal contents scattered by animals.
5) just to keep you thinking, the skeletal remains (from a fire pit around the time of the abduction, or years later from an original grave site) were placed UNDER an overturned bucket to protect them from the elements. This tenuous scenario would imply some sort of remorse by the perpetrator(s).
6) or maybe, our understanding of the true details of the discovery of Holly's remains is flawed.
But, as Richard Nixon would say, let me make one thing perfectly clear: if Holly's remains were placed upon the surface so as to be deliberately discovered by another, it is either a taunt, a false-flag (by the true suspect), or remorse and guilt by the perpetrator(s).
I received considerable flak from some internet friends after previously posting the above analysis, and I still puzzle about why this occurred. That is to say- I think I covered most of the rational interpretations about her remains, based upon the scant information about the discovery of Hollys remains.
Look, this post could quickly become larger than my previously-posted detailed timeline for this important case if I do not shut up pretty soon! For the purposes of my research, this may all come down to the cell-phone evidence. If the cell-phone evidence exists as un-officially reported, there could be a real problem with everything we think that we know. If not, there is no problem and we all can move on to watching the three incarcerated suspects face trial with poorly-funded public Defense and with a very modest chance of winning a scientifically-based verdict. Case-closed and we can all slap each other on the back and move on. So, what is it about the cell phone evidence that confuses me? Every other detail of this case, including the snatch-and-grab aspect of the kidnapping, the location of the remains (could have been placed on the morning of the crime), and the quick disposal of the Gooch Road evidence, suggests a somewhat-intelligent very fast-paced strategy for the perpetrators. The perpetrators do the evil job and go home. Now the perpetrators are home-free and can disappear into the shadows (or under a rock where they belong). Then, out of the blue, possibly many days later, we supposedly have Hollys cell-phone magically appearing near her College, as if intended to implicate another student attending there. I have tried to explain this conundrum before here, and I feel that I have not explained it properly. So let me try again: in the old days the most damning evidence was a gun or knife or club. In the modern era, the most dangerous evidence by far is the cell phone (or tablet). So, as damning evidence goes, a gun, knife, or club of the past = a cell phone or tablet in the present. Moving on, pretend that the perpetrators have successfully covered their tracks within two hours regarding the victim and her lunch-purse, books, etc. But her cell phone, the size of 1/3 of a sandwich stops the perpetrators in their tracks. How can we get rid of this immense object? We have successfully hidden the victim, her lunch, books and whatever, but this damning and super-giant cell phone has ruined our scheme! It cannot be hidden or destroyed! Thus, we must NOT burn this phone in a wood-stove, throw it in a river, smash it into tiny bits and eat it, bury it a foot deep underground at some random location, or dump it in a lake or into the storm drains. NO, we must place this un-damaged cell phone close to Hollys college and upon the ground surface where it will absolutely and most certainly be found. I hope that readers now understand why I am uneasy about the claims that Hollys cell phone was recovered at all, let alone near her College. If Hollys cell phone was NOT recovered near her College, this could be an outside job by crazed amateurs and one insider. If Hollys cell phone WAS actually recovered near her college, there is something rotten about the whole story, something more sinister. Potentially, very sinister.
Everything above represents my opinions only and is not prejudiced towards any particular person or persons, named or unnamed.
What a fascinating case.
Sleuth On!
