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

[Tugela]

You can read the agreement here. (it is at the end)

The immunity agreement is specifically for charges relating to the disposal of her body and/or evidence related to that. In addition, they would grant him immunity for drug related charges, and any perjury charges that might arise from his statements.

The agreement was conditional on them finding evidence where he said they would.

The agreement did not grant him immunity from any other charges that might arise in the case, provided that those charges were based on sources other than himself.

If they in fact found evidence from other sources that implicated him in something beyond disposal of the body, they would not be bound by the agreement on those things. They would not need to retract the immunity offer in that situation, because it clearly excludes that. Immunity would remain - but only for the body disposal/tampering with evidence charges, not anything else he might have done.

If they are now trying to retract the deal, it is the deal on the agreed upon cases, namely disposal of the body and some other drug related charges. The only way they can do that is if they did not find the specified evidence where he said they would. If they subsequently found other independent information that would have led them to the same disposal site, it does not matter, the immunity deal would still be in place.

 

[jggordo]

I honestly believe that Austin has felt that he could hire an attorney and give information to LE to collect reward funds. Schedule immunity for himself in the process. If he could deliver he could pay his attorney and walk away. He's a fool.

JMO's

 

[pearl]

1 Re the removal of the immunity agreement, let's be clear on one thing: the issue of whether Austin has that specific immunity DOES NOT have anything to do with charging him with kidnapping, murder, or anything in between those events.

If the dishonesty they are accusing was about his involvement in those bigger crimes, they could and would have already locked him up.

The fact that he's still walking free tells us the nature of what they think of his involvement. They do NOT think he was involved in the kidnapping, murder, etc. (And, fwiw, that probably speaks negatively on the question of whether they thought he was stalking her at the coon hunt.)

2 Ocean, I respectfully disagree with your take that their decision to yank the immunity is because they have found other witnesses and don't need him. While it may (or may not) be true that they have plenty of added testimony, their written justification to remove the immunity is their assertion he's been less than honest.

3 I still think this "we're going to remove your immunity" is more about dramatic effect than anything. By their actions, they see him as a small fish here involved in relatively minor stuff (compared to kidnapping, murder, etc). They want something from him (or maybe they want to leave an impression on someone else), so they're playing this very public game with him, making him twist in the wind.

They may think he has more info, or has been dishonest. OR, they may want to make others think he's been dishonest. OR, they may want to put pressure on someone or another to step forward and confess. Or ....

There are all sorts of possible angles at play. I don't think what we're seeing tells the whole story at all.

They're trying to scare him into doing this or that. Or someone. IMO. And the lawsuit to prevent them from doing so is an attempt to keep them from aiming what I think is an unloaded gun at him, because I don't think that yanking immunity from him is a real goal of any sort for LE.

bbm

I think since the withdrawal of the immunity agreement has been challenged, it is still in effect until the Chancery Court says otherwise.

 

[future criminologist]

Late to the thread here but, four quick points I wanted to make, just IMO: 1. Meth induces paranoia, extreme paranoia, so the motive doesn't necessarily have to be logical or make much sense. Holly could have been brought into the fold for having been present at a place or having access to something they needed, and been completely unaware she was on their radar or had "done" anything to piss them off. It doesn't mean she was involved with the drug scene in any way. 2. This does appear to be a town with a lot of drug-involved people related to non-drug-involved people frequently crossing paths. Plus, she's a nurse. A person with access to the medical field could be used as a source when other sources of access to the prescription drug pipeline dry up. If this was the case, this would not be the first time an addict has asked for a drug connection through a nurse or doctor, or a scrip pad. 3. Let's also not forget, this is a person who has pointed guns at his grandparents for crying out loud. When he is high he is violent and dangerous to anyone, but he was probably still a conniving sociopath even when he wasn't high. 4. Lastly, rape is not a sexual crime. It is a crime of power and dominance. A female victim is going to be raped as a show of power and as additional form of torture or punishing your enemy just because she physically can be. The Russians who stormed through Berlin and raped the German women weren't looking to get laid, they were vanquishing an enemy. If the person you're "teaching a lesson" or trying to shut up happens to be a female, I think most men who are going to rape know that a sexual crime is additional mental and physical torture. Again, there doesn't have to be lust involved - just a power trip and a desire to dominate. It is ALWAYS a possibility when a female victim is taken, whether it was the intention or not.

 

[future criminologist]

For me, when I read the word, "concealment," I cringed. Did they keep her concealed yet alive somewhere for a number of days? My heart can't take that much.

I think the words used to describe what was done to Holly's body are all legalese to cover any and all possibilities. I don't think it indicates that they know what specifically happened to her body. They just want to cover all bases so he has no loopholes.

 

[future criminologist]

LOL I hear ya. This case stirs up some of the horror from the Newsom/Christian case for me. That case did me in for awhile :banghead: Yep I'm good with tomorrow. I like to procrastinate LOL :seeya:

THIS. The three worst cases I have ever read (of adults; I refuse to read about the Groene cases or any other child murder cases after Jeffrey Curley; I just can't) were Newsom/Christian, the Carr brothers, and the Dr.'s family in Connecticut. Worst. Ever. I can't believe I watched the court testimony of the Carr trial. These actually made me think the Tatrow transcripts were not that brutal in comparison. I just can't handle torture cases.

I'm trying not to think about what happened to Channon right now.

 

[SteveS]

bbm

I think since the withdrawal of the immunity agreement has been challenged, it is still in effect until the Chancery Court says otherwise.

But you've missed the point, it seems.

My point was, the fact that he is walking the streets, without any immunity at all on the kidnapping, murder, etc, is evidence that they don't think (or have evidence) that he was involved in those. Because the immunity he was given NEVER covered anything to do with the kidnapping, murder, etc. If they thought he had any involvement in the perpetration of the kidnapping, murder, etc, they legally could (and would) lock him up yesterday - - and they didn't.

He may or may not be immune from criminal charges related to acts involved with her dead body. The question raised by the letter, that led to the request for a RO, is whether or not he lied to them. That's all they are arguing about in their little drama.

 

[future criminologist]

BBM:

:seeya: Just jumping off your post, shefner :

:twocents: I did not like the Judge even mentioning a "plea deal" in open court yesterday ... he said that he was going to set deadlines, which include a "plea deal" deadline ... Nope !

I hope they get NO deals ... let them rot :jail: for what they did to Holly !

:moo:

99 percent of cases in the system plead out. This does not mean that the person gets off easy. They'll never get out of prison. It happens all the time in murder cases, even when they have ample evidence. They offer life w/o parole and take the death penalty off the table in exchange for her body. Happened in the Meredith Emerson case. That might be something that the family wants because they want to be able to lay her to rest, so they might even ask for the prosecution to make this kind of deal. That has also happened before.
Lengthy trials of multiple defendants in capital cases take a long time and cost a lot of money, as do the multiple appeal opportunities post-conviction they'll get. This case will never go away for the victim's family if they have to appear and reappear at those appeals, and then when execution time comes, there'll be DP protests, media appeals by the convicted's families, etc. Plea removes the ability to appeal. The family never has to hear about these guys again in the media or otherwise if they are gone for life without parole. Justice can still be served via plea.
The first one that 'fesses gets the plea. The rest fry. She still gets justice IMO. I'm not saying I have an opinion on whether these guys should get pleas, or should get the DP, just that this is way it often plays out.

 

[future criminologist]

I realize all the reasons for plea deals. I get that, and got it a long time ago. There are appropriate times for it's use, IMO. But for a JUDGE to throw out that opportunity, much less deadline or cutoff for it before discovery has even been handed over does not seem appropriate. He did not say according to TN law, it was that's the way I do things in my court.

I am in no way suggesting that this Judge can not be impartial to rule in this case. I am simply saying in my opinion, this particular Judge has been involved in several (too many) prior plea deals for these defendants. I believe when (if) the case is resolved that fact may give credence to an appeal down the road and could be, and should be avoided.

If Holly were my daughter I would be asking the Attorney General for a different Judge for those reasons. And if I were the Judge and had ruled on these defendants for even a fraction of their collective 40+ convictions and charges I would not be able to look the Bobo family directly in the eyes for the duration of this trial.

Just my opinions, and nothing personal against the Judge.

That's the way judges do things though. Sorry, but they have that discretion. Go down to any courtroom as a public spectator sometime and watch. You will hear them identify it as 'their' courtroom. They all have different styles. Setting a time limit on a plea deal does not compromise his impartiality. I think you are misreading it as prejudicial. I think it is just normal case processing. You can't run an efficient courtroom without deadlines and setting hearing dates. If no one pleads out, he wants to set a date for trial and move the case along. Furthermore, there's still a body out there that has yet to be discovered. If her remains can be recovered, they want them NOW before they are further degraded. The prosecution will want this too as any evidence from the body adds to their case against the defendants. So you can't just have an open-ended plea deal that whenever one of them feels like telling us where the body is, we'll take it - you need to put pressure on them to talk.

 

[future criminologist]

If Holly were my daughter I would be asking the Attorney General for a different Judge for those reasons. And if I were the Judge and had ruled on these defendants for even a fraction of their collective 40+ convictions and charges I would not be able to look the Bobo family directly in the eyes for the duration of this trial.

Just my opinions, and nothing personal against the Judge.

But maybe the family wants a plea deal too, because they want her body back so they can bury it on their terms and have a proper memorial. When someone is missing a while, families get to the point where having a body puts some kind of closure at least on that element of it, and they can start processing their grief. And this to them is justice. Just IMO, if it were MY family member I wouldn't want these scumbags to have her remains in their possession for one more day.

 

[SteveS]

Plus, she's a nurse.

A person with access to the medical field could be used as a source when other sources of access to the prescription drug pipeline dry up. If this was the case, this would not be the first time an addict has asked for a drug connection through a nurse or doctor, or a scrip pad.

I think your information here is incorrect, so the inferences drawn would not be applicable.

We know she was a 20-YEAR old STUDENT who was in nursing school to become a nurse. I would take it that she was studying to become one, not that she was already doing that.

As a result, I don't think her being in nursing school made her licensed to practice the profession at all. I am inclined to think she would NOT have any more access to drugs and prescriptions than you or I would, and would not have been targeted by them in that vein. Someone with more experience in that field, who knows the medical process in TN, may know more.

 

[Suthrnqt]

<snipped by me>


2. This does appear to be a town with a lot of drug-involved people related to non-drug-involved people frequently crossing paths. Plus, she's a nurse. A person with access to the medical field could be used as a source when other sources of access to the prescription drug pipeline dry up. If this was the case, this would not be the first time an addict has asked for a drug connection through a nurse or doctor, or a scrip pad.

RSBM

Re: #2
Holly was not a nurse. She was a nursing student. So, I think that nullifies that argument. Hth

 

[oceanblueeyes]

1 Re the removal of the immunity agreement, let's be clear on one thing: the issue of whether Austin has that specific immunity DOES NOT have anything to do with charging him with kidnapping, murder, or anything in between those events.

If the dishonesty they are accusing was about his involvement in those bigger crimes, they could and would have already locked him up.

The fact that he's still walking free tells us the nature of what they think of his involvement. They do NOT think he was involved in the kidnapping, murder, etc. (And, fwiw, that probably speaks negatively on the question of whether they thought he was stalking her at the coon hunt.)

2 Ocean, I respectfully disagree with your take that their decision to yank the immunity is because they have found other witnesses and don't need him. While it may (or may not) be true that they have plenty of added testimony, their written justification to remove the immunity is their assertion he's been less than honest.

3 I still think this "we're going to remove your immunity" is more about dramatic effect than anything. By their actions, they see him as a small fish here involved in relatively minor stuff (compared to kidnapping, murder, etc). They want something from him (or maybe they want to leave an impression on someone else), so they're playing this very public game with him, making him twist in the wind.

They may think he has more info, or has been dishonest. OR, they may want to make others think he's been dishonest. OR, they may want to put pressure on someone or another to step forward and confess. Or ....

There are all sorts of possible angles at play. I don't think what we're seeing tells the whole story at all.

They're trying to scare him into doing this or that. Or someone. IMO. And the lawsuit to prevent them from doing so is an attempt to keep them from aiming what I think is an unloaded gun at him, because I don't think that yanking immunity from him is a real goal of any sort for LE.

Good Morning Steve!

I respect your opinion and you nor anyone else has to agree with me. I enjoy seeing all opinions posted by everyone.

However; on this one subject, I continue to disagree... although respectfully.

I firmly feel the plea deal will be rescinded. I believe they have further knowledge of the role SA played than they did when the deal was signed. The TBI doesn't hold a PC saying they are going to arrest a suspect and its just all for silly mind games. IMO

It seems the ball got rolling when Dylan finally began telling what he knew about the crime and participants. And often is the case........when one begins to tell LE what they know others will follow. Which has happened. Even the TBI Director has said he now has several witness that have come forth.

I believe now the TBI has several corroborating witnesses and have also found evidence that proves SA is not only being dishonest but also has a much bigger role than he let on. Of course this isn't uncommon either. Many times if there are multiple co-conspirators they do finger pointing away from themselves and blame others while trying to diminish their own guilt.

I don't think that just because they haven't arrested him by now really means anything. Some time had lapsed before they arrested Autry. This team seems to be very cautious and takes their time in charging someone.

There is no lessor role. If he was there and participated in any manner, from raping her himself, beating her, helping hold her captive, injecting her with drugs or even supplying the drugs so she could be injected for the purpose of rape by anyone, he is equally guilty under the law as Adams and Autry are.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

RSBM

Re: #2
Holly was not a nurse. She was a nursing student. So, I think that nullifies that argument. Hth

Thank you and there isn't one shred of evidence that Holly Bobo ever took any type of illegal drugs in her life. Nor is there any evidence in the entire three years that Holly even associated with those who did illegal drugs.

I don't think it would have mattered if she did have access to drugs.....although she didn't... Imo, Holly would never be a drug supplier to anyone. It flies in the face of everything she stood for........she wanted to help people and not hurt them or supply drugs to an already addicted addict. If Holly had had her choice she would have reached out to anyone to get them help so they could come off the illegal drugs.

She was known as a wholesome, healthy, beautiful young woman who worked hard to achieve her goals in life.

IMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

My apologies if this has already been addressed. I am far behind the conversation and reading my way through to catch up on developments.



Who knows. But he's not any closer to that description than ZA is.

Autry, from his mug shot, is 6-8, a height that seemingly would have been quite distinguishing.

:seeya: You are correct, JA does not fit with the 6-8 height ... maybe it is SA, not sure of his height and weight.

Oh, and could it be someone else ?

:scared: So many "A's" ... and no telling who else :banghead:


:seeya: And Good Morning Y'all !

 

[oceanblueeyes]

But maybe the family wants a plea deal too, because they want her body back so they can bury it on their terms and have a proper memorial. When someone is missing a while, families get to the point where having a body puts some kind of closure at least on that element of it, and they can start processing their grief. And this to them is justice. Just IMO, if it were MY family member I wouldn't want these scumbags to have her remains in their possession for one more day.

The entire BoBo family has a strong faith in God. God tells us that we must accept things we cannot change. I think they are a very strong family. One who will never agree to any plea deal.

While they may never get her remains back in total, I do 100% believe they have been told evidence by LE that shows them proof positive Holly is no longer living.

I believe partial remains were found. It could even be as small as a tooth or a bone fragment.

I will never believe this family will want to deal with the very ones who have done this to their precious daughter/sister. Imo, for them to do that is as distasteful and unacceptable as dealing with the Devil, himself.

They are now looking for "Justice for Holly.' No longer are the family and friends out searching for Holly...alive or deceased. They know all they can do now is to demand justice be done to all of those who participated in Holly's kidnapping, rape (imo), brutalization, and murder of Holly.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

Ocean, apparently you don't get the point I made ...or if you do, I don't think your argument is adding up.

1 You are asserting that any involvement is all the same ...but that's only true to a certain degree. There's a very strong line here, that Austin made and LE made, and it all depends on which side of the line his misdeeds happened.

THIS IS THE KEY POINT THAT YOU MAY BE MISSING. I made this point repeatedly, but I'll say it again. When the immunity was given, it was not granted for anything to do with kidnapping, murder, etc - which means that Austin was asserting, and LE was accepting, that he had no involvement in any of that.

The wrangling regarding immunity PERTAINS ONLY TO LESSER CRIMES and would have nothing to do with death penalty, etc. And the fact that they are wrestling over these relatively minor things tells me that's the extent of what they might have on him, at this time. If they really thought he was about to be arrested on the other, why even bother?

2 A separate issue, therefore, is whether he was ALSO involved with the kidnapping, murder, etc and whatever happened in-between to her - - and if you think they think he is culpable on those and they are simply letting him roam the streets while having proof of his involvement, I can't buy that.

To me, that makes no sense on multiple levels. They certainly wouldn't have had a good reason to warn him with a letter saying they were yanking the immunity deal, if the reason was a discovery he was in on the bigger stuff.

3 The fact that this is being played out in public, while everything else has been kept tightly under wraps, also creates some question marks for me as to "why", even if it doesn't for you. I see it as a power play, in some direction or another. Time will tell, I bet.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

:seeya: You are correct, JA does not fit with the 6-8 height ... maybe it is SA, not sure of his height and weight.

Oh, and could it be someone else ?

:scared: So many "A's" ... and no telling who else :banghead:


:seeya: And Good Morning Y'all !

Good morning, Cutie!:seeya:

As I have repeated said :floorlaugh: in the end it isn't going to even matter who was the original kidnapper because all participants are equally guilty under the law of AK.

And I do believe that all jurors selected will follow the letter of the law. They are told they must vote guilty if it has been proven BARD even if they do not agree with the law they swore to uphold. It just makes common sense that any and everyone that held Holly against her will at anytime before she was murdered is guilty of aggravated kidnapping.

Eye witnesses are notoriously known for giving ID misinformation especially when it comes to height and weight. And Clint has stated very clearly that he never got a look at the face of the person and only saw a glimpse of his right arm when he was leading Holly into the woods.

 

[SteveS]

...in the end it isn't going to even matter who was the original kidnapper because all participants are equally guilty under the law

I don't think anyone has argued that it matters as a legal distinction. Instead, from what I've seen, the question of "who was the original person" has been raised in an attempt to try to put the pieces of the jigsaw puzzle together as to the sequence and process of the crime.

It may be a criminal case, but it's also a crime story to be told. The specifics are still cloudy, and we're trying to figure it out.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Ocean, apparently you don't get the point I made ...or if you do, I don't think your argument is adding up.

1 You are asserting that any involvement is all the same ...but that's only true to a certain degree. There's a very strong line here, that Austin made and LE made, and it all depends on which side of the line his misdeeds happened.

THIS IS THE KEY POINT THAT YOU MAY BE MISSING. I made this point repeatedly, but I'll say it again. When the immunity was given, it was not granted for anything to do with kidnapping, murder, etc - which means that Austin was asserting, and LE was accepting, that he had no involvement in any of that.

The wrangling regarding immunity PERTAINS ONLY TO LESSER CRIMES and would have nothing to do with death penalty, etc. And the fact that they are wrestling over these relatively minor things tells me that's the extent of what they might have on him, at this time. If they really thought he was about to be arrested on the other, why even bother?

2 A separate issue, therefore, is whether he was ALSO involved with the kidnapping, murder, etc and whatever happened in-between to her - - and if you think they think he is culpable on those and they are simply letting him roam the streets while having proof of his involvement, I can't buy that.

To me, that makes no sense on multiple levels. They certainly wouldn't have had a good reason to warn him with a letter saying they were yanking the immunity deal, if the reason was a discovery he was in on the bigger stuff.

3 The fact that this is being played out in public, while everything else has been kept tightly under wraps, also creates some question marks for me as to "why", even if it doesn't for you. I see it as a power play, in some direction or another. Time will tell, I bet.

Yes, time will tell, but they easily could put the squeeze on him behind the scene via his attorney. I think they want him to know they are watching every move he makes and for him not to be surprised when they knock on the door with an arrest warrant. I think they are also sending a message to any others who may want their own immunity deal. They better be truthful and honest, and not a co-conspirator instead or theirs too will be rescinded. I cant remember one case where the police come out and announced they plan to arrest someone and it didn't happen eventually.

And I don't understand why you keep repeating your key point. I have repeatedly said that Austin's deal was as if he played a lessor role in the crimes. Of course it wasn't to do with the kidnapping and murder if he was involved. They would have never agreed to this plea if they were under the impression at the time he may have played a major role.

I imagine like most co-conspirators he was going to say he was there and saw Holly alive and then later buried but had no involvement in the actual kidnapping, brutalization, and murder of Holly. I don't think anyone here has ever believed his deal had anything to do with him kidnapping and murdering Holly.

Of course if he really had been truthful, which I am convinced he was not, he could have been trying to get an immunity deal for lessor charges such as helping to bury the body (after the fact) conspirator or for withholding information, and maybe making a false statement if he had spoken with LE earlier when it first began and tried to give the A-Train a false alibi. I know there are lessor charges that can be given to others who did not do the actual kidnapping and murder of Holly. I just don't think Austin is one of those. I also believe Dylan may be given an immunity deal for testifying against them all.

IMO