Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #4 ***ARRESTS***

[dog.gone.cute]

Jeff bonded out. Received this email via Vinelink.

6/11/2014

This e-mail is to inform you that JEFFERY PEARCY has been released from custody as of 6/11/2014. The reason for this release is: Bonded out. If you have any concerns about your immediate safety, contact your local law enforcement agency, or if you have an emergency, call 911.

BBM: And remember the court's order from earlier today that JP was to have NO contact with anyone regarding this case ...


Just thinking out loud here:

1. JP - out on bond
   
2. SA - NOT in jail - immunity deal still pending
   
   
   Currently in :jail:
   
   
3. ZA
   
4. DA [ZA's brother]
   
5. JA
   
6. MP [JP's brother]

So ... 2 out and about but 4 in jail ... and who knows who else in :jail: has knowledge and who else is out and about :banghead:

Un-freakin-believable !

:moo::moo::moo:

 

[tlcya]

http://aspe.hhs.gov/hsp/08/sr/statelaws/summary.shtml

state Age of consent Min age vict Age differential - victim & def
(if victim is above minimum age)


Tennessee 18 13 4

http://www.state.tn.us/tccy/tnchild/39/39-13-506.htm

39-13-506. Statutory rape.

(a) Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) but not more than five (5) years older than the victim.

b) Statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by the victim when:

(1) The victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than fifteen (15) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) years but less than ten (10) years older than the victim; or

(2) The victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is more than five (5) but less than ten (10) years older than the victim.

(c) Aggravated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least thirteen (13) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least ten (10) years older than the victim.

(d) (1) Mitigated statutory rape is a Class E felony.

(2) Statutory rape is a Class E felony.

(3) Aggravated statutory rape is a Class D felony.

BUMPING my own POST to link it with the info found on the registry. Bolding the factors that MAY to have been applied to this person based on the detail below.

10/03/2000 STATUTORY RAPE: WITH PRIOR CONVICTION FOR STATUTORY, MITIGATED, OR AGGRAVATED http://www.tbi.state.tn.us/sorint/sor_Details.aspx

none of them are wonderful, just wish I knew which of the above were applied as age of victim does seem to affect the charges.

 

[Starry Night]

This whole case so far seems as if it is trying to rival the O.J. Simpson murder trial.

 

[Starry Night]

Hey Golden! Nice to see you...........

 

[Dr. Know?]

A little more information. This article states both MP & JP are out on bond. Vinelink says MP is still in Carroll County. It also says he was 24 and his victim was 14!

http://www.wsmv.com/story/25745205/tbi-believes-video-may-help-solve-bobo-murder

https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/initSearchForm.do?searchType=offender&siteId=43000

 

[Knox]

Before they disappear ...

https://www.facebook.com/mark.pearcy.142
https://www.facebook.com/jeff.pearcy.7

 

[Dr. Know?]

Man arrested in Holly Bobo case released, Brother remains jailed

http://www.wkrn.com/story/25744903/2-men-arrested-in-connection-to-holly-bobo-case

(video shows Mark's affidavit btw)

 

[tlcya]

I believe the only reason we know what little we do about the tape or recording now is that TBI did not go to a GJ to get the arrest warrants. If they had we still wouldn't know what we have learned this week.

LE is spoon feeding MSM with a very small spoon. I have felt that LE has had the recording since before the presser. The reporter asked if they have a video of the "killing" of Holly. After looking at each other and hesitating they dissected the question and finally said "no". If the recording is of a "party" after the abduction and not the killing itself then they didn't actually lie, just not a full answer, IMO.

If they do have a recording of who was there at that time they could be now going after those individuals for their involvement. They are "knocking on doors" just as they said they would. They asked them to come forward, or "we'll be on your doorstep".

JMO's

Investigators believe that Jeffrey Pearcy has possession or has knowledge of where the video is, according to the affidavit. - See more at: http://www.njnewsday.com/national/2...red-three-years-ago.html#sthash.b4TwS8BX.dpuf

This to me indicates they do not have the tape but are convinced of its existence.

I hope they at least found some evidence of an electronic device or memory card having been destroyed in their recent search.

I have no doubt a tape exists, have long believed it but I don't think they have it yet. I hope they have something physical to wrap all this up for a jury because so far I must admit to being worried about all the charges against all the arrested parties and what evidence aside from one druggie's word against another's is going to prove this case to a jury.

 

[Bravo]

So much we don't know. However Holly's Family is convinced Holly has passed. Whatever LE has I do believe is solid. Solid enough for a Family to accept Holly's demise. Families always hold on to any shred of hope. I just think there is much to this case. I'm not even sure if I want to know the horror I believe took place. IMO.

 

[reedus23]

April 2014 Holly Bobo Press Conference;

Video evidence question 8 min & 48 seconds into the presser

Holly Bobo - Press Conference - April 29, 2014 - YouTube

Yeah, it was pretty evident to me that they were parsing words. Either it's not a videotape but rather digital recording or whatever on a phone. Or it's not of Holly being raped or killed, but something else. Maybe even pictures with a date stamp from after her abduction. Their saying "Let's just leave it at that." tells me they likely have something.

 

[tlcya]

A little more information. This article states both MP & JP are out on bond. Vinelink says MP is still in Carroll County. It also says he was 24 and his victim was 14!

http://www.wsmv.com/story/25745205/tbi-believes-video-may-help-solve-bobo-murder

https://www.vinelink.com/vinelink/initSearchForm.do?searchType=offender&siteId=43000

okey dokey then

 

[LadyL]

it's possible the video is of Holly being buried or of a gravesite or of the weapon(s) being destroyed/buried/thrown away and not necessarily of her being abducted, raped, or killed

or it's possible that someone who was asked to help get rid of evidence subversively activated record on their phone and there's not really a viable visual recording but a voice one where the perp and the person charged with accessory after the fact are discussing the crime

 

[pearl]

I'm kind of electronically challenged because I tend to mess up phones, cameras, etc. I just basically use my cell to talk and text, no pictures or videos. That being said, I want to ask the following question if someone would answer it. How much of a time period can be recorded on video on a cell phone? Is it just second or minutes or a longer period of time?

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Yesterday, some news sites reported that both of the two "new brothers" were being held without bond; many sites reported that one was being held without bond, and I see a post here today that suggests both of the "new brothers" have since bonded out (which is possible in my opinion). This confusion suggests to me a lack of clear day-to-day communication between the authorities and the news agencies, even at this late stage in a three-year investigation.

But that is not important to my post. What I gather from various news reports is that an unnamed-witness affidavit states that one of "new brothers" voices can be heard on a video that may be relevant to the Holly Bobo case. BUT, this video is being withheld from the authorities. Am I missing something here? Is this it?

I am not being facetious. I work a lot of cases on Websleuths, and appreciate no-nonsense answers.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Mr. Noatak,
I always benefit from reading your posts; I hesitate to use the word "enjoy" due to the serious subject matter.

It is a productive exercise to use publicly available means to check the arrest records and jail rosters of several counties surrounding and including Decatur County. When one does so, there are more familiar names than just these six you mentioned being held. While their names have not officially been mentioned as connected to the case, it is odd where some are being held, etc. and we know the TBI doesn't move too fast in putting these names out there.

It is also a seemingly productive exercise to compile the stats of the physical features of each person, when they are publicly available. Google searches also often yield those facts when they are not listed by a particular jail. In doing this exercise, one can quickly determine there are not many of those indicted, so far, who match completely the physical description Clint gave of the man who took Holly. Many of these men have extremes in height/weight.

These facts have helped me formulate my theories. Of course, I think we have to consider the possibility that the family has cooperated with the investigation by both saying things and not saying certain things, for the sake of the investigation. If Clint only did "as he was told to do" by authorities, then we can see why the description may be very "generic."

I mean, can you imagine what might have happened if he said the abductor was 6'8" and weighed 300 or so? Would that not point to certain people and eliminate others? Would the community exercise some vigilante justice upon all large men?

Sadly, perhaps the authorities knew at some point that there was no more helping Holly, and they set in to prove their case. I suspect we will eventually see the game plan revealed. That's just my take right now.

My opinions only, no facts here:

It sounds to me like you are approaching the Holly Bobo case in a sensible and logical manner.

The FBI would never alter the description of a suspect's height and weight to avoid local justice. Having said that, they might dance on the head of a pin in other situational circumstances. But, in this case, the FBI description is apt and important, for reasons both obvious and.....fill in the blanks.

Of the "unlucky six" currently named in the Holly Bobo case, none fit both the height-range AND the weight requirement from the FBI description of the man who kidnapped Holly Bobo.

There are people who might fit the FBI description and are not named yet.

Keep your nose to the wind and your eyes on the horizon my friend.

Sleuth On!

 

[SteveS]

BUT, this video is being withheld from the authorities. Am I missing something here? Is this it?

"Withheld" is perhaps the wrong word.

From what we can surmise, LE has been told that a video exists (or used to exist). But they have not seen it, and the one(s) who supposedly had it at one time apparently deny the existence of any such video. Maybe it never existed, maybe it has been destroyed, or maybe it is being withheld - - the public does not truly know which is true.

The public has not learned what is supposed to be on the video, except for the fact that it was purported to contain one Pearcy brother's voice (not image) and it was purported to have been shown by another Pearcy brother. As for how it related to the Bobo case, no idea but lots of wild speculation.

It is clear that LE has charged the 2 brothers criminally over this "missing" video, but did it ever really exist? That part, so far, is not clear at all. LE claims that to be the case, but who knows.

 

[pearl]

"Withheld" is perhaps the wrong word.

From what we can surmise, LE has been told that a video exists (or used to exist). But they have not seen it, and the one(s) who supposedly had it at one time apparently deny the existence of any such video. Maybe it never existed, maybe it has been destroyed, or maybe it is being withheld - - the public does not truly know which is true.

The public has not learned what is supposed to be on the video, except for the fact that it was purported to contain one Pearcy brother's voice (not image) and it was purported to have been shown by another Pearcy brother. As for how it related to the Bobo case, no idea but lots of wild speculation.

It is clear that LE has charged the 2 brothers criminally over this "missing" video, but did it ever really exist? That part, so far, is not clear at all. LE claims that to be the case, but who knows.

I think LE has seen/heard this recording. I am basing my opinion on the facial expressions and reactions of LE at the news conference when they were questioned about the existence of the video/recording. A person can control his/her verbal responses when asked about something he/she doesn't want to discuss, but not a lot of people can control their gut reactions. I know my observation is not based on any scientific fact. As I've said before referring to this case, I might have too much faith in LE but I doubt LE would just be on a fishing expedition here and not have facts. The possible recording has been mentioned in the presence of LE twice now.

 

[reedus23]

I have a better understanding of recovery of things like emails/texts. What kind of ability does LE have to retrieve videos/pictures on phones if they've been deleted?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Someone recognized the voice as Mark Pearcy's voice on the video, but didn't see him in the video. I guess there's no video at this time to back up this story. TBI searched his place a couple of weeks ago and probably didn't find it, from what I gather via the article.

We actually don't know what they found but it sure led to an arrest soon afterwards.

I do not think they would have arrested them and charged them with two felonies each if they didn't have the evidence to prove it. The TBI/DA knows all too well that an arrest is not a conviction and its a conviction they are wanting and they don't base that just on hearsay of one witness. The Judge wouldn't even issue them a SW of the defendant's RV and property based on just a hearsay witness alone but he would take this into account if he saw a copy of a video.

I do think the TBI has a copy of the video but they are wanting the original video taken by Mark Pearcy (imo) since he was probably the one taping and running his mouth at the same time.

The DA needs to find the original video that Pearcy made in order for it to be entered at trial. Usually copies of videos aren't admitted. Imo, that is what they are hoping to find.

The original video has to be sent off to an expert to verify its authenticity and that it has not been edited or tampered with in any manner.

If the original is not found then the DA can have a hearing before the Judge and put forth a good argument that the copy of the video should be allowed in under these circumstances since whoever is shown on the video is identifiable IMO and the witness or witnesses who have seen this tape can testify to lay a foundation before it is entered.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have a better understanding of recovery of things like emails/texts. What kind of ability does LE have to retrieve videos/pictures on phones if they've been deleted?

We have some of the best computer forensic experts in the world. They are able to retrieve anything that has been erased or deleted especially if it was done via cell phone which I think it was. In our world now nothing is really ever wiped out completely.

IMO