Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #2 ***ARREST***

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO this was a sexual predator taking a victim. Unlike in Mickey's case, this guy seems to have chosen his victim, but otherwise I do not see much difference between the two murders. He must have stalked her, IMO, at least enough to know when he was likely to catch her alone and off-guard. But I think it was always about sex/power, to satisfy his twisted needs. There isn't going to be a "reason" or explanation. JMO
 
IMO this was a sexual predator taking a victim. Unlike in Mickey's case, this guy seems to have chosen his victim, but otherwise I do not see much difference between the two murders. He must have stalked her, IMO, at least enough to know when he was likely to catch her alone and off-guard. But I think it was always about sex/power, to satisfy his twisted needs. There isn't going to be a "reason" or explanation. JMO

I agree, there was a heavy sadistic, sexual predator aspect to the motive. I also think degradation was a big part of the choice in Holly as a victim. I believe he felt that she was that sort of girl who thought or would think, if she bothered to notice him at all, that he was a and/or that he was not in her league, not even close. I think he felt enraged toward women who had or who he thought had this view of him.

I think he also probably thought she was yet another pretty blonde girl who had everything handed to her. I feel this guy is one who has spent the majority of his life resenting others he felt had it better or easier than he himself. Doesn't matter that many of his life's hardships were self generated or inflicted. His type always blames someone else for his own shortcomings.

I believe there was a plan to put this B in her place and by doing so release a lot of rage towards all that she represented in his twisted mind.

MOO IMO etc.
 
I keep going back to the date and time Holly was kidnapped. If you were someone like ZA, how do you get away with not being scrutinized immediately after Holly went missing. It seems Everyone in town would look at him or his gang as number 1 suspect. Why did it take all this time for them to finally get enough evidence to not only arrest him, but arrest him for murder?

....and if he was such a menacing person and it was all about sex, then WTH would he take the chance of abducting her from her home. Why not just wait and grab her one night when she was alone out somewhere. I have to think others were in on this if for no other reason than to provide an air tight alibi for ZA because he had to know his where about's would come into question. They had to have found something when they searched his property that led them not only to the kidnapping but confirmation of her murder.

Why is it taking this long to find her body . At this point I could care if he sits in jail for 20 years until their is a trial, but I do feel her body and COD should have been revealed by now, especially since what they found confirmed Holly was murdered. I find this so unfair to Holly's family, especially when Clint was living under a cloud of suspicion. Impatient???? Hell yes! RUK?
 
I assume the family has been told a whole lot more than we have, which has been nothing.
 
IMO this was a sexual predator taking a victim. Unlike in Mickey's case, this guy seems to have chosen his victim, but otherwise I do not see much difference between the two murders. He must have stalked her, IMO, at least enough to know when he was likely to catch her alone and off-guard. But I think it was always about sex/power, to satisfy his twisted needs. There isn't going to be a "reason" or explanation. JMO

I think your right.
 
Even if it does get passed in the next session it still may not help Holly. If they pass it then it may only cover victims who have been murdered from the date they all sign off on it.

I have noticed in a lot of trials lately the jury gets to see the gruesome crime scene and autopsy photos but we rarely get to see a photo of the victim when they were alive.

It seems so unfair to the victim and to the families.

Sadly, I don't believe the bill will pass. Criminal defendants have long had many more rights than the victim ever has. I don't see that changing.:(

IMO

Stuff like that is not admissible because it is irrelevant to the charges being tried and is inflammatory. After the conviction, and during the punishment phase such things may be presented to demonstrate the impact. But they have no place in the trial itself, since it does not indicate guilt or innocence of the accused.
 
Stuff like that is not admissible because it is irrelevant to the charges being tried and is inflammatory. After the conviction, and during the punishment phase such things may be presented to demonstrate the impact. But they have no place in the trial itself, since it does not indicate guilt or innocence of the accused.

I can kind of see the rationale behind this, although I don't necessarily agree with it. Just look at the comments here.... its beauty versus the beast. How someone looks as a victim (or suspect) really should have no bearing on a trial. It doesn't matter weather the victim was an 18 year old prom queen or an 81 year old in a nursing home.

I did some further digging on the FL case where the Neo-Nazi murder suspect had is inflamatory facial tattoos covered in court by a makeup artist. This was done, because the suspect had gotten the tats some time after the crime and it was felt that since they had no bearing on the crime, they should be covered/hidden to prevent biasing the jury against him. In the end, he was convicted anyway based on evidence, which is how it should be.
 
I keep going back to the date and time Holly was kidnapped. If you were someone like ZA, how do you get away with not being scrutinized immediately after Holly went missing. It seems Everyone in town would look at him or his gang as number 1 suspect. Why did it take all this time for them to finally get enough evidence to not only arrest him, but arrest him for murder?

....and if he was such a menacing person and it was all about sex, then WTH would he take the chance of abducting her from her home. Why not just wait and grab her one night when she was alone out somewhere. I have to think others were in on this if for no other reason than to provide an air tight alibi for ZA because he had to know his where about's would come into question. They had to have found something when they searched his property that led them not only to the kidnapping but confirmation of her murder.

Why is it taking this long to find her body . At this point I could care if he sits in jail for 20 years until their is a trial, but I do feel her body and COD should have been revealed by now, especially since what they found confirmed Holly was murdered. I find this so unfair to Holly's family, especially when Clint was living under a cloud of suspicion. Impatient???? Hell yes! RUK?

I think one of the reasons he got away with it for so long is he was known as a drugged out meth supplier and user. The violence he perpetrated against women, were women known to him in his inner circle. He did not have any past criminal record showing up that he went outside of his comfort zone to abuse other women who weren't associated with him.

Although I am not sure he got away with it for so long. I believe the TBI/FBI has had him in their radar for quite awhile and silently doing a long extensive investigation all along. Imo, they had been investigating him for some time. Just like I mentioned earlier in some crime shows I have watched where detectives knew all along who the suspect was but for the longest couldn't find the evidence needed to prove the case BARD. ZA is not the only person to be arrested for a murder years later that was suspected as the suspect all along.

It takes more than local chatter to get a probable cause search warrant. Local gossip always runs rampant in such cases especially on an unmoderated board. Most of it turns out to be nothing but rumors put out by attention seekers. I truly feel for LE if they have had to wade through all the lies on Topix looking for a semblance of truth. That had to be exhaustive within itself.

It is hard to ascertain why kidnappers do the things they do in the order they do them. Unfortunately many young woman just like Holly have been kidnapped in broad daylight right from their own yard or home. So ZA isn't some anomaly.

It may be considered unfair to the public at large because inquiring minds want to know, but I firmly believe the Bobo family has been told what proof LE has uncovered that she was murdered. How she was murdered may never be known to anyone if ZA destroyed Holly's remains and they are no longer intact. That also has happened in other cases such as this.

At first I did think others were involved but now I am not so sure. He sure wouldn't need help doing this. Many druggies have been successful in kidnapping and murdering defenseless young women and didn't seek help nor did they need it to accomplish their evil deeds. He may have told others about it and as you say used them for alibis.

People are going to believe what they want to believe. No matter if the announcement was made that Holly's body has been located there would still be Clint Bobo naysayers. They tend to totally dismiss the fact that the real suspect has now been arrested and charged.

When charges were brought against Zach Adams for aggravated kidnapping, and murder of Holly Bobo by default the police has now identified the real suspect, and much to the dismay of some it isn't Clint Bobo and it will never include anyone in the Bobo family imo. But that will not stop them from falsely blaming an innocent man. So releasing further information isn't going to stop that, imo.

I believe during their long ongoing investigation they finally found something that would give them probable cause to search his home and property. The TBI/FBI was careful because they didn't want to mess this case up. It had to be done at the right time with the right evidence to support the SW. They knew beforehand what they were looking for and they found it just like they thought they would, imo. That is why ZA was arrested very shortly after the SW was done and charged with the kidnapping and murder.

What it was that they quickly found remains unknown to us, but because the Bobo family is now convinced beyond all doubt that Holly is now in Heaven, it isn't unknown to them.

IMO
 
I can kind of see the rationale behind this, although I don't necessarily agree with it. Just look at the comments here.... its beauty versus the beast. How someone looks as a victim (or suspect) really should have no bearing on a trial. It doesn't matter weather the victim was an 18 year old prom queen or an 81 year old in a nursing home.

I did some further digging on the FL case where the Neo-Nazi murder suspect had is inflamatory facial tattoos covered in court by a makeup artist. This was done, because the suspect had gotten the tats some time after the crime and it was felt that since they had no bearing on the crime, they should be covered/hidden to prevent biasing the jury against him. In the end, he was convicted anyway based on evidence, which is how it should be.

What I don't agree with is there are cases where photos of the alive victims were shown. And even in TN it is left up to the Judge if such photos come in.

I dont see anything prejudicial about it but I do see why defense attorneys fight to keep them out. They don't want the jury knowing that the victim was something other than what the autopsy/crime scene photos portray them to be in death.

What can be more prejudicial to the defendant is when the autopsy and crime scene photos of the victim are presented to the jury but yet those are allowed in time after time and the cases aren't overturned because of it.

So imo, the defense attorneys don't want the jury to be able to see the victim as a living breathing human being before they were brutally murdered.

I don't care if the victim happened to be beautiful or down right homely, and I don't think jurors do either. Just like they don't care if the defendant is handsome/pretty or looks like a beast.

And this law wasn't asked to be changed because of Holly's case. It was brought to congress by another mother of a murdered child. Karen only came to speak as one of the mothers of a murdered child.

imo
 
Stuff like that is not admissible because it is irrelevant to the charges being tried and is inflammatory. After the conviction, and during the punishment phase such things may be presented to demonstrate the impact. But they have no place in the trial itself, since it does not indicate guilt or innocence of the accused.

Then why has it been admissible in other court cases in other states?

Live photos of the victim has been shown to the jury in other states and the cases weren't overturned. Many witnesses have been shown live photos of the victim right in the middle of the trial and they identified who they are in the photo then it is put up on the elmo for everyone to see.

I think it is much ado about nothing and more about defense attorneys wanting to give all the rights to the defendant and none to the victim.

They will continue to hack away at the rights of the victim.
 
What I don't agree with is there are cases where photos of the alive victims were shown. And even in TN it is left up to the Judge if such photos come in.

I dont see anything prejudicial about it but I do see why defense attorneys fight to keep them out. They don't want the jury knowing that the victim was something other than what the autopsy/crime scene photos portray them to be in death.

What can be more prejudicial to the defendant is when the autopsy and crime scene photos of the victim are presented to the jury but yet those are allowed in time after time and the cases aren't overturned because of it.

So imo, the defense attorneys don't want the jury to be able to see the victim as a living breathing human being before they were brutally murdered.

I don't care if the victim happened to be beautiful or down right homely, and I don't think jurors do either. Just like they don't care if the defendant is handsome/pretty or looks like a beast.

And this law wasn't asked to be changed because of Holly's case. It was brought to congress by another mother of a murdered child. Karen only came to speak as one of the mothers of a murdered child.

imo


Like I said, I don't necessarily agree with it. Just saying I can see some of the rationale behind it. Fortunately my state doesn't have such doofy laws so its a non issue here.
 
I believe LE found "proof of death" in their searches. I don't know what is so hard to understand. LE owes absolutely no explanation to the public in regard to Holly's remains. There are some states (KS) that do not release that information unless it has to do with "public safety". A kid was murdered in Desoto KS 10/30/2013. His COD or autopsy results STILL have not been released, and won't until trial.

Also it is quite possible that the photos and such may only be shown to the jurors, with the public never seeing them. LE gives the victims families a lot more reverence when it comes to the gore of some of the crimes. To me it's too bad that the public does not get that too. JMO

I agree LE found some type of proof of death. It could be anything. Pictures, on line chat bored, a confession to a friend or family member. I don't think they actually found Holly at this point but they defiantly got something on this worthless meth head.
 
or wait was Holly's remains found? I can't read a whole lot. Still trying to figure this taptalk out. Just want to make sure I didn't miss anything new.
 
or wait was Holly's remains found? I can't read a whole lot. Still trying to figure this taptalk out. Just want to make sure I didn't miss anything new.


If her remains were found, the info hasn't been released to the public.
 
I can kind of see the rationale behind this, although I don't necessarily agree with it. Just look at the comments here.... its beauty versus the beast. How someone looks as a victim (or suspect) really should have no bearing on a trial. It doesn't matter weather the victim was an 18 year old prom queen or an 81 year old in a nursing home.

I did some further digging on the FL case where the Neo-Nazi murder suspect had is inflamatory facial tattoos covered in court by a makeup artist. This was done, because the suspect had gotten the tats some time after the crime and it was felt that since they had no bearing on the crime, they should be covered/hidden to prevent biasing the jury against him. In the end, he was convicted anyway based on evidence, which is how it should be.

I would have a problem with a jury that was factoring appearances into a verdict, be it for conviction or acquittal. It happens on a routine basis however, in both directions. I think there is something to be said for the jury not being able to see the accused at all, or even knowing anything about them, such as their name and background, and judging solely on the evidence presented before them. That way anything prejudicial, such as celebrity status, racial background, economic status etc etc does not become "unofficial" evidence.
 
I don't care if the victim happened to be beautiful or down right homely, and I don't think jurors do either. Just like they don't care if the defendant is handsome/pretty or looks like a beast.

You are wrong on that. Jurors do care about stuff like that and are influenced by it. That is why the defence takes so much effort to make the defendant as presentable as possible, and the prosecution makes so much effort to present the victim in the best possible light. The victim might be a for example, but the prosecution will want to present him as a family man, a scion of the community who went to church every (other) sunday.

Many, if not most, jurors will make value judgements on those appearances and have a predisposition to convict or acquit accordingly.
 
I agree LE found some type of proof of death. It could be anything. Pictures, on line chat bored, a confession to a friend or family member. I don't think they actually found Holly at this point but they defiantly got something on this worthless meth head.

Respectfully I believe to convince parents beyond all doubt it would have to be much more than that.

A confession wouldn't do it. A confessor could be lying and have their own motivations for lying.
Pictures can be doctored.

It has to have something to do with Holly's body or remains. Things that can be forensically proven in court. Like remains.....intact or just bits and pieces of bones/teeth but enough where DNA could be taken. Or Holly's blood found in a large amount where the ME can testify that if anyone lost that much blood they couldn't live through it. I think it is the first one I listed. Some part of Holly was found.

IMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
166
Guests online
247
Total visitors
413

Forum statistics

Threads
608,547
Messages
18,241,112
Members
234,397
Latest member
Napqueenxoxo
Back
Top