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

[shefner]

NC5_ChrisConte

2 hours ago
.





According to Chris Conte@NC5

Wonder why this happened??


"District Attorney tells us court appearance for #hollybobo suspect Mark Pearcy on Monday is canceled. Charges moved to Jackson @NC5"

That's strange. So they are moving the accused to another court...or county? Mmmmm....

 

[tlcya]

sitting back waiting to see the actual case against all. Worried but hopeful that all will come together.

:fence: on whether we can get a successful prosecuation

NO :fence: about the fact I think they have the right killer(s) in custody.

Just want justice that sticks - for Holly and those who loved her.

 

[cluciano63]

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?

Possibly. Or he could just be better at proclaiming his innocence.

 

[Nana46]

That's strange. So they are moving the accused to another court...or county? Mmmmm....

This has to be in Jackson, Tn right? Getting closer to me all the time....wonder why they are moving it? Not aware of a Jackson County in TN....off to google to be sure.


Jackson, Tn is Madison County. Be back soon.

Google tells me there is a Jackson County in TN........dang who knew. The courthouse is in Gainsboro. This is way up toward the top of the state..........I don't get it. What is the connection?

I saw that tweet earlier tonight but had to leave....I assumed it meant Jackson,Tn.......I do not get it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I can't help but worry that this investigation is now being driven by topix conversations and the rumors that have been contained there since day one.

JMO

I don't think so ticya. If that were the case it wouldn't have taken the TBI from November 2012 until Feb. 26th, 2014 to make an arrest. And even then Autry wasn't arrested at that time but that came later.

I think the investigation is going where the evidence is leading them and Topix has nothing to do with it.

Although sometimes I do wish the TBI would get ISP addresses on those who were blabbing all of this on the internet for years to see if everyone of them came to the police and directly told them with what they were being told by the A-Train. If they didn't and only told on the internet I think they all need to be charged with obstruction of justice themselves.

How they did not report all of this to police immediately I will never understand. I certainly wouldn't have put it out on the internet where the A-Train could read it.

Now the TBI may not have believed just one or two but the more that stepped forward may have meant this case could have been solved way before it was.

It seems it took Dylan finally telling what he knew to get the ball rolling toward justice for Holly. And then others started stepping forward and talking with the TBI also.

IMO

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I don't think so ticya. If that were the case it wouldn't have taken the TBI from November 2012 until Feb. 26th, 2014 to make an arrest. And even then Autry wasn't arrested at that time but that came later.

I think the investigation is going where the evidence is leading them and Topix has nothing to do with it.

Although sometimes I do wish the TBI would get ISP addresses on those who were blabbing all of this on the internet for years to see if everyone of them came to the police and directly told them with what they were being told by the A-Train. If they didn't and only told on the internet I think they all need to be charged with obstruction of justice themselves.

How they did not report all of this to police immediately I will never understand. I certainly wouldn't have put it out on the internet where the A-Train could read it.

Now the TBI may not have believed just one or two but the more that stepped forward may have meant this case could have been solved way before it was.

It seems it took Dylan finally telling what he knew to get the ball rolling toward justice for Holly. And then others started stepping forward and talking with the TBI also.

IMO

:seeya:

I agree ... however, I do believe that LE/TBI investigated those who were "babbling" ...

LE does monitor forums/blogs/social media etc ...

And I have no doubt that they have been, and are currently monitoring Topix, as well as have gotten the IP addresses, etc of those who were posting the "rumors" -- which some turned out to be true ...

All JMO and :moo:

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I'm sorry to have to contradict you, but very little of what you're saying here is accurate. A few particulars, without going through every line item by item, to make sure the understanding gets set straight of how these things work.

"1. Without the tape itself, no one can judge what is actually on the tape."

That is way off base, and a misconception of what evidence is.

If you don't have something (in this case, a legendary video), and it may no longer exist or may be unavailable to bring to court for some reason, then an alternative is to find people who have seen it and are willing to testify as to the details of what they saw.

"4. The case against Mark Pearcy is even more problematic in legal terms. It is based on hearsay...actually, hearsay within hearsay."

That's way off base as well. If someone says they heard his voice, then that itself is evidence (eyewitness, or maybe you want to call it earwitness, testimony). The person testifying is stating what they personally observed.

Hearsay would be if I saw the video, and told you I saw it, and then you testified that there was a video.

"Without the tape, we can not even judge if it is evidence of a crime"

Yes, you can. You can get the testimony of someone(s) who saw it, and ask what it showed.

Overall. the questions you raise are not questions of admissibility as evidence. Instead, they are things that come down to the testimony and cross itself, and are ultimately what a jury decides, as to how much weight to give things. If they believe her, and are convinced she was dead-on accurate in everything she said, they don't need a second person to be able to say the same thing, or the tape itself to back her up. BUT - the jury gets to decide what's good testimony, what's weak or needs to be ignored, what's enough, and what isn't.

BBM...evidence or not, it is inadmissible in a court of law, because it's hearsay. Madame X can say that JP TOLD her he had a video of MP with Holly Bobo after she went missing (if that's what's being alleged here), but JP's statement is an out of court statement...it's hearsay, plain and simple, and not admissible in a court of law. And for Madame X to say that JP TOLD her MP was on a video...well, that's hearsay within hearsay in MP's case. Not admissible. Unless, of course, there are some hearsay exemptions of which I'm unaware. Hell, even police reports are hearsay. Although, they make their way into court via exceptions to the hearsay rule.

 

[Hatfield]

One thing that seems very flimsy to me is relying on someone that says they thought they "heard" someone's voice on a tape. The witness is most likely not a "voice expert" and many people sound like other people.

IMO there is no way that would hold up to any kind of serious scrutiny, so I am really hoping that someone wasn't arrested solely on someone saying they "think" they heard someone's voice on a tape. I am hoping there is much more basis to the arrests than something like that.

 

[aussiegran]

Just when I thought this case couldn't get any harder for the Bobo family, I read about a possible video. Sending prayers of strength for the Bobo family. Poor Holly, what did they do to you. Such a sad day.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Just when I thought this case couldn't get any harder for the Bobo family, I read about a possible video. Sending prayers of strength for the Bobo family. Poor Holly, what did they do to you. Such a sad day.

It is very heartbreaking to even comprehend what the Bobo family has had to endure. Most of us had heard about this video from some time now so I don't think any of us were really surprised when the issue of a video/photos being taken came to the forefront with the Pearcy brothers.

It reminds me so much of Steve Greone. Not only did he have to deal with what happened to his sweet adorable 11 year old son (RIP) but he also knew what Duncan had done to his precious 8 year old Shasta. And Duncan had already murdered SGs 13 year old son, Slade, along with his mother, and his mother's boyfriend.

Steve had throat cancer at the time, and didn't know it, but he also had to go through all of the tremendous grief, and suffering of what had happened to his children.

But he had to come to terms with knowing Joseph Duncan had also taken a video of the entire thing, from the time he kidnapped, tortured them daily, raped them repeatedly, and finally murdered Dylan six weeks after he kidnapped them. I know that must haunt him to this day.

I truly thought I would never see another case where the evil is so prevalent again. But its coming in this one. It will shock us to the core to know human beings can do this to another defenseless human being and then video tape it to memorialize it.

My heart hurts for all of the Bobo family.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

One thing that seems very flimsy to me is relying on someone that says they thought they "heard" someone's voice on a tape. The witness is most likely not a "voice expert" and many people sound like other people.

IMO there is no way that would hold up to any kind of serious scrutiny, so I am really hoping that someone wasn't arrested solely on someone saying they "think" they heard someone's voice on a tape. I am hoping there is much more basis to the arrests than something like that.

I think they will have others who will testify that Pearcy was there taking the video/photos.

The police don't arrest and charge someone based solely on hearsay. There is much more to this than the TBI is going to divulge to the public.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

BBM...evidence or not, it is inadmissible in a court of law, because it's hearsay. Madame X can say that JP TOLD her he had a video of MP with Holly Bobo after she went missing (if that's what's being alleged here), but JP's statement is an out of court statement...it's hearsay, plain and simple, and not admissible in a court of law. And for Madame X to say that JP TOLD her MP was on a video...well, that's hearsay within hearsay in MP's case. Not admissible. Unless, of course, there are some hearsay exemptions of which I'm unaware. Hell, even police reports are hearsay. Although, they make their way into court via exceptions to the hearsay rule.

You appear to be confused about what is being claimed about the video, and therefore all your conclusions above are mistaken.

It is not a situation where the unknown "Madame X" has been TOLD ABOUT a video and/or its contents. Instead, Madame X claims to have watched the video personally, and to have personal knowledge of its contents from having watched it.

There is no hearsay involved.

 

[SteveS]

I think they will have others who will testify that Pearcy was there taking the video/photos.

The police don't arrest and charge someone based solely on hearsay. There is much more to this than the TBI is going to divulge to the public.

IMO

The testimony from the lady who claims to have seen the perhaps-mythical video is not "hearsay." And it was reported that the court filing cited that evidence (her statement) as the probable cause basis for the arrest of both brothers.

 

[Nana46]

After the tweet last night about MP being in court in another town this coming Monday, I read until late last night and then again a few minutes this morning at the 'other place.' I will need a long list and help trying to figure out the connection between all these folks...so many deaths, so many inter-connected people with children by the same/different people and all roads lead back to this heap of folks.........good Lord who can possibly keep this all straight? Prison, strange deaths, murders, suicides, ay yi yi.
IMO

ADD: I just looked on vinelink and MP has been moved but his location is not showing. Hmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[shefner]

My guess is that MP was moved to an undisclosed location for the same reason as others have been done. To keep the players safe and feeling free to talk.

 

[danzn16]

Has it been released who has said they saw a video of Holly after her kidnapping, what was on the video, when they saw it, or if it still exists?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[tlcya]

It has been reported (sorry link is a few pages back) that the witness who claims to have seen the video featuring MP's voice and image of Holly was female. That person has not been named that I know of. We have been given no details of what was on the tape aside from that, nor any info about under what circumstances it was seen or when.

It is implied that the video may no longer exist based on the charges against the Ps that they have destroyed or tampered with this alleged evidence.

 

[OldSteve]

You appear to be confused about what is being claimed about the video, and therefore all your conclusions above are mistaken.

It is not a situation where the unknown "Madame X" has been TOLD ABOUT a video and/or its contents. Instead, Madame X claims to have watched the video personally, and to have personal knowledge of its contents from having watched it.

There is no hearsay involved.

I agree about it being admissible -
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

But, without actually having the video to show the jurors, the creditably and reliability of the witness will be attacked...

 

[SteveS]

It has been reported (sorry link is a few pages back) that the witness who claims to have seen the video featuring MP's voice and image of Holly was female. That person has not been named that I know of. We have been given no details of what was on the tape aside from that, nor any info about under what circumstances it was seen or when.

It is implied that the video may no longer exist based on the charges against the Ps that they have destroyed or tampered with this alleged evidence.

Agreed, with one addendum.

As to "nor any info about under what circumstances it was seen or when", it has been reported from the court filings that the witness said she saw the video when/because JP showed it to her.

Also, the name of the witness who says she saw the video probably appears in the court filings, although her name has not been reported. In addition, in his interview JP freely says he does know her, and has his guesses as to why she may have been motivated to concoct such a story.

 

[SteveS]

I agree about it being admissible -
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/hearsay

But, without actually having the video to show the jurors, the creditably and reliability of the witness will be attacked...

Absolutely true. It's up to the jury to decide who to believe, if anyone, and whether the evidence being presented is enough to convict for the crime being charged.

If the evidence is too flimsy, the judge can toss the case before it ever gets to the jury, and that happens sometimes. It can happen in a request for a summary judgment at the very outset of a trial, and it can happen after the testimony has been given but before the jury has a chance to consider it. But having so little, or such weak, evidence doesn't prevent them from taking it to court and making the defendant alarmed.

There's one other legal consideration in this case that leads me to believe this is a tactic, rather than an actual attempt to get a conviction. That's because at this point, if it went to court, my understanding is that under TN law they COULDN'T convict either Pearcy, no matter what they think they have as evidence.

As I read it, they can't convict a person of tampering with evidence, or of being an accessory after the fact to a crime, unless a crime has been committed, and there has been no finding in court that a crime has been committed. If we were at a point in time after ZA or JA had been convicted, then it would be open season. But not now.

Given that, it's really odd timing for an arrest that they believe can lead to a conviction. But not for a tactic hoping to intimidate, and thereby produce needed evidence for the Bobo case.