Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #3 ***ARREST***

[Hatfield]

If the victim was buried shortly after being murdered the three year old skeletal remains would still be intact as long as they were buried deep enough where animals didn't dig up the remains and scatter them.

After that long due to being in the environment all tissue, muscles, skin, and organs would have long degraded. That decomposition process is done in phases. That is why we often see LE taking soil samples in to be tested under where remains have been found. They can determine many things by what has seeped into the soil over the years.

Bodies which were buried centuries ago have been found intact. Some even had mummified skin left on the skeletons. With some even the scientist were able to determine what kind of food they had eaten during their lives.

So while her skeleton would still be intact the rest of her wouldn't be. I think she was in pieces and possibly those partial remains were scattered around in different areas.........maybe some at Adams place and some on Autry's property.

I have often wondered too if they may have burned her up in a burn pile and may have been pretending to be burning a large brush pile which is commonly seen on farms. It still wouldn't burn up everything as bones are very hard to burn.

JMO

I actually tested this out by accident and was surprised that I could burn bones to ashes. I found a dead possum and had a very large wood burn going on at the time and so I threw the possum into the hot coals and sure enough after about 6 hours of being embedded in the hottest coals part of the blaze there was basically nothing left.

I was surprised that this happened as I expected there to be charred bones left but the possum disintegrated.

The possum bones were much smaller than human bones of course and the fire I had going was absolutely huge. I burned a very large dead tree. The logs were 2 feet diameter logs about 4 foot long logs. The tree was about 60 feet tall and so my burn pile was absolutely huge and so I had a very hot fire going.
My burn pile was about 10-12 feet diameter and about 5 feet high of ashes.

Anyway this surprised me and made me realize that if someone did have a large enough fire I do think its possible to basically get rid of a body. Even though there would be microscopic fragments left the problem is the burn pile of ashes was so large and things get so scattered that even the best forensic pathologist would most likely not be able to isolate anything of significance.
Especially if someone was constantly tending to the fire and stirring the contents and making sure things got dismembered and separated and scattered all through the burn pile of ashes.

And we are talking "white hot" here folks. The large fire I had going was so hot you could not hardly get within 10 feet of it for just a second and have to turn away. I could hardly throw any more wood on the burn pile because I could hardly get close enough to toss another log.
Super super white hot.


JMO of course based on my experience.

 

[Hatfield]

Tugela, General McAddams said no body' was found. Technically, this does not mean that other forensics evidence wasn't found during the ZA property search; partial remains, bone fragments, hair, or photos/videos, etc.

This may simply be a legal maneuver by the prosecutor utilizing semantics/legalese, to back out of the full immunity agreement, imo. I can't remember when an alleged conspirator in a kidnapping/murder was given full immunity by the prosecutor Imo, in a crime this heinous in nature. Taking the death penalty off of the table in lieu of LWOP, would have been sufficient to gain his cooperation, imo. This get out of jail free card offered him was entirely too generous, imo..

Double jeopardy wouldn't apply until and unless he was actually prosecuted, imo.

Double Jeopardy - 5th Amendment to the US Constitution
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/double_jeopardy

I totally agree.

I have to wonder if perhaps he may have told the truth and like another poster said maybe her remains were moved afterwards before LE searched where he told them to search. Or perhaps she was burned up in a huge burn pile and remains were destroyed or scattered to multiple other places.

That perp should have insisted on being with LE when they went to locate the spot he told about. There is no telling how good of a search was done or even if LE was in the exact spot he told about unless he was present.

His deal was such a good deal for him I just dont see him lying to LE. I have a feeling that he did tell the truth and LE is realizing what a bad mistake it was to make that deal that they are using whatever method they can to get out of their own agreement. Because they know the public outrage that would come when the public realizes LE made a deal with one of the perps who had active involvement with her demise.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I totally agree.

I have to wonder if perhaps he may have told the truth and like another poster said maybe her remains were moved afterwards before LE searched where he told them to search. Or perhaps she was burned up in a huge burn pile and remains were destroyed or scattered to multiple other places.

That perp should have insisted on being with LE when they went to locate the spot he told about. There is no telling how good of a search was done or even if LE was in the exact spot he told about unless he was present.

His deal was such a good deal for him I just dont see him lying to LE. I have a feeling that he did tell the truth and LE is realizing what a bad mistake it was to make that deal that they are using whatever method they can to get out of their own agreement. Because they know the public outrage that would come when the public realizes LE made a deal with one of the perps who had active involvement with her demise.

BBM

I'm not sure I agree Hatfield.

Many have lied to LE/DA in order to get good deals by diminishing their true involvement in a case.

I do believe some of the witnesses will be given immunity deals to testify..........just not Austin.

The DA is going to be asked by the Judge to prove to him how the immunity deal was broken by Austin. I think the DA is very ready to give him that answer and proof.

DAs don't go off half cocked. Rescinding immunity deals are very rare so if the DA is wanting to do it... I think he has good cause to do so and supporting evidence why the agreement is null and void.

I don't ever think it got to the stage of him taking them out to locate the body. It seems the attorney was still advising the DA they were more or less ready when he was. By the way the defense attorney talked it hadn't happened yet.

JMO though

 

[cleo612]

BBM

I'm not sure I agree Hatfield.

Many have lied to LE/DA in order to get good deals by diminishing their true involvement in a case.

I do believe some of the witnesses will be given immunity deals to testify..........just not Austin.

The DA is going to be asked by the Judge to prove to him how the immunity deal was broken by Austin. I think the DA is very ready to give him that answer and proof.

DAs don't go off half cocked. Rescinding immunity deals are very rare so if the DA is wanting to do it... I think he has good cause to do so and supporting evidence why the agreement is null and void.

I don't ever think it got to the stage of him taking them out to locate the body. It seems the attorney was still advising the DA they were more or less ready when he was. By the way the defense attorney talked it hadn't happened yet.

JMO though

Just jumping off your post, ocean...

As I recall, part of the immunity agreement was that the DA could rescind the agreement "if evidence was found that implicated SA, above and beyond what he had told the DA." My understanding of the terminology of the agreement was that if the DA could prove SA's involvement--without relying on SA's testimony or the testimony/statements of any other co-conspirator, charged or not charged, then the DA could rescind the agreement.

I would think that this ability to prove SA's involvement would include evidence such as SA's fingerprint(s), blood or DNA located at what had been presented as either the site where Holly had been held, or the site where she was purportedly killed.

In other words, it is not necessarily that SA lied to the DA and that is what the DA is using to rescind the agreement. It could just be that the DA is able to rescind the agreement by relying on "other evidence."

I tried to find the link to the Immunity Agreement, but could not find it. Maybe someone else can find it and pinpoint that exact section of the Agreement to which I am referring.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Just jumping off your post, ocean...

As I recall, part of the immunity agreement was that the DA could rescind the agreement "if evidence was found that implicated SA, above and beyond what he had told the DA." My understanding of the terminology of the agreement was that if the DA could prove SA's involvement--without relying on SA's testimony or the testimony/statements of any other co-conspirator, charged or not charged, then the DA could rescind the agreement.

I would think that this ability to prove SA's involvement would include evidence such as SA's fingerprint(s), blood or DNA located at what had been presented as either the site where Holly had been held, or the site where she was purportedly killed.

In other words, it is not necessarily that SA lied to the DA and that is what the DA is using to rescind the agreement. It could just be that the DA is able to rescind the agreement by relying on "other evidence."

I tried to find the link to the Immunity Agreement, but could not find it. Maybe someone else can find it and pinpoint that exact section of the Agreement to which I am referring.

Do you think the evidence of SA's involvement could be pics or cell phone video? Just curious, as always.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Originally Posted by Mr. Noatak:

My opinions only, no facts here,

One more thing. If you have read it, in my timeline I mention the possibility that the discovered evidence was planted to frame somebody. The Websleuths map at https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=...13057&t=h&z=17 does seem to sort of indirectly implicate one or more of the current suspects. But who is the framer and who is the "framee"?

Foxfire says:

Mr. Noatak, I honor and respect your opinion/s, and appreciate your tireless efforts, but disagree that the evidence located during the searches were planted. Although in the Jessica Ridgeway, and other abductions, the planting of evidence was used by the perp to deflect or confuse investigators.

Imo, it is the norm for the perp to discard items of the victim in route to their safe havens. It is also the norm in many abductions for the victim to discard or plant evidence in a hansel & gretel type trail to enhance the chances for a rescue, or enable authorities to prosecute the perp. jmo..

______________________________________________

My opinions only, no facts here:

Ah yes, but remember the kidnapper may have spent ten or more minutes with Holly before taking her away. Her loose personal items should have been discarded near the initial crime scene. I mean unless you keep trophies, there is no rational motive to take incriminating evidence with you. Unless, you have later plans for this evidence.

Although this detail is less convincing, I find the time gap between the discovery of the Gooch Road evidence and Easter evidence suspicious. It may well be that the Easter evidence was planted days after the Gooch Road evidence.

Now, even more speculatively (based upon an analysis I did a long time ago on Websleuths), I believe that the Gooch Road evidence was tossed within a relatively short time after Holly was taken from her property. Tossing evidence out a vehicle window in broad daylight is pretty crazy when the victim is still with you. I mean, why would you toss an incriminating lunch bag while the infinitely-more incriminating and obvious victim is still with you? So, if the authorities never find any remains, they might reconsider the area immediately northeast to southeast from the junction of Swan Johnson and 5 Forks Roads. This scenario would require that the perpetrator(s) decided to get off the road and out of sight as quickly as reasonably possible.

Of course, if the sworn affidavits are true (witnesses claiming Holly was at the main suspect's house), then this theory about her location is meaningless.

Sleuth On!

 

[Foxfire]

Originally Posted by Mr. Noatak:

My opinions only, no facts here,

One more thing. If you have read it, in my timeline I mention the possibility that the discovered evidence was planted to frame somebody. The Websleuths map at https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=...13057&t=h&z=17 does seem to sort of indirectly implicate one or more of the current suspects. But who is the framer and who is the "framee"?

Foxfire says:

Mr. Noatak, I honor and respect your opinion/s, and appreciate your tireless efforts, but disagree that the evidence located during the searches were planted. Although in the Jessica Ridgeway, and other abductions, the planting of evidence was used by the perp to deflect or confuse investigators.

Imo, it is the norm for the perp to discard items of the victim in route to their safe havens. It is also the norm in many abductions for the victim to discard or plant evidence in a hansel & gretel type trail to enhance the chances for a rescue, or enable authorities to prosecute the perp. jmo..

______________________________________________

My opinions only, no facts here:

Ah yes, but remember the kidnapper may have spent ten or more minutes with Holly before taking her away. Her loose personal items should have been discarded near the initial crime scene. I mean unless you keep trophies, there is no rational motive to take incriminating evidence with you. Unless, you have later plans for this evidence.

Although this detail is less convincing, I find the time gap between the discovery of the Gooch Road evidence and Easter evidence suspicious. It may well be that the Easter evidence was planted days after the Gooch Road evidence.

Now, even more speculatively (based upon an analysis I did a long time ago on Websleuths), I believe that the Gooch Road evidence was tossed within a relatively short time after Holly was taken from her property. Tossing evidence out a vehicle window in broad daylight is pretty crazy when the victim is still with you. I mean, why would you toss an incriminating lunch bag while the infinitely-more incriminating and obvious victim is still with you? So, if the authorities never find any remains, they might reconsider the area immediately northeast to southeast from the junction of Swan Johnson and 5 Forks Roads. This scenario would require that the perpetrator(s) decided to get off the road and out of sight as quickly as reasonably possible.

Of course, if the sworn affidavits are true (witnesses claiming Holly was at the main suspect's house), then this theory about her location is meaningless.

Sleuth On!

Yes Mr Noatak, I also feel that the perp/s hid out in the woods where the lunch bag was located Gooch Rd/5 Forks area. Imo, this was due to the influx of LEOs/sirens of 1st Responders from multiple jurisdictions. There is a logging road that leads to the densely wooded area near the creek where the lunch bag was located.

Imo, HB was allowed to take her personal items, only to buy time for the perp. It would have been obvious that she had been assaulted/abducted if these items were later discovered in the carport by family members.
Mr. Noatak, imo, some of the evidence/items located in the initial searches were left as a trail by HB, and some; cell phone/SIM card, were likely discarded by the perp/s for misdirection/deflection..

Mr, Noatak, I am a firm believer that there is a spiritual connection/parallel in most, if not all abduction/murders of innocent victims. Imo, many times the innocent victims act as invisible searchers and will guide those seeking to find them.

What is the probability of locating an item as small as a SIM card in very high grass, quite a distance from where the cell phone was located?

Sometime before lunch on the Easter 2011 volunteer search, the cell phone was located by an aware searcher. Due to this significant find, all searchers were dispatched and transported back to the incident command center on Hwy 69 in Parsons, TN.

The very persistent and optimistic searchers were then transported to new critical areas of concern and the focus was on locating the missing SIM card. This is why the Easter afternoon volunteer searchers were seen on their hands and knees sifting through the high grass of areas that had been previously searched.

A young, soon to be mother, had traveled from the Memphis area to lend a hand in the Easter search for Holly.. While searching through the grass, she had stirred up a sudden cloud of pollen. Highly allergic, her eyes began watering, nose running, and she couldn't stop sneezing. Each search team was accompanied/followed by a Safety Officer/Squad Leader in a vehicle which carried bottled water, first aid supplies, etc.

While walking back to the Safety Officers truck to get tissues, through an area that had just been searched, the searcher stepped on the missing SIM card...

Photo Slideshow of Easter afternoon search - Jackson Sun
http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs...OTOGALLERIES01&Lopenr=104240801&Ref=PH&Item=0

 

[Carla Lashelle]

Investigators can find small amounts of physical evidence indicating death. Now, the 3 year time span hinders things, but not always. It depends on if various items were hidden (bloody boots hidden in a box in the garage for example). We had a case here where some clear liquid on the suspects car hood was identified as the victims occular fluid (liquid in your eyeball) that splattered on the hood when she was shot. That is not something you would normally just find laying around.

The use of the term "video" is so widespread that I would not read much into an use of it. Everyone knows what is meant. And video has nothing to do with video tapes anyway. You can have digital video, etc. I see it on the news all the time... historic video of Pearl Harbor. Lets look at the Zapruder video of the Kennedy assasination.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Just jumping off your post, ocean...

As I recall, part of the immunity agreement was that the DA could rescind the agreement "if evidence was found that implicated SA, above and beyond what he had told the DA." My understanding of the terminology of the agreement was that if the DA could prove SA's involvement--without relying on SA's testimony or the testimony/statements of any other co-conspirator, charged or not charged, then the DA could rescind the agreement.

I would think that this ability to prove SA's involvement would include evidence such as SA's fingerprint(s), blood or DNA located at what had been presented as either the site where Holly had been held, or the site where she was purportedly killed.

In other words, it is not necessarily that SA lied to the DA and that is what the DA is using to rescind the agreement. It could just be that the DA is able to rescind the agreement by relying on "other evidence."

I tried to find the link to the Immunity Agreement, but could not find it. Maybe someone else can find it and pinpoint that exact section of the Agreement to which I am referring.

Thank you. That sounds very reasonable and a plausible explanation.

IMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Morning Y'all !


Just checking in for any updates ...

 

[Hatfield]

Just jumping off your post, ocean...

As I recall, part of the immunity agreement was that the DA could rescind the agreement "if evidence was found that implicated SA, above and beyond what he had told the DA." My understanding of the terminology of the agreement was that if the DA could prove SA's involvement--without relying on SA's testimony or the testimony/statements of any other co-conspirator, charged or not charged, then the DA could rescind the agreement.

I would think that this ability to prove SA's involvement would include evidence such as SA's fingerprint(s), blood or DNA located at what had been presented as either the site where Holly had been held, or the site where she was purportedly killed.

In other words, it is not necessarily that SA lied to the DA and that is what the DA is using to rescind the agreement. It could just be that the DA is able to rescind the agreement by relying on "other evidence."

I tried to find the link to the Immunity Agreement, but could not find it. Maybe someone else can find it and pinpoint that exact section of the Agreement to which I am referring.

Thanks Cleo and Oceanblueeyes.

It will be very interesting to watch and see how the attempted rescinding of the Immunity agreement turns out.

IMO I dont ever want perps to not be held accountable however for the sake of future cooperation for any potential witnesses in any case, I feel strongly that if LE enters into an agreement with someone that they should legally abide by their agreements. If they have a valid legal basis to void the agreement then its great news. However if they are trying to nullify it just because they made a bad decision in the first place then that is just wrong and it can definitely harm future cases because people will no longer believe LE is going to abide by their own agreements.

Nobody will ever trust them and they will have a hard time getting people to come forward in the future in future cases. Or even future witnesses in this case too may now be very apprehensive about cooperating.

 

[mountainguy777]

I am still firmly convinced that the motive in this case will turnout to be all about control, and power, and was done in order to gang rape Holly.

I don't think we are meant to understand the minds of deranged meth addicted animals. To understand them we would have to be like them and think like them but FoxFire has given us a link to show just how brutal they can be.

During all the times that posters 'over there' have come forward by what they were 'told' by members of the A-Train each and everyone of them were told how unmercifully Holly was raped repeatedly, beaten unmercifully over, and over again, and raped again. So why others seem to think she was taken for other reasons I don't have a clue. Especially when all the A-gang talked about was how they raped and brutalized Holly. Not once that I have seen did the A-Train gang tell anyone that they took Holly for a different reason.

I do think they planned to kidnap her, and did, and when she was imprisoned in Adams home several of the gang repeatedly raped, and brutalized her every way they could think of before they finally murdered her.

I think she was chosen as the selected target at the coon hunt when one of the A-gang was sent to scout out prey to kidnap.

This motive is the same as when any other young very beautiful woman is forcefully taken and later on murdered. Except this was done by meth addicts who group together to do the brutalization and raping of one lone defenseless woman.

I have no problems in believing they did this to gang rape her. It seems when meth addicts get together to victimize, torture, and murder someone they do it together like a pack of rabid animals. That's the only difference in this case from any other case with the same set of circumstances. IMO

Just look at the link that FoxFire put up for us to read when other meth addicted people, tortured and brutalized the victims for seven long days before they kill them. It gives us a glimpse into the minds of those who are meth addicts when they gang up to brutalize victims. They become like deranged animals......maybe even worse since the animal has no control over being rabid.

IMO

That still leaves me thinking....why? There is still a motive missing. Career criminals or not, to jump from crimes to brutal murder is still a jump up.

 

[jggordo]

To my knowledge there has been no MSM report or allegation of rape, much less brutal repeated rape or gang rape. If these things happened we will have to find out during trial. Much like sleuthing POI's that we cannot confirm, I cannot see sleuthing crimes we do not know have been committed.

There is no doubt in my mind that what has happened to Holly is probably unspeakable but in the meantime, until we know more it is irresponsible on our part to make a bad situation even worse by speculating about what may have happened any sooner than we have to possibly finding out. Without it being forensically being proven or an admission of guilt, we may never know.

JMO's

 

[OldSteve]

That still leaves me thinking....why? There is still a motive missing. Career criminals or not, to jump from crimes to brutal murder is still a jump up.

Individually, career criminals. But, once they got together, a collective evil rapport developed.

 

[goldenbear]

Back on line again. I hope they do more searches where the member of the A gang said she was buried.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Thanks Cleo and Oceanblueeyes.

It will be very interesting to watch and see how the attempted rescinding of the Immunity agreement turns out.

IMO I dont ever want perps to not be held accountable however for the sake of future cooperation for any potential witnesses in any case, I feel strongly that if LE enters into an agreement with someone that they should legally abide by their agreements. If they have a valid legal basis to void the agreement then its great news. However if they are trying to nullify it just because they made a bad decision in the first place then that is just wrong and it can definitely harm future cases because people will no longer believe LE is going to abide by their own agreements.

Nobody will ever trust them and they will have a hard time getting people to come forward in the future in future cases. Or even future witnesses in this case too may now be very apprehensive about cooperating.

A bunch of guys like these in prison/jail have probably been exposed to some wild stuff in their lives growing up. Not all of them maybe, but they have witnessed stuff. Abused drugs, meth to be exact. Cooked it, sold it, delivered it & used it.

They don't think like normal people. Their morals aren't the same. The true facts of the why they did it can only be laced with their abuses. Drugs, life or whatever. I also think some physcological problems are happening much more due to abuse of meth and presciption drugs. there, I said it...Permantly damaging the minds of the abusers. Not a mental defense...a disorder.

LE is dealing with these druggies daily. Anyone who has ever seen a person with a mental disorder in action has to realize how unstable all of a sudden they can be. Red flags everywhere.

Not to mention, seasoned inmates. So another guy or two rolled on the first? I see no reason to give immunity if the first guy was lying about something. 2 to 1. It's a squeeze. jmo

 

[Mr. Noatak]

A bunch of guys like these in prison/jail have probably been exposed to some wild stuff in their lives growing up. Not all of them maybe, but they have witnessed stuff. Abused drugs, meth to be exact. Cooked it, sold it, delivered it & used it.

They don't think like normal people. Their morals aren't the same. The true facts of the why they did it can only be laced with their abuses. Drugs, life or whatever. I also think some physcological problems are happening much more due to abuse of meth and presciption drugs. there, I said it...Permantly damaging the minds of the abusers. Not a mental defense...a disorder.

LE is dealing with these druggies daily. Anyone who has ever seen a person with a mental disorder in action has to realize how unstable all of a sudden they can be. Red flags everywhere.

Not to mention, seasoned inmates. So another guy or two rolled on the first? I see no reason to give immunity if the first guy was lying about something. 2 to 1. It's a squeeze. jmo

My opinions only, no facts here:

It looks like a squeeze. If the prosecution's case was clear-cut, we would not be seeing a squeeze or shakedown. But when you cast a very wide net, you often end up having to throw some of the fish back.

 

[Wonless]

My opinions only, no facts here:

It looks like a squeeze. If the prosecution's case was clear-cut, we would not be seeing a squeeze or shakedown. But when you cast a very wide net, you often end up having to throw some of the fish back.

I feel like they are bungling it. I wish I didn't but for some reason it feels like they have a real problem.

 

[*KareBear*]

OT: Randy Allen Taylor found guilty of 1st degree murder without Alexis Murphy's body yesterday in VA...It gives me hope that these 's will see justice in Holly's case


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Foxfire]

I feel like they are bungling it. I wish I didn't but for some reason it feels like they have a real problem.

Imo, Wonless, it may be a little too soon to conclude that they have bungled this case. Imo, now that the main players have been charged and incarcerated. I feel that the critical tips are flowing in, that may not have been received previously due to the fear of intimidation or retaliation.

There has been a tremendous amount of investigative resources utilized in the 3 year HB investigation to bungle it now, imo.

FYI - Interesting article & stats of prior DP cases prosecuted in TN
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/oct/16/jesse-mathews-may-face-death-sentence/