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

[SteveS]

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.

 

[shefner]

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.

 

[SteveS]

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 criteria to arrest is much lower than you realize.

And to directly answer your opening question, YES I think they might arrest someone with too-flimsy evidence, in hopes they might get something more substantial in the process. In fact, I absolutely KNOW that can happen, because I've seen it. It didn't end well for LE, fortunately.

Let me be clear, I don't know that "arrest with essentially nothing" happened here. I'm not saying it did. But I'm not willing to assume evidence exists that we have been given no hint of. The entire story so far FROM ALL ACCOUNTS is that someone said they heard one Pearcy in a video shown by the other, that pertains to Holly, and that no one has anymore (because, if they had it, they couldn't be accused of having destroyed it.) Someone said it, and if believed by a jury the others can be convicted, so that's "probable cause" to allow an arrest, but way weak and has lots of question marks flashing in neon lights.

But we also know there are 250,000 reasons why someone would concoct such a story. And there are plenty of reasons for someone in LE to succumb to the pressure to arrest-and-convict (someone, anyone) in this high profile case. (If someone doesn't think LE at all levels has the same sort of people as the general public, meaning there are some who will cut corners and bend the rules when they decide they have a good reason to do so, they are incredibly naive. People are people, even after they are empowered by the state. I've seen that beast, more than once, and it's frightening.)

There is great pressure on this case because of all the attention, and there will be great reward to those who put someone away for it, even if it's not necessarily the right person. I don't want to lose sight of that.

 

[tlcya]

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 share your concerns on this case. Feels a bit like falling down the rabbit hole. I hope TBI has SOMETHING to back up these most recent arrests. I very badly want to see justice for Holly and hope this path is leading there.

But I have concerns and I cannot blindly follow the well they MUST have something if they arrested them. I will feel much more comfortable once we have more info on what EXACTLY got them these arrest warrants.

I find it hard to believe that hearsay alone could do that so I hope they have more than one woman who may very well have an ax to grind with the Pearcys to back up this set of arrests.

I do feel video or still images probably at one time arrested. But this recent round of arrests SEEMS to be based solely on one person's word that they were shown a video that featured a voice of one of the Pearcy brothers and imagary of Holly Bobo alive after her abduction.

Now maybe they have more. I so hope that they do. But if they don't I fear for the case they are building against the A train and I strongly feel they are guilty.

Cases need to be built carefully. Arrests mean nothing. Convictions do. MOO

 

[OldSteve]

What concerns me is the way things are getting muddled here, that when the case goes to trial it will be just as muddled....

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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.

:seeya: Hi shef, nice to see ya!


1st BBM: I totally agree ...

:twocents: LE has received, and continues to receive, harsh criticism as to their handling of Holly's case.

JMO but IF they do NOT have any evidence to back-up these arrests, or have a "video/photo" or whatever, the criticism will severely increase against them... so can they afford this ? I think not ... LE has always held this case "close to the vest" and are continuing to do so ...

Absolutely I would luv to know WHAT evidence they have on the A's and the P's and whoever else ... but unfortunately, they are not sharing :banghead: so will just have to wait :banghead:


2nd BBM: I totally agree ... and very well said !


All :moo: and :twocents:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

It's interesting that he's a master jeweler. Weren't there stolen pearls somewhere in this story?

:seeya: Yep, Morag ... stolen pearls have come into this case ...

Sorry I don't have the link handy, but if you go back to -- I think it's the first thread on the "Arrests" -- you should find the story about the pearls ...

Oh, and these "stolen pearls" involved ZA and others ...

:seeya:

 

[tlcya]

here is the bit about the pearls

http://www.newschannel5.com/story/2...al-details-leading-up-to-zachary-adams-arrest

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.

To date, neither Pearcy brother has been indicated in the pearl heist that I know of.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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.

:seeya: Hi Steve,

I do agree that it is alarming to hear "guilty" before proven "innocent" as our system of justice here in the U.S.A. is innocent until proven guilty ...

But IMO, LE had these perps on their radar very early on in the investigation, and LE knew the perp who 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 ... :scared:

JMO but I do believe has solid evidence against the perps ... now how solid, we don't know yet.

All :moo: and :twocents:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

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.

:seeya: Thanks, tlcya !

So far, the P's have NOT been mentioned with the pearl story.


But just wondering out loud here ... I wonder IF the P's know the B's ? Ya know, small community, everybody knows everybody ... and ya just never know.

:moo:

 

[SteveS]

But IMO, LE had these perps on their radar very early on in the investigation, and LE knew the perp who 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 agree that the "career-criminals-gun-toting-drug-meth-addicts" make a convenient scapegoat if you can't find anyone else. Heck, they may even be up to their eyeballs, and beyond, in guilt. But if nothing else, they sure do look like the Usual Suspects.

But when I observe the various pieces of peripheral LE action in this case, that's what makes me seriously wonder if they are playing fast-and-loose with the law and the weight of their power to accuse.

It first happened with SA, where they unilaterally backed out of their immunity contract. In doing so, they didn't say why, threatened to arrest him at their discretion (for things that would have been peripheral to any kidnapping and murder), and then they did nothing. Threats and intimidation tactics, it appears.

Then with the Pearcy's, the same sort of stuff (by appearances). Someone points the finger at the Pearcy's, and then they are arrested for the absence of something LE doesn't have, can't see, and (from what we have heard) is only said to exist because someone claims it. Again, threats and intimidation tactics, it appears. People tossed in jail. And a perhaps-mythical video that they want and need, except it is nowhere to be found.

People can look at these peripheral arrests and threats and feel that it shows there must be a really solid case, to be able to arrest all these other people, but I have lots of doubts. It feels to me like they are swinging wildly at anything, lashing out, hoping to intimidate something out of someone, acts of desperation to find something to bolster a problematic case or two.

I'm reminded of the tale of the preacher and his sermon notes, where he'd write in the margin his reminders. In one place, he wrote, "Point upward, as you talk about heaven." In another, he wrote, "Smile here, as you talk about God and His great love for us."

And in a third place, he wrote with exclamation marks, "Shout loudly here, and scream if you have to. Point is weak!"

I think I'm seeing LE "screaming" with these peripheral arrests and threats.

 

[evelyn24]

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 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.



I seriuosly doubt there is a video at this point. I think the witness is lying. jmo

 

[evelyn24]

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.

I agree with you.

Also, people need to remember; 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.

 

[tlcya]

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.

Exactly my point. That is the accusation. And it is based as far as we know on one unnamed woman's tale that JP showed it to her and she heard MP's voice on it. I just hope it proves out because I would hate to think the case against the A-train hinges on that alone.

 

[Tugela]

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.

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.

 

[pearl]

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.

 

[Tugela]

: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.

It does happen. There was a report on CNN today here about a case where exactly that happened.

In that case the accused was convicted of murder based on a witness account, even though he was in Florida at the time with his family. He actually had proof he was in Florida at the time in the form of a receipt, but police/prosecutors denied having it and concealed it. They basically claimed that he flew back from Florida to do the murder, then flew back again to be with his family. The jury still convicted him even though that was pretty improbable. After the trial the witness recanted and claimed police coerced her into testifying, but that didn't matter. The guy still spent 25 years in prison, until his lawyers and a new DA working together found the receipt (still in police files) that proved he was in Florida at the time. So he was freed after that.

Don't say that this sort of thing does not happen, because it most certainly does, and there are probably very many innocent people sitting in prison today because of circumstantial cases based largely on witnesses who are either coerced by investigators, or make stuff up to cut a deal on their own offences.

This is why it is so important to be wary of any uncorroborated witness allegations.

 

[Tugela]

: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:

Or it could also be the actions of a guy who suddenly found himself in an episode of the Twilight Zone and doesn't know what to do.

What would you do if police showed up at your door one day and arrested you for something you knew nothing about?

 

[SteveS]

I said
The brother's [Note: ie, DA'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.

You replied:

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 believe you have misunderstood my observation. Otherwise, I have no idea what you're trying to say.

I was commenting about the testimony of the brother of Zack Adams, and how much of a game-changer it is. I had made that observation, and had been told that his testimony wasn't really evidence. The above was my reply.

If you are telling me that DA's testimony (a) needs "corroboration" to be considered evidence, and (b) isn't allowed because he hasn't been charged with a crime against Holly, then you're way off base.

But I suspect you simply replied, without observing what I was speaking to and without noting which "brother" I was mentioning.

 

[SteveS]

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.

1 "I don't think taking the word of one witness about seeing the recording would meet the threshold for an arrest."

Of course it would. No question. Legally, that is. They have an eyewitness who says they saw one brother with the (alleged) video, and heard the other in it. The (alleged) crime is that one had the video, and the other was in it (so had it or knew of it), and that it has been destroyed. Clearly, with an eyewitness to those (alleged) facts, there is probable cause to arrest.

If that's all they have, it might be hard to get a conviction. But if LE doesn't care, and wants to put these guys on trial to get them locked up (or threaten to do so) for 20-30 years, that's enough to take them to trial and make them fight for their freedom.

Scary, isn't it?

2 "I don't think LE would arrest someone in this complicated case without physical evidence to back it up."

Ya never know. I may be a bit more skeptical than most, because I have seen police literally make stuff up, saying they saw ____ that never actually occurred, and then arrest the (alleged) criminal and try to get them convicted on a he-said, she-said war with their credibility as a cop to bolster their testimony.

(And it should be noted - I don't have anything against police in general. I have multiple family members who are retired officers, and great people. But I also know that there are others out there ...)

As for how much or how little these LE's would require, it remains to be seen. The pressure has to be intense to convict someone, anyone, after 3 years and such a bright spotlight on the case. "Arrests" tell the public they're doing something. Makes for good PR. But only time will tell how much they really have (or don't have).

Frankly, if they had the (perhaps-mythical) video, I think that would make it difficult-to-impossible to arrest ANYONE for destroying that evidence. The fact they don't have it has to be the basis for their case, as well as an obstacle at the same time.

3 I actually think the arrest is a strong-arm tactic, not a real case they hope to try and win.

They have accused JP of "destroying" evidence (evidence which I believe they desperately need for the Holly cases). But unless I am mistaken, there was a hint in some of what LE said that they really think he still has it. If that's the case, the charge of "destroying" something that they don't think is truly destroyed is simply a lie, but one being told with the thought that the lie will force him to give it to them - - the thinking being that with him facing 20-30 years, but knowing he can't be convicted of destroying it if it hasn't been destroyed, that at some point to avoid prosecution/conviction he'll say, "Wait, here it is."

Of course, that's a very extreme approach by LE, and if there is no video in the first place, then we'll have all kinds of weird dynamics and ramifications with them trying to use such tactics to force him to give up something that doesn't even exist.