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

[dog.gone.cute]

Hi again,

I meant the whole "witnesses" statement made by Gwyn. Who do you think these witnesses are? Not Mr. Nice Guy next door, that's for sure.

:seeya: I have no clue who Mr. Gwyn was referring to. I wish I did ... lol !

:moo:

 

[mountainguy777]

seriously....two of the three guys are NOT CLOSE to clint's description of the guy he saw walking into the woods.. The third guy has not been officially arrested, and would be if he was the the guy LE thought lured Holly from her home.

 

[maskedwoman]

is this your first Rodeo? in most cases I have ever seen, LE is quick to act confident or say they have certain things if they do to get public opinion on thier side. if they had a body, they would say they have a body. Anything less than a body in this case will be argued and not a slam dunk. Are you saying LE never mis-file charges? lol

If you think I am way off base in thinking they might not have much, I say you are just as far off base saying they have anything. just saying...

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that LE never mis-file charges and, no, it is not my first rodeo. I was speaking specifically about THIS case, not generally about ALL cases, as I'm sure you knew.

I didn't say how much I thought they had. I only said they have 360,000 pages of discovery, so I'm confident they aren't relying on hearsay to make the case since it isn't admissible.

Frankly, to close, I just don't care for the automatic assumption that trained professionals are grasping idiots, who couldn't possibly solve a crime without the guidance and wisdom of we completely untrained arm-chair websleuths. That's all.

Cheers.

 

[mountainguy777]

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that LE never mis-file charges and, no, it is not my first rodeo. I was speaking specifically about THIS case, not generally about ALL cases, as I'm sure you knew.

I didn't say how much I thought they had. I only said they have 360,000 pages of discovery, so I'm confident they aren't relying on hearsay to make the case since it isn't admissible.

Frankly, to close, I just don't care for the automatic assumption that trained professionals are grasping idiots, who couldn't possibly solve a crime without the guidance and wisdom of we completely untrained arm-chair websleuths. That's all.

Cheers.

I understand your point. However....what LE has now, they could have had the first week. These were the rumored guys, these were the guys in and out of jail, the community knew they were bad seeds. It took three years to get here? theycould have searched the adams house during one of his jail stints based on rumors he was involved in the Bobo case way back. They did it anyway...three years later, right?

 

[~n/t~]

It is not a crime if you don't run to the police with whatever you know. You don't have to say a word, if they ask you questions. Anyone who says otherwise has gone way over the top.

It's a crime to lie to police, and lead them astray. It is a crime to KNOWINGLY conceal or destroy physical evidence relating to a crime.

But we don't have to talk, if we don't want to.

ETA - The "misprision" charge is rare, and is used when there is evidence of active knowledge and concealment. In addition, it requires that you KNOW a felony was committed, not simply having info of some sort that may or may not be of interest to the cops. In this case, it could only be applicable of someone who saw Holly being kidnapped, or murdered, and knew that's what they saw.

Isn't that what LE stated. They have witnesses that saw Holly alive. Did these witnesses not know that she was kidnapped from her home? All of Tennessee knew she was kidnapped.

 

[~n/t~]

Now you're putting words in my mouth. I did not say that LE never mis-file charges and, no, it is not my first rodeo. I was speaking specifically about THIS case, not generally about ALL cases, as I'm sure you knew.

I didn't say how much I thought they had. I only said they have 360,000 pages of discovery, so I'm confident they aren't relying on hearsay to make the case since it isn't admissible.

Frankly, to close, I just don't care for the automatic assumption that trained professionals are grasping idiots, who couldn't possibly solve a crime without the guidance and wisdom of we completely untrained arm-chair websleuths. That's all.

Cheers.

Are the 360,000 pages on ZA alone or do they include Autry? IIRC, it was announced at one of ZA's hearings.

 

[maskedwoman]

I understand your point. However....what LE has now, they could have had the first week. These were the rumored guys, these were the guys in and out of jail, the community knew they were bad seeds. It took three years to get here? theycould have searched the adams house during one of his jail stints based on rumors he was involved in the Bobo case way back. They did it anyway...three years later, right?

Actually, no they couldn't have. Rumors are not probable cause and will not get you a warrant.

It's been said repeatedly that people didn't start talking until ZA was locked up and that didn't happen until a few months ago. So, no, I don't think LE could have had 3 years ago what they have today. Because, three years ago, no one was talking.

 

[Suthrnqt]

:seeya: Nice to see everyone back here !

Although we may not agree on who did what, etc. ...

We all agree that there be JUSTICE FOR HOLLY and the BOBO FAMILY !


lease: for Holly and her Family

:rose::rose::rose: :rose::rose::rose: :rose::rose::rose:

At the end of the day, that is what is the most important issue here....JUSTICE FOR HOLLY AND THE BOBO FAMILY.

 

[maskedwoman]

Are the 360,000 pages on ZA alone or do they include Autry? IIRC, it was announced at one of ZA's hearings.

I'm only guessing, but any comments made during ZA's hearing should relate only to his trial. There's really no reason for them to discuss the evidence against anyone else and it might end up being prejudicial (barf) against ZA. I'm sure a lot of the evidence crosses over and applies to other defendants as well, though.

 

[~n/t~]

Actually, no they couldn't have. Rumors are not probable cause and will not get you a warrant.

It's been said repeatedly that people didn't start talking until ZA was locked up and that didn't happen until a few months ago. So, no, I don't think LE could have had 3 years ago what they have today. Because, three years ago, no one was talking.

We know Autry was questioned in 2012. So one could assume they suspected him. ZA and JA were good buddies. Wonder why they didn't question ZA or did they?

 

[SteveS]

Isn't that what LE stated. They have witnesses that saw Holly alive. Did these witnesses not know that she was kidnapped from her home? All of Tennessee knew she was kidnapped.

That's not the same thing. If you saw Holly being kidnapped (or murdered), and know that's what you are seeing, you have to report it. But "being alive" in and of itself is not an observation of a crime, and may have been construed erroneously at the time as the idea that a crime against her had NOT really been committed.

Beyond that, it will be interesting to see who these "witnesses" actually are. DA's sometimes are prone to exaggerate when playing to the court of public opinion, as well as LE when trying to coax confessions and witnesses, and we have to wait until we get to court and it's all under oath to see what they do (or don't) have.

ETA - As to the Boyd case and its applicability here to a possible witness who didn't come running to police in seeing Holly at some point, it's informative that his "accessory after the fact" conviction included active involvement with the ones who did the crime, and active participation in the concealment of it.

 

[~n/t~]

That's not the same thing. If you saw Holly being kidnapped (or murdered), and know that's what you are seeing, you have to report it. But "being alive" in and of itself is not an observation of a crime.

Beyond that, it will be interesting to see who these "witnesses" actually are. DA's sometimes are prone to exaggerate when playing to the court of public opinion, as well as LE when trying to coax confessions and witnesses, and we have to wait until we get to court and it's all under oath to see what they do (or don't) have.

Even if they knew she was kidnapped? Remember the charges

Investigators believe Holly Bobo was killed in perpetration of kidnapping.

"We believe we can prove she was taken forcefully from her home without her consent. Based on the evidence before us, we feel she was killed in perpetration of that kidnapping," said 24th Judicial District Attorney General Hansel McAdams.

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story...-kidnapping-first-degree-murder-of-holly-bobo

These witnesses knew, imo

 

[maskedwoman]

We know Autry was questioned in 2012. So one could assume they suspected him. ZA and JA were good buddies. Wonder why they didn't question ZA or did they?

I don't think LE has released any information about who they questioned when. The only reason we know they questioned JA is because he apparently thinks giving interviews is helping him. A classic sociopath move, if you ask me.

Having said that, I would be very surprised if they didn't try to question him. Of course, nobody is required to answer questions. The only way to make someone come to the police station is to arrest them, and that's not a good plan if you already know you don't have enough evidence to charge them.

:moo:

 

[reedus23]

I'm inclined to agree with you on much of what you wrote. What I find particularly disturbing is the idea that the case against Autry might be hanging on information supplied by Dylan Adams. Assuming forensic evidence was recovered at the Adams property, the state at least has something solid to tie Zach Adams to this case. What solid evidence, I wonder, do they have that ties Autry to this case?

I read posts here suggesting that Autry must be guilty because he referred to Holly as "the girl"...that he must be guilty because he had a convenient religious conversion...that he must be guilty because he's got a long rap sheet. That's a lot of mumbo jumbo in the eyes of the law, folks. if Autry is guilty (and I have no idea whether he is or he isn't), the state has the burden of proving his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. " Dylan said so " doesn't meet that burden. Plain and simple. They better have more than that to convict someone of kidnapping and murder.

RBBM-Just to be clear...I have never said he MUST be guilty. Only time will tell that. I have made my personal observations about Autry and some of his behavior and how some behavior doesn't equate to innocence and some does point me to believing in his guilt. But NEVER that it MUST mean he's guilty.

 

[reedus23]

How do you know that? Just curious.

Just common sense. If you're being offered a deal to tell the truth..why start making things up and adding more people into the mix if they weren't involved? You risk having your deal yanked if you're not truthful. In this case, you'd be naming someone who by all accounts is a violent guy. If Adams was the only person he saw with Holly, I can't think of one reason why he wouldn't simply tell LE that and instead make up a story about Autry being there as well.

 

[SteveS]

Even if they knew she was kidnapped? Remember the charges

Investigators believe Holly Bobo was killed in perpetration of kidnapping.

You have misconstrued the meaning of the formal charges, which has skewed your perception.

She was kidnapped. Sometime later (for all we know, MONTHS later) she was murdered. But they did not necessarily happen right together.

No one KNEW she was dead until two months ago or so. That could leave lots of time in-between for someone to see her alive and dismiss the "missing person" account. In addition, we don't know when she was seen, or when it was reported.

 

[reedus23]

If he invoked his right to a lawyer immediately, there would have been no interview and no alibi to investigate before charges were laid. Presumably LE laid charges based on other evidence and therefore may only be in a position to investigate an alibi afterwards.

People with good alibis get charged all the time, and convicted as well. If you look at cases where individuals are falsely convicted and later exonerated, it is not unusual for them to have solid alibis, but the DA just ignores that and focuses on other evidence instead.

If he invoked his right to a lawyer immediately, his lawyer has done a pretty crappy job. His lawyer could have provided information to the DA about the alibi without Autry having to be interviewed and could have avoided a client ever being charged. He could have told the DA, go interview Jane Doe. She'll confirm he spent the week with her in Alaska when Holly went missing. Oh, and here's a receipt showing he was in Alaska. Oh, and go pull his cell phone pings. While you're at it, check to see if the video at the gas station in Alaska still exists. It will show him there. If it's me...I'm pissed if my lawyer is waiting until an actual trial and hoping for an acquittal as opposed to trying to get the charges dropped immediately, before a jury hears any evidence. That is...if my alibi is legit.

So either his lawyer isn't doing his job or the lawyer did his job and the DA isn't buying it which tells me the alibi isn't as strong as the attorney would like the media and public to believe. Now, where he is doing his job is he is planting some doubt in peoples' minds, as can be seen here. Let's just wait and see how it all plays out.

 

[Litig8ter]

ETA - As to the Boyd case and its applicability here to a possible witness who didn't come running to police in seeing Holly at some point, it's informative that his "accessory after the fact" conviction included active involvement with the ones who did the crime, and active participation in the concealment of it.

My understanding is that this charge was used because even though suspicions were extremely high that EB was an active participant, at least during the early portion of the crime spree, LE could not find his DNA on either victim, and he was not charged on the State level. The feds at least were convinced he was actively involved, at least early on, so they brought charges. It was a lot more than he just saw Channon & Chris after the carjacking. I agree it is rarely used, and used only when nothing else quite fits.

 

[~n/t~]

You have misconstrued the meaning of the formal charges, which has skewed your perception.

She was kidnapped. Sometime later (for all we know, MONTHS later) she was murdered. But they did not necessarily happen right together.

No one KNEW she was dead until two months ago or so. That could leave lots of time in-between for someone to see her alive and dismiss the "missing person" account. In addition, we don't know when she was seen, or when it was reported.

I don't think I misconstrued the meaning. We can disagree on the interpretation of the charges. Yes she was kidnapped. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest she was kept alive for days, weeks or months. At the time, IIRC an amber alert was issued. These alleged witnesses knew she was missing/kidnapped. They're in the same county for Pete's sake and did nothing.

So ya, I think they should face charges if they knew

 

[~n/t~]

I don't think LE has released any information about who they questioned when. The only reason we know they questioned JA is because he apparently thinks giving interviews is helping him. A classic sociopath move, if you ask me.

Having said that, I would be very surprised if they didn't try to question him. Of course, nobody is required to answer questions. The only way to make someone come to the police station is to arrest them, and that's not a good plan if you already know you don't have enough evidence to charge them.

:moo:

Why do you think they picked him 2 years ago?