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

[SteveS]

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 repeated it, because when I had said previously that I didn't think they were looking at Austin for anything but minor stuff relatively speaking, you made the following point:

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.

While that's true, it really didn't speak to the point I was making at all. It is indeed minor stuff that's the focus of the entire immunity disagreement. And it is NOT "minor participation" in anything to do with actual kidnapping, murder, or things in between, either. My point being, with it being minor stuff penalty-wise and that's after the fact, so to speak, and with them making an issue over that, that's why I think there's a different dynamic at play with LE and him on that front, that I think it's more for effect and less about actual charges.

Could he be arrested for the minor stuff? Of course. But I think that's not their biggest aim here. About the purpose, you see it too, with your observation re the immunity move: "I think they are sending a message to any others ..." That's my point! It's being done in a way to send a message to others (and also to him, imo) more than a real zeal to put him away for the relatively minor stuff he had immunity on.

 

[OldSteve]

Now that we have arrests here for Holly, I was thinking about Megan Sharpton, another young attractive nursing student who's life taken ever so horribly, brutally, and senselessly wrong!

Some here had speculated a connection to Holly's abduction since the two did not live all that far apart, and since both were nursing students.

Here a link to some news that may be of interest. Note mention of -

Investigators said Jones had someone purchase a throwaway cell phone that Jones used to call Sharpton and other potential victims.

Also -

By taking the plea deal, Jones avoided the possibility of the death penalty.

There's much more in the article... a second POI being investigated! Megan's suffering mom was active here on WS concerning her daughter.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/20012882/megan-sharpton-plea-deal-donnie-jones

 

[pearl]

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.

My own opinion.
I realize the immunity agreement does not include any immunity for SA for the kidnapping and murder of Holly. He had some type of participation or he would not need an immunity agreement. His participation must have been serious enough for LE to contemplate charging him for something in the first place. I speculate that LE is waiting for the Chancery Court to rule whether rescinding the immunity agreement is legal or not. If the Chancery Court upholds it, LE is stuck with it. If the Chancery Court does not uphold it, LE can then file whatever charges for SA's crimes which they have evidence for.

 

[future criminologist]

RSBM

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

Duh, I know that. Nursing students do things called CLINICALS in their training. Which gives them access to medical facilities, doctors, and scrip pads. Her lack of certification would not preclude her having physical access to any of these three things. That is the point you are missing. Of course I know she can't practice as a nurse. But it could be as simple as someone asking her to steal a scrip pad from a doctor's office for them. Or, her witness another nurse or nursing student or professional in the medical field doing something illegal like diverting drugs. Prescription drug abuse is as big of a problem as meth in Tennessee. Do I know any of these things for certain? no, I don't. I don't even know where she did her clinicals. I'm merely speculating. Everyone relax.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Duh, I know that. Nursing students do things called CLINICALS in their training. Which gives them access to medical facilities, doctors, and scrip pads. Her lack of certification would not preclude her having physical access to any of these three things. That is the point you are missing. Of course I know she can't practice as a nurse. But it could be as simple as someone asking her to steal a scrip pad from a doctor's office for them. Or, her witness another nurse or nursing student or professional in the medical field doing something illegal like diverting drugs. Prescription drug abuse is as big of a problem as meth in Tennessee. Do I know any of these things for certain? no, I don't. I don't even know where she did her clinicals. I'm merely speculating. Everyone relax.

Prescription drug abuse is a big problem in the entire country, not just TN. That is why the DEA is now monitoring pharmacies and doctors offices. As I am not aware of how far Holly had progressed in her nursing studies, I cannot speculate on her being involved in clinicals. However, as a retired (20+yrs.) health care professional, I can guarantee that nursing students do not have access to Rx pads.
By all accounts, Holly was a wonderful, loving and God fearing young woman. WS is one of the few forums where victims are not blamed nor do we taint their memories.
IMO

 

[SteveS]

His participation must have been serious enough for LE to contemplate charging him for something in the first place.

I can see three scenarios, any of which might have brought the immunity into existence in the first place. I think the first scenario is way most likely, as it explains why the immunity included a reference to all possible drug-related crimes.

1 LE got evidence to arrest him on some sort of drug charge. Via his attorney, he denied the drug stuff, but they had some really strong evidence and he didn't know what else they had. So he offered to swap info he knew about Holly in exchange for not being charged on what he did/told, plus walking on any and all drug-related charges. Or,
2 He came forward (via his attorney), when ZA was arrested, and offered information on the disposal of the body and its location, as long as he wasn't charged with a crime for his involvement after her death. Or,
3 Some witness (Dylan, maybe?) saw Austin disposing of the body with ZA and JA. They brought him in for questioning, he wanted to avoid being linked to the kidnapping-murder, so LE told him that if you tell us where her body/remains are, we'll give you immunity on the after-death stuff and some other miscellaneous crimes you've done.

It was for those after-death actions (as well as any drug activity) that he was given immunity, as long as he told them the truth and told them everything he knew. The possible drug charges are probably what he's most worried about, because burying a dead body, or even dismembering it for disposal, is normally not even a felony.

At the same time, LE isn't worried about charging him with what was done to Holly's body, because that's so minor legally. The immunity on that aspect was a no-brainer. But finding the body itself is the biggie - doing so would make it easier to convict JA and ZA of capital murder, as well as to garner forensic evidence against them perhaps.

If the immunity deal falls through, they still can't legally use his own words - or things it led to - against him. So his "dishonesty" (over the fact that the body/remains aren't where he said) is more likely to lead to him facing drug charges than something related to Holly imo. But they really want the body/remains, not some random drug charge against a random player in the drug world.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Prescription drug abuse is a big problem in the entire country, not just TN. That is why the DEA is now monitoring pharmacies and doctors offices. As I am not aware of how far Holly had progressed in her nursing studies, I cannot speculate on her being involved in clinicals. However, as a retired (20+yrs.) health care professional, I can guarantee that nursing students do not have access to Rx pads.
By all accounts, Holly was a wonderful, loving and God fearing young woman. WS is one of the few forums where victims are not blamed nor do we taint their memories.
IMO

Been following, just not posting.
Respectively, Suthrnqt, I've had the same exact thoughts as Future Criminologist.
From her post, she isn't trying to "blame" or "taint" Holly OR insinuate she WOULD do something as nefarious as that....again, how I take it.

Getting back to the access to meds, etc. I KNOW that's not how the program works, and appears to me, that FT wasn't implying that, again, IMO.
Meth heads or any sort of addicted persons, as been discussed to death, have pretty much, in my personal experience, lost all sense of reason and grasp at straws, as well as sit around in their stupor and believe they're Einstein....LOL

Again, IMO, watching Autry in court, thinking HE was holding "court", felt entitled to his demands and desires and wanted everyone to jump up and stop the proceedings to attend to his comfort.
Note: his demeanor changed from poor suffering "come to Jesus" prisoner wrongly accused, to smiles and thumbs up after everything was done and they were leading him away with a swagger.

He reminds me of my friend. Big man on campus, entitled, AND, felt he was the smartest of all. IMO, in his own self serving mind, he THOUGHT he "had connections". IMO, he led the other stooges to believe he had a sure thing to hook them up with the necessary chemicals, etc. to produce the stuff.
One of his "kinfolk" (Holly) was gonna git him some supplies to make their meth and become the "Breaking Bad" of the county. The thought NEVER crossed his mind that she wasn't in a position to do so, anyway.

My friend did the same to me...he told everyone he had an "in". That he was gonna make the "Jersey Six" big bucks. Needless to say, as a chemist, IF I wanted to get charged and spend time in prison, I probably could have gone thru A LOT of unethical practices to get it for him. Not me, NEVER have, NEVER will. He's now spending time in the pen for a long time.

I believe it was HE who was taking Holly that morning AND, again IMO, that's what their conversation was about that morning.
IMO, he felt dissed and embarrassed he couldn't deliver the goods. The whole thing was supposed to set him up as the "leader of the pack", more so than he already thought he was. AND, it was his own, supposed, relative who didn't/wouldn't come thru for him.

Like many have said...this was about power, IMO, AND, the wrath of Autry for dissing him by denying what he felt entitled to AND losing face with his posse.

Sorry this is soooo long!!!

Again, as always IMO....and no disrespect to anyone I may have offended by my post.

 

[OldSteve]

Just IMO, I would be extremely surprised if Holly had prior involvement with the thugs who took her. I see it as evil, miserable sub-humans who zeroed-in on and want to take down a person who is everything they are not and never could be.

 

[Little Jedi]

Been following, just not posting.
Respectively, Suthrnqt, I've had the same exact thoughts as Future Criminologist.

(RSBM)

One of his "kinfolk" (Holly) was gonna git him some supplies.....

(RSBM)

I believe it was HE who was taking Holly that morning AND, again IMO, that's what their conversation was about that morning....

But he is also 'kin' to Clint !

Autry is huge (6' 7") when next to Holly (5' 3") the difference would have been unmistakable.
Nobody could have mistaken him for Drew especially Clint.

 

[~n/t~]

Now that we have arrests here for Holly, I was thinking about Megan Sharpton, another young attractive nursing student who's life taken ever so horribly, brutally, and senselessly wrong!

Some here had speculated a connection to Holly's abduction since the two did not live all that far apart, and since both were nursing students.

Here a link to some news that may be of interest. Note mention of -


Also -



There's much more in the article... a second POI being investigated! Megan's suffering mom was active here on WS concerning her daughter.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/20012882/megan-sharpton-plea-deal-donnie-jones

I followed Megan's case. I'm trying to understand what you believe the connection is.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Been following, just not posting.
Respectively, Suthrnqt, I've had the same exact thoughts as Future Criminologist.
From her post, she isn't trying to "blame" or "taint" Holly OR insinuate she WOULD do something as nefarious as that....again, how I take it.

Getting back to the access to meds, etc. I KNOW that's not how the program works, and appears to me, that FT wasn't implying that, again, IMO.
Meth heads or any sort of addicted persons, as been discussed to death, have pretty much, in my personal experience, lost all sense of reason and grasp at straws, as well as sit around in their stupor and believe they're Einstein....LOL

Again, IMO, watching Autry in court, thinking HE was holding "court", felt entitled to his demands and desires and wanted everyone to jump up and stop the proceedings to attend to his comfort.
Note: his demeanor changed from poor suffering "come to Jesus" prisoner wrongly accused, to smiles and thumbs up after everything was done and they were leading him away with a swagger.

He reminds me of my friend. Big man on campus, entitled, AND, felt he was the smartest of all. IMO, in his own self serving mind, he THOUGHT he "had connections". IMO, he led the other stooges to believe he had a sure thing to hook them up with the necessary chemicals, etc. to produce the stuff.
One of his "kinfolk" (Holly) was gonna git him some supplies to make their meth and become the "Breaking Bad" of the county. The thought NEVER crossed his mind that she wasn't in a position to do so, anyway.

My friend did the same to me...he told everyone he had an "in". That he was gonna make the "Jersey Six" big bucks. Needless to say, as a chemist, IF I wanted to get charged and spend time in prison, I probably could have gone thru A LOT of unethical practices to get it for him. Not me, NEVER have, NEVER will. He's now spending time in the pen for a long time.

I believe it was HE who was taking Holly that morning AND, again IMO, that's what their conversation was about that morning.
IMO, he felt dissed and embarrassed he couldn't deliver the goods. The whole thing was supposed to set him up as the "leader of the pack", more so than he already thought he was. AND, it was his own, supposed, relative who didn't/wouldn't come thru for him.

Like many have said...this was about power, IMO, AND, the wrath of Autry for dissing him by denying what he felt entitled to AND losing face with his posse.

Sorry this is soooo long!!!

Again, as always IMO....and no disrespect to anyone I may have offended by my post.

Well, I respectfully disagree. The post I was responding to by FC did suggest that Holly was abducted because she had access to Rx pads and prescription drugs during clinicals.
IMO, to imply or infer that Holly would ever assist these bottom feeders is indeed tainting her memory. And that is how I took the post.

 

[reedus23]

It was for those after-death actions (as well as any drug activity) that he was given immunity, as long as he told them the truth and told them everything he knew. The possible drug charges are probably what he's most worried about, because burying a dead body, or even dismembering it for disposal, is normally not even a felony.

I keep seeing this referenced, but when I read that agreement, the first full paragraph on the second page sure seems to give him immunity from ANY criminal charges arising out of the Bobo investigation. So it seems to me that that paragraph is granting immunity to even murder/kidnapping charges. It does go on to except from that grant of immunity a circumstance in which there is corroborating evidence discovered that implicates him. It is very poorly written in my very humble opinion, but I think it is wrong to say it only grants immunity for after-death actions and drug activity. Please correct me where I'm wrong. I've certainly been wrong more than enough times.

I also believe that dismembering or disposing or burying or concealing or taking any actions even if just after the fact can and would be a serious deal. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's in furtherance of the crime, couldn't he be charged as an accessory after the fact? I haven't gone to dig into any law books, but wouldn't that make him subject to the same potential punishments?

My own two worthless cents on the lawsuit filed is that it's hogwash. I've never heard of such a thing, but for the third time, I have been known to be wrong before. It seems to me that the Judge is simply going to say they need to raise that as a defense if and when charges are brought.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

But he is also 'kin' to Clint !

Autry is huge (6' 7") when next to Holly (5' 3") the difference would have been unmistakable.
Nobody could have mistaken him for Drew especially Clint.

Seems like Autry is a REAL hunka hunka burnin' man!! LOL Sorry, I still kinda question Clints description, BUT, you're right....he'd definitely make no mistakes about this brute.

 

[MyTinkieGirl]

Well, I respectfully disagree. The post I was responding to by FC did suggest that Holly was abducted because she had access to Rx pads and prescription drugs during clinicals.
IMO, to imply or infer that Holly would ever assist these bottom feeders is indeed tainting her memory. And that is how I took the post.

I wholeheartedly apologize. I wasn't trying to be a mind reader.
And shouldn't have worded it so as to seem like I was.
It also wasn't my place to try to explain what I "believed" a poster meant.

 

[SteveS]

I keep seeing this referenced, but when I read that agreement, the first full paragraph on the second page sure seems to give him immunity from ANY criminal charges arising out of the Bobo investigation. So it seems to me that that paragraph is granting immunity to even murder/kidnapping charges. It does go on to except from that grant of immunity a circumstance in which there is corroborating evidence discovered that implicates him. It is very poorly written in my very humble opinion, but I think it is wrong to say it only grants immunity for after-death actions and drug activity. Please correct me where I'm wrong. I've certainly been wrong more than enough times.

The only immunity he had from the kidnapping-murder-etc, would be in regards to what he told them himself. It says he never had any immunity on things like that, if they found any evidence or testimony against him.

So if they have any evidence he did some of that, the immunity agreement wouldn't apply, and it wouldn't prevent him from already having been arrested.

(I believe the clear implication is that the broader language was merely a catch-all to prevent prosecution for some tangential and relatively insignificant legal violation associated with the after-death involvement that he was freely telling them about.)

Let me add that, from the way the back-and-forth between SA's attorney and the prosecution reads, I have serious doubts he had any involvement beyond the after-death stuff. The focus and tone is more procedural, protecting legal rights, rather than that of someone worried about a client who's about to fry for something major. If he had greater involvement, I think the focus of the attorney would be much different.

 

[jggordo]

I believe the immunity agreement will be ruled on May 27, 2014. I don't know if the matter was brought up yesterday at the regular Chancery Court day and continued to that date or why. But it is my understanding that the Chancery Court only convenes on the second Tuesday of the month normally. So maybe having it that day might be a closed hearing.

I think in order for the defendant (the state) to get the injunction thrown out, they will have to present evidence of how Shayne was not truthful and facts to support that. And I don't think the TBI wants to put that out in an open hearing with press etc.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

I also believe that dismembering or disposing or burying or concealing or taking any actions even if just after the fact can and would be a serious deal. Again, correct me if I'm wrong, but if it's in furtherance of the crime, couldn't he be charged as an accessory after the fact? I haven't gone to dig into any law books, but wouldn't that make him subject to the same potential punishments?

Nah, all of it's relatively minor.

On the body disposal, burying the body is certainly not illegal. And if you're dead, you're dead, so the law doesn't have strong penalties even for dismembering, if it happens after death.

An accessory after the fact might be charged with obstruction of justice, but not with a crime that they had nothing to do with. An obstruction conviction may lead to a strong sentence, but often does not.

 

[SteveS]

My own two worthless cents on the lawsuit filed is that it's hogwash. I've never heard of such a thing, but for the third time, I have been known to be wrong before. It seems to me that the Judge is simply going to say they need to raise that as a defense if and when charges are brought.

It's not hogwash.

The prosecution executed a binding contract with SA, and they can't simply declare that they won't honor the contract. That would subject SA to being locked up, and having to mount a legal defense, for things he was granted immunity on.

Legal precedent favors SA and his attorney. The law requires the prosecution to honor the contract they made.

The process imo will likely lead to a RO that keeps the government from yanking the immunity agreement unilaterally. The prosecution can get rid of the immunity agreement, of course, but they have to prove that SA didn't perform. The burden of proof is on them to go to court and prove breach of contract (over the benefit of the doubt to SA), if they want to void it. They certainly have not done that.

If you wish, read the argument for yourself:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/221108680/Complaint-Austin-v-TN

 

[reedus23]

I believe the immunity agreement will be ruled on May 27, 2014. I don't know if the matter was brought up yesterday at the regular Chancery Court day and continued to that date or why. But it is my understanding that the Chancery Court only convenes on the second Tuesday of the month normally. So maybe having it that day might be a closed hearing.

I think in order for the defendant (the state) to get the injunction thrown out, they will have to present evidence of how Shayne was not truthful and facts to support that. And I don't think the TBI wants to put that out in an open hearing with press etc.

JMO's

Could be right but could also be thrown out on legal questions, particularly on the issue of whether or not the Court can even hear such a lawsuit. So it is possible for the entire lawsuit to be thrown out without having to show Shayne was not truthful. In other words, it's like saying we don't even have to get to the point of determining his truthfulness because the Court doesn't even have the jurisdiction or authority to hear this lawsuit.

 

[reedus23]

The only immunity he had from the kidnapping-murder-etc, would be in regards to what he told them himself. It says he never had any immunity on things like that, if they found any evidence or testimony against him.

I agree with that. I just thought it was wrong to say there was NO immunity granted for the kidnapping/murder charges.

(I believe the clear implication is that the broader language was merely a catch-all to prevent prosecution for some tangential and relatively insignificant legal violation associated with the after-death involvement that he was freely telling them about.)

Could be. Certainly would include that stuff. But it is much broader than that and in my humble opinion, pretty poorly written. My only disagreement would be in describing "after-death" involvement as insignificant.

39-11-411. Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.

It's not murder charges but they're still felony charges. I get what you're saying though.

Let me add that, from the way the back-and-forth between SA's attorney and the prosecution reads, I have serious doubts he had any involvement beyond the after-death stuff. The focus and tone is more procedural, protecting legal rights, rather than that of someone worried about a client who's about to fry for something major. If he had greater involvement, I think the focus of the attorney would be much different.

I didn't mean to imply anything different. I have no idea myself, but if I had to guess, yeah, his involvement probably came along after Holly was dead. Like I said, just a guess from reading between the lines.