Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #8

[Pamela_Brewer]

This is the first case I followed from Day One. I wish we could see or even hear the trial live.
Praying for Holly's family....

You will! JULY 10, 2017
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=10158662034470038&id=625445037

"We have been granted permission by the judge to stream the Holly Bobo case live to our Facebook page #HollyBobo #WOPC #WCM"

MOO

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Mr. Noatak

My opinions only, no facts here.

Summing up to this point:

Trial evaluation #1: I fear that the 3 defendants will not get counsel that is equal to the State prosecutors
Trial evaluation #2: I refer to the three defendants as the older brother, younger brother, and the big guy. The older brother is the principal suspect. During the time the older brother was in Jail it was widely-claimed that he made a threat against his younger brother that he would also end up in the same hole as Holly. Yeah, right. Holly's remains were discovered above the ground. The so-called mastermind did not even know how the remains were interred. Think about this, my friends.

Moving on to Trial evaluation #3: What did Holly's brother see on the morning of the kidnapping? He saw and was definitive that the abductor was 5 feet 10 inches tall (see http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/04/ijvm.01.html post- read beyond half-way down; note that the FBI may have extended the height range to six feet in subsequent reports). Understand that the abductor was shoulder-to-shoulder with Holly and her brother knew well her exact height for precise comparison. This height-description rules out the big guy suspect and older brother suspect by a mile. I was hammered when I pointed this out a couple of years ago. Easy-peasy to question me at that time, but in a court of law, such prior statements to the press have the rule of law in a later trial. The big guy, nor the older brother are the abductor. So, only the younger brother is left to be the described abductor by the only material witness. So what is the height of the younger suspect brother? I have never found a mugshot in front of a height chart or description of his height on the 'net. From the pics of him online I would guesstimate he is 6 feet to 6 feet and one inch. But in reality, the younger brother suspect would have never been enlisted to conduct the actual kidnapping. Do your own research about him and what his relatives say about his particular state of mind. He never would have been capable of masterminding the physical kidnapping. See http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...y-disposed-evidence-holly-bobo-case/16128815/

What if none of the three suspects fits the exact 5' 10" description of the only material witness? Then who actually snatched Holly? With good defense lawyers, this would be dynamite in a trial.

Sleuth On!

Can you cite a couple cases where someone with a solid alibi has pleaded guilty to kidnapping,rape and murder.

People do get scared and take a plea deal.I am not saying they don't but I personally don't know of anyone that could prove they were out of town during the time of the crimes for which they were being charged end up pleading guilty to those crimes.
If they exist I would enjoy looking at those cases to see if I can figure out what went wrong for a suspect that should have never been charged to end up pleading guilty.

Do we know the prosecution pressured JA to confess?
AFAIK nothing has been said what led to this deal so it is totally possible JA and his attorney reached out to the prosecution to make a deal to take the DP off the table.

Your premise is fairly solid and well thought out but saying JA has pleaded guilty while having a solid alibi is a huge stumbling block at this current point in time.

My opinions only, no facts here:

Your response is completely logical and sensible.

Oddly, by total coincidence, I saw a new show on ID Discovery yesterday, where they estimated that 10% of all confessions in murder cases are false. But please understand that I am not making an argument that the one or all of the current three suspects in the Holly Bobo case are innocent and/or have good alibis. Instead, I am exposing different aspects of the Defense in this case. Unfortunately, a high-powered defense seems unlikely. To me, the suspects seem doomed regardless of culpability.

Here are the three lines of reasoning that I previously outlined above, regarding the defense situation and possible considerations therof:

Trial evaluation #1: I fear that the 3 defendants will not get counsel that is equal to the State prosecutors
Trial evaluation #2: I refer to the three defendants as the older brother, younger brother, and the big guy. The older brother is the principal suspect. During the time the older brother was in Jail it was widely-claimed that he made a threat against his younger brother that he would also end up in the same hole as Holly. Yeah, right. Holly's remains were discovered above the ground. The so-called mastermind did not even know how the remains were interred. Think about this, my friends.
Trial evaluation #3: What did Holly's brother see on the morning of the kidnapping? He saw and was definitive that the abductor was 5 feet 10 inches tall (see http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/04/ijvm.01.html post)- read beyond half-way down; note that the FBI may have extended the height range to six feet in subsequent reports. Understand that the abductor was shoulder-to-shoulder with Holly and her brother knew well her exact height for precise comparison. This height-description rules out the big guy suspect and older brother suspect by a mile. I was hammered when I pointed this out a couple of years ago. Easy-peasy to question me at that time, but in a court of law, such prior statements to the press have the rule of law in a later trial. The big guy, nor the older brother are the abductor. So, only the younger brother is left to be the described abductor by the only material witness. So what is the height of the younger suspect brother? I have never found a mugshot in front of a height chart or description of his height on the 'net. From the pics of him online I would guesstimate he is 6 feet to 6 feet and one inch. But in reality, the younger brother suspect would have never been enlisted to conduct the actual kidnapping. Do your own research about him and what his relatives say about his particular state of mind. He never would have been capable of masterminding the physical kidnapping. See http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/news...case/16128815/. What if none of the three suspects fits the exact 5' 10" description of the only material witness? Then who actually snatched Holly? With good defense lawyers, this would be dynamite in a trial.

But the biggest discrepancy is what the tracking dog (or dogs} "saw". Trial evaluation #4: I believe at least one tracking dog was employed the day of the abduction. It had rained heavily a day before the abduction, which makes for perfectly ideal dog-tracking conditions. The fact that many locals had stomped around the house before the tracking dog did its magic is not relevant. Such dogs are constantly used successfully in cities where there have been hundreds of passerbys since a recent crime. The dog(s) could not track Holly into the woods where she was reported to have been led by the abductor. The description of the dog(s) behavior (see my timeline at http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...DiA-amp-TiMeLiNe-only!-*NO-DISCUSSION*/page15) suggests that nothing extraordinary had happened recently and the dog(s) was simply following older traces of her scent on the lawns. It is almost as if she was spirited away in a car from her own driveway.

Sleuth On!

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Regarding the broader question of false consfessions in serious cases, I will repost something I first posted a few years ago (for your amusement and unbelievability). There were tons of false pleas by and convictions of rural farm families and local residents in a criminal case that NEVER HAPPENED. It makes the Salem Witch trials look like Judicial perfection by comparison.

MY OLDER POST

My opinions only, no facts here:You say above: 'I also do not agree with those who think a GJ will indict a ham sandwich.'
I said in response to this: "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.
A grand jury indictment can be VERY easy to obtain. A conviction is MUCH more difficult. Remember, every one of the tens of thousands of people found NOT GUILTY by jury in the U.S. every year were indicted by a grand jury. Consider the logic. If grand juries are perfect, why even bother to proceed to a jury trial? Why not simply allow a grand jury to convict and sentence a suspect?"

Sleuth On!

 

[Hatfield]

JMO
I am really surprised to hear of the recent plea bargain from one of the defendents.

If not for the defendents statements themselves then this case would be much tougher than it sounds for the prosecution.

Its going to be interesting as it goes forward.

Just glad it is moving forward. Never thought this trial would get off the ground. Hopefully some answers will be able to be uncovered.

 

[Tugela]

What??????

Um, no.

You really need to attend a trial, where you'll quickly see how wrong that idea is.

That is cross examination in the context of hearsay, not cross examination in general.

The burden of proof is not on the defense, so they can make use of the statements made by SA as evidence of an alternative version of events for the crime their client is accused of. This to establish reasonable doubt, and there is no burden of proof to establish reasonable doubt. They don't need SA to be present there. They can use anything that was stated to investigators during the investigation as evidence of an alternative scenario if they so choose. The evidence will not be disallowed simply because SA is dead and can't be cross examined by the state if the defense chooses to enter it. The state can't enter it as evidence in THEIR case, UNLESS the defense does it first. Then they can put forward rebuttal if they choose, but unless the defense enters the statements into the record, the statements are out of bounds.

Hearsay only becomes an issue if you carry the burden of proof, and the defense does not when it comes to reasonable doubt. They do NOT have to prove who really did the crime, they only have to establish the POSSIBILITY that there is a reasonable alternative. And for that reason the state will not be able to block them from using SA's statements on hearsay grounds.

The general rule for hearsay is summarized here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hearsay

In presenting a reasonable doubt argument, the defense would not be trying to prove that someone else did it (they are not trying to prove the assertion of fact), but merely that SA made statements that could be interpreted as an alternative version of events.

 

[Tugela]

It is very clear what he was confessing to. Per the motion filed by Zach Adams attorney, he confessed on January 20th to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo.

http://wkrn.com/2017/03/01/holly-bobo-trial-now-to-begin-in-july/

We don't know what he confessed to however. It may well have been to some peripheral role, not as one of the principals in the crime. For example, he might be claiming that he was aware of some plan, and was an accomplice after the fact, but was not directly involved in the events.

 

[terpstra1]

We don't know what he confessed to however. It may well have been to some peripheral role, not as one of the principals in the crime. For example, he might be claiming that he was aware of some plan, and was an accomplice after the fact, but was not directly involved in the events.

I dont think LE would make a deal without 100% of the details. But as always thats jmo.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[Mightymight]

We don't know what he confessed to however. It may well have been to some peripheral role, not as one of the principals in the crime. For example, he might be claiming that he was aware of some plan, and was an accomplice after the fact, but was not directly involved in the events.

"Taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo" is not the same thing as being an accomplice after the fact.

We can agree to disagree on almost every fact of this case that have been publicly released and the rules and procedures of the court. <mod snip>

 

[SteveS]

In presenting a reasonable doubt argument, the defense would not be trying to prove that someone else did it (they are not trying to prove the assertion of fact), but merely that SA made statements that could be interpreted as an alternative version of events.

(NOTE: Your lectures on "reasonable doubt" and "burden of proof" aren't at all informative, and don't really speak to the actual legal issues surrounding the inadmissibility of hearsay, but I've already offered my explanation of the legalities at play, so I'll just note that I don't buy your arguments, and leave it at that.)

On the bottom line issue, if you want to believe that the defense is eager to try to find a way to slip SA's claims that the defendants kidnapped, raped, and killed HB into this trial, so that the jury will have more evidence that points to them being guilty, feel free. But that makes no sense from any angle. None.

 

[SteveS]

I dont think LE would make a deal without 100% of the details. But as always thats jmo.

As you've noted, we factually know that JA "confessed on January 20th to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo." The phrase "taking part in" denotes an active involvement in the events that happened, and that's clearly what the record says, so trying to downplay it into some sort of innocuous connection to those events is a silly exercise in excusiness. It is what it is.

 

[OldSteve]

Regarding JA "confessed on January 20th to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo." almost invariably in cases I've followed a perp tries in some way to victimize the victim; tries to make victim out as in some way responsible for his evil doing... and the evil doing heaped upon poor Holly I cannot imagine.
I wonder if we will see that happen here in some way...

 

[jggordo]

I still believe there is a videotape or recording that is indisputable and JA knows it.
We'll soon see.

JMO

 

[Chainsaw385]

I still believe there is a videotape or recording that is indisputable and JA knows it.
We'll soon see.

Would they have taken a plea from JA if this was the case?
It could be possible that he was not on the video or recording.

There are so many questions in this case that won't be answered until the trial and has me considering taking some vacation days just to watch it live.

There are certainly some things that point to this being true.....DA states there was one made.
Then an independent witness comes forward stating she saw parts of it.When she would have had no way of knowing what DA has said.

BUT there are also things that point to no recording or at least none LE could find ...such as charges dropped against the Pearcy's.

FWIW my personal thoughts are some type of ransom video was recorded but that is nothing more then a hunch on my part.
I know it has happened in the past in a number of instances but I just have a hard time wrapping my head around people video tapping themselves gang raping a victim.

 

[Chainsaw385]

I still believe there is a videotape or recording that is indisputable and JA knows it.
We'll soon see.

There are so many questions about this case that will only be answered at trial.It has me considering taking some vacation days so I can watch it live.

Would they have taken a plea from JA if this was the case?
It could be possible that he was not on the video or recording.

There are certainly some things that point to this being true.....DA states there was one made.
Then an independent witness comes forward stating she saw parts of it.When she would have had no way of knowing what DA has said.

BUT there are also things that point to no recording or at least none LE could find ...such as charges dropped against the Pearcy's.

FWIW my personal thoughts are some type of ransom video was recorded but that is nothing more then a hunch on my part.
I know it has happened in the past in a number of instances but I just have a hard time wrapping my head around people video tapping themselves gang raping a victim.

 

[SteveS]

I still believe there is a videotape or recording that is indisputable and JA knows it.
We'll soon see.

JMO

I have my doubts that LE has a video. That's not to say one did or didn't ever exist, or that LE thinks one did or didn't exist, but only that I don't think they have actually found one to use at trial. JMO.

I echo the sentiments of others that this will be an interesting trial to follow. But I suspect - based on past experience - that the evidence will prove to be far less flashy to the satisfaction of the general public than is expected. That's the norm, really, because movies and TV have led us to expect Perry Mason "aha" revelations about the accused, whereas reality tends to be far more subtle.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

I agree with Steve S. with respect to his recent and particular analysis.

If a suspect lies to the police in the interrogation room, that can be charged as a crime against them. Whereas, the police can lie freely and it is completely legal and not uncommon. They could falsely claim to a suspect that we possess DNA, a video, a witness; whatever- to elicit a confession. I personally do not like this duality in the law.

Sleuth On!

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Remember that the kidnapper of Holly as definitively described by her brother did not fit the height of two of the three suspects. BUT, also remember that the kidnapper knew every detail of the Bobo household; e.g. when each family member left the house in the early morning, where they left the house from, etc. And remember that the tracking dog or dogs COULD NOT track Holly into the woods. With competent defense, these details (representing my opinions only) could be relevant at trial.

Sleuth On!

Mr. Noatak

 

[SteveS]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Remember that the kidnapper of Holly as definitively described by her brother did not fit the height of two of the three suspects. BUT, also remember that the kidnapper knew every detail of the Bobo household; e.g. when each family member left the house in the early morning, where they left the house from, etc. And remember that the tracking dog or dogs COULD NOT track Holly into the woods. With competent defense, these details (representing my opinions only) could be relevant at trial.

Sleuth On!

Mr. Noatak

1 "Remember that the kidnapper of Holly as definitively described by her brother did not fit the height of two of the three suspects."

I think you place too much confidence in your idea that the brother must have been accurate in his ROUGH EYEBALL ESTIMATE of the height of someone he saw once from some distance and walking away from him (which means a changing perspective each second) . And imo it's a major error to try to base ensuing arguments, analyses, and conclusions on that estimate being magically precise.

2 "also remember that the kidnapper knew every detail of the Bobo household; e.g. when each family member left the house in the early morning, where they left the house from, etc."

Pure nonsense. This is a pure assumption based on virtually nothing, because every event that morning by the perp could have just as easily been done by someone who (a) had no special knowledge of the normal family schedule, and (b) arrived, waited, and simply reacted to the family's actions as they occurred. It is human nature to want to insert "a perfect plan" or "perfect knowledge" into even the most common, random sequence of events as if that's the only way they could have been done, when instead they just played out in one random way of a million.

3 "And remember that the tracking dog or dogs COULD NOT track Holly into the woods."

I'm not sure why this is supposedly meaningful. Fact is, Holly probably didn't even go into the woods, but rather was led out the north side of the property to a vehicle just up the road out of sight of the house. Based on what was said by the brother as to where he saw them headed, it's easy to see they could have gone a few feet through some trees and they're quickly back on the road, in a vehicle, and gone.

And as for some sort of dog-tracking exercise, she lived there and her scent was undoubtedly all over that property. Could you even distinguish her scent on one day going one direction from a different day going another direction on the property. It would be transparently pointless to bring the dogs into the house and try to track her movements sequentially through the house that morning after getting out of bed, and it's unlikely that a dog sniff of some of her clothing would lead them in any particular direction on the property - which it didn't. No surprise at all.

 

[Chainsaw385]

#1 ......wasn't the brother woken up by a phone call by the mother?

I know often times myself I have trouble waking up and being 100% alert right away.I hope I am not alone in ever waking up on a Sunday and thinking it was a Monday and start getting ready to go to work before I figure it out.

One of the brothers statements to police is he originally thought it was the boyfriend that was with Holly.
So.......he clearly didn't get a good look or wasn't fully awake and aware of what he was seeing.

Either one is enough to cast doubt on what he described seeing and understandable.I am sure this will be a hammering point for the defense.The prosecution will have to counter with solid evidence to overcome this discrepancy..

 

[SteveS]

#1 ......wasn't the brother woken up by a phone call by the mother?

I know often times myself I have trouble waking up and being 100% alert right away.I hope I am not alone in ever waking up on a Sunday and thinking it was a Monday and start getting ready to go to work before I figure it out.

One of the brothers statements to police is he originally thought it was the boyfriend that was with Holly.
So.......he clearly didn't get a good look or wasn't fully awake and aware of what he was seeing.

Either one is enough to cast doubt on what he described seeing and understandable.I am sure this will be a hammering point for the defense.The prosecution will have to counter with solid evidence to overcome this discrepancy..

1 I'm not sure what point the defense can make about his description - they can say he was unreliable on the details of a description of who was with Holly, and they would be right, but afaik no one is relying on those details in this case anyhow.
2 You make a good point about him perhaps not being fully awake, to account for his lack of clarity.
3 But to be clear, there was even more at play, as his belief that it was Holly's boyfriend with her flowed primarily from the fact he was NOT really seeing who it was - ie, the story was that he just saw/heard that Holly talking with someone, but they were mostly hidden from his view, and he simply made that (erroneous) initial assumption she was talking to her boyfriend.