Do we really think that LE, TBI and the FBI would arrest someone on hearsay? You guys know my adverse feelings about the TBI...but even so, there are certain criteria that must be met before an arrest is made. Investigators and the prosecution do not want the publicity of randomly bringing innocent people in. There is certainly evidence against them...but we have no real way of knowing what it is..
The "he was arrested so he MUST be guilty" mindset that I keep hearing in this discussion, that really alarms me. Guilty until proven innocent? If that's where this country is, we're headed for huge trouble.
I haven't been posting friends. I have followed this case for so long, from the start...for some reason, its really hard for me to be here just now. The deception and lying by these guys just blows my mind.
Do we really think that LE, TBI and the FBI would arrest someone on hearsay? You guys know my adverse feelings about the TBI...but even so, there are certain criteria that must be met before an arrest is made. Investigators and the prosecution do not want the publicity of randomly bringing innocent people in. There is certainly evidence against them...but we have no real way of knowing what it is.
What sickens me...what breaks my heart...is thinking of how many people must have known something about Holly's case and yet DID NOTHING. This is one messed up group of associations.
I hope they are nailed. Let me hold the hammer.
It's interesting that he's a master jeweler. Weren't there stolen pearls somewhere in this story?
According affidavits, law enforcement officials in Benton County pulled over a van being driven by Christopher Bray and Toni Craig on February 24. Officials said the van is owned by Amber Bray, the sister of Zachary Adams' girlfriend.
Benton County Sheriff's Deputies said they found hundreds of pounds of cultured fresh water pearls inside that van. Investigators eventually figured out those pearls were stolen from the family who owns the Tennessee Shell Company in Camden.
The "he was arrested so he MUST be guilty" mindset that I keep hearing in this discussion, that really alarms me. Guilty until proven innocent? If that's where this country is, we're headed for huge trouble.
here is the bit about the pearls
http://www.newschannel5.com/story/2...al-details-leading-up-to-zachary-adams-arrest
To date, neither Pearcy brother has been indicated in the pearl heist that I know of.
But IMO, LE had these perps on their radar very early on in the investigation, and LE knew the perpwho abducted Holly were "locals" ...
It took LE almost 3 years before any arrests were made in this case so obviously, LE had to get ALL their "ducks in a row" ... LE was dealing with a bunch of career-criminals-gun-toting-drug-meth-addicts ...
I don't think he was sending signals to anyone in this interview. The no contact the judge talked about was the witness that supposedly saw the video at JP's place, and heard MP's voice on the video.Link to JP Interview:
http://www.wkrn.com/category/175880/video-landing-page?clipId=10280899&autostart=true
:twocents:
The Judge told JP NOT to have contact with anyone regarding this case ... but yet JP holds a Presser at an attorney's office ...
So considering the fact that JP has on an "ankle monitor" -- which would show his every movement -- he decides that the ONLY way he can send a message that he did NOT give LE any information is to talk to the Media, which is all over this case.
JMO but this was JP's signal to "someone" that he did not say anything to LE when he was in jail waiting his arraignment.
Clever, isn't it ? Just like JA when he held his Presser from the jailhouse, which IMO was to send a message to someone out there.
Again JMO, but I do not believe JP is credible ... he deflects and skirts around the answers.
When JP is questioned by the reporter about his half-brother, MP's involvement and IF he is guilty:
FIRST, JP states he is not so sure there is a video ...
THEN, JP responds about Mark: that he really does not think he's involved ...
AND THEN, JP states he believes Mark is innocent ...
So ... he is "not so sure" and he "does not think" ... weak, IMO.
All :moo: and :twocents:
I get the impression he knows next to nothing and he is not a member of the crowd I have come to associate with this crime.
I think he suspects or has hearsay type 2nd or 3rd hand knowledge of something that has caused him to suspect his half brother, Mark's, involvement in this crime.
I also believe him when he says the crowd being associated in this crime is one he has avoided (including his half brother) getting too involved with because as he stated - the best way to stay out of trouble is not to be around it.
MOO Whatever knowledge he has is sketchy and hearsay at best.
I tend to find he presents himself well in this interview. I know many will possibly disagree with me but that is my impression of him in the interview.
If Jeff Pearcy is innocent of this charge then so is Mark Pearcy. Regardless of who has the better lifestyle/reputation.
The accusation is JP showed someone a video of something related to Holly's disappearance, possible murder, where MP's voice is supposedly heard. If the witness is lying for their own benefit, then there is no video, and that means MP didn't do anything either.
That's not true.
The brother's testimony is evidence in and of itself. In most jurisdictions, it could be enough to convict of something depending on the content of what he saw. A jury would determine whether he is to believed, and how much weight to give his testimony, so evidence from other witnesses or of a physical/forensic nature would be helpful and provide additional weight, but what he saw and testifies to can be the evidentiary linchpin around which to build a case. In this context, at the very least it places a kidnapped Holly in the custody of ZA.
I agree that it wouldn't be enough to convict of a murder, because at a minimum you have to have something that proves proof of death, and "I saw her alive" isn't that. But it may be enough for the kidnapping, depending on the content.
:seeya:
I have never seen one case brought to trial that only had eye witness testimony in it and nothing more to support the charges.
:seeya: Thanks for the update.
:twocents:
This is very interesting, IMO ... One of the first things your defense attorney tells you is to shut your pie hole ... yet JP is having a presser.
JMO but I think JP's speaking to the press yesterday was his [JP's] way to send a message to "someone" to let that person know that he said "nothing" to LE while in jail ...
Remember at his arraignment, the Judge told him NOT to speak to anyone regarding this case ... YET appx a week later, JP decides to talk to the press ?
So was this message sent to his half-brother MP -- or someone else ?
Again JMO, but I do believe there is some sort of "electronic type evidence" -- whether it be a video, photograph, etc -- regarding Holly AFTER her abduction, which evidence may be in "whole" or in "part" ... KWIM ?
:moo: and :twocents:
You still need corroboration, and Holly being dead or not would not satisfy that requirement since this guy is not charged in her case. He is charged with something completely different. The only corroboration that would be relevant to his charge would be if they had independent evidence that the video existed, THEN the witness's allegations would admissible. Otherwise not.
I think TBI/FBI has a copy of this recording, if not the original one on someone's cell phone or video recorder. I don't think taking the word of one witness about seeing the recording would meet the threshold for an arrest. I don't think LE would arrest someone in this complicated case without physical evidence to back it up. I mean LE knows that anyone involved in this incident is capable of lying to get a better position for themselves. As for Jeff Pearcy's' involvement, I just don't know. Maybe he is guilty of only having what I call "guilty knowledge" that he wished he did not know. Perhaps his only involvement is viewing this video and realizing he does not want to have any involvement. LE must think Mark Pearcy is more involved than Jeff Pearcy because of the difference in bond amounts and Mark having on a protective vest in court and Jeff not having one. LE has taken their share of criticism in investigating Holly's case. I think they are being especially vigilant about dotting their i's and crossing their t's at this stage of this investigation.