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

[~Lyric~]

Looks like I'm in the minority. But having watched the press conference where a question about a video was asked, and having read the wording and the responses regarding the arrests of the Pearcy bros, I still believe that the idea that LE has personally seen a video or now possesses one is completely off base.

• From the way things have been worded, I take it that this was a video recording taken on a phone.
  
• The idea that they could retrieve the video depends on the ability to get their hands on a phone that has the data.
  
• But phones can be lost or destroyed, quite benignly in fact, and witnesses can lie or be mistaken.
  
• The Pearcy's are clearly being charged for things that have NOT been found, rather than for what has been found.

Taken together, I take all that to indicate that LE has no video, nor have they seen one, but they do think one exists. The inference I've drawn is that they were told of a video, chose to believe what they were told, and hope to use whatever means necessary (including these arrests) to get it.

What may be important is whether LE has compelling proof of a video's existence apart from a he-said she-said thing - - if they do, so far we absolutely haven't heard of any such proof.

I wouldn't say that you aren't in the minority, rather, extraordinary.
I would hope that LE would not arrest these two with just hear say, I really want to believe that they have something "tangible".

I've ponder.....if something that one of the two SA or DA said to LE, and then this other witness "seeing" or "hearing" this recording establishes this did happen...I wonder then, would that be enough for arrests?

 

[SteveS]

I have lots of questions about a video, when it's not seen but rather being described by a 3rd party. I think that leaves all kinds of room for errors from someone well-intentioned but simply mistaken.

Given the criminal history of one of the Pearcy bros, and the way the other (allegedly) wanted to show the video, it makes me wonder if the video was erotic, sexual, or otherwise featured a female in some state of sexual activity or undress. And if the female was being shared not because of something illegal or harmful but rather due to something titillating or lurid, it opens the door to the possibility that it was misidentified as featuring Holly.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Knox posted the newly arrested brother's facebook accounts yesterday. tyvm

I found another fb for MP today. It's older and nothing posted since 4/12.

Funny he's friends with JA's x wife & ZA's ex gf. The newer fb account doesn't show his friends list.

https://www.facebook.com/mark.pearcy.54?fref=browse_search

 

[Foxfire]

Likely has nothing to do with the P' brothers, but I have always been curious as to what info; photos, videos, etc., that may have been on the sim card located on the 04/24/2011 Easter search for HB..

 

[reedus23]

Looks like I'm in the minority. But having watched the press conference where a question about a video was asked, and having read the wording and the responses regarding the arrests of the Pearcy bros, I still believe that the idea that LE has personally seen a video or now possesses one is completely off base.

• From the way things have been worded, I take it that this was a video recording taken on a phone.
  
• The idea that they could retrieve the video depends on the ability to get their hands on a phone that has the data.
  
• But phones can be lost or destroyed, quite benignly in fact, and witnesses can lie or be mistaken.
  
• The Pearcy's are clearly being charged for things that have NOT been found, rather than for what has been found.

Taken together, I take all that to indicate that LE has no video, nor have they seen one, but they do think one exists. The inference I've drawn is that they were told of a video, chose to believe what they were told, and hope to use whatever means necessary (including these arrests) to get it.

What may be important is whether LE has compelling proof of a video's existence apart from a he-said she-said thing - - if they do, so far we absolutely haven't heard of any such proof.

No, I think you're right. I don't think LE has the video...yet. I think they have gathered enough evidence that leads them to believe that such a video exists or existed at one time and thus the charges against the Pearcy's. Is it more than one witness? Who knows. Is one witness sufficient? Potentially, but who knows. What we do know is that what ever evidence they do have was sufficient to support the charges being brought, albeit that is a lower standard. If the Pearcy's insist that no such video existed as far as they know, they will have their day in court to convince a jury of that. Or at least create the reasonable doubt that it ever existed.

 

[reedus23]

I have lots of questions about a video, when it's not seen but rather being described by a 3rd party. I think that leaves all kinds of room for errors from someone well-intentioned but simply mistaken.

Given the criminal history of one of the Pearcy bros, and the way the other (allegedly) wanted to show the video, it makes me wonder if the video was erotic, sexual, or otherwise featured a female in some state of sexual activity or undress. And if the female was being shared not because of something illegal or harmful but rather due to something titillating or lurid, it opens the door to the possibility that it was misidentified as featuring Holly.

Anything is possible. I suppose we'll find out what a jury thinks at some point and we'll get more answers to the questions we have at that point. Until then, it's all just a guessing game. I could just as easily guess that the witness described from the video a birth mark that Holly has that one would not know of unless she was seen in a state of undress. There could be countless different things that support or substantiate the charges brought. Or there could be nothing. Time will tell.

 

[tlcya]

I am kinda leaning with you on this issue SteveS. I hope there is lots of compelling evidence that such a tape or recording ever existed because I am convinced they do not have any tape.

Even witness testimony can be compelling if there are enough witnesses that are credible to the jury.

My issue with this tape business is that I suspect anyone who did see such a tape (and I do sincerely believe one existed) is probably from among a tight circle of friends who have lots and lots of credibility issues.

Come one TBI! Nail this down. I know you can make a case against those who harmed and killed Holly. I KNOW you can. Keep digging, keep applying the pressure. We need more. We all want this case to be a slam dunk.

MOO

 

[Suthrnqt]

I am kinda leaning with you on this issue SteveS. I hope there is lots of compelling evidence that such a tape or recording ever existed because I am convinced they do not have any tape.

Even witness testimony can be compelling if there are enough witnesses that are credible to the jury.

My issue with this tape business is that I suspect anyone who did see such a tape (and I do sincerely believe one existed) is probably from among a tight circle of friends who have lots and lots of credibility issues.

Come one TBI! Nail this down. I know you can make a case against those who harmed and killed Holly. I KNOW you can. Keep digging, keep applying the pressure. We need more. We all want this case to be a slam dunk.

MOO

Very good post.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

I am kinda leaning with you on this issue SteveS. I hope there is lots of compelling evidence that such a tape or recording ever existed because I am convinced they do not have any tape.

Even witness testimony can be compelling if there are enough witnesses that are credible to the jury.

My issue with this tape business is that I suspect anyone who did see such a tape (and I do sincerely believe one existed) is probably from among a tight circle of friends who have lots and lots of credibility issues.

Come one TBI! Nail this down. I know you can make a case against those who harmed and killed Holly. I KNOW you can. Keep digging, keep applying the pressure. We need more. We all want this case to be a slam dunk.

MOO

My opinions only, no facts here:

I tend to agree with you about what the authorities possess. At the moment (things may change tomorrow), I suspect the authorities have zip with regard to the aprocryphal video, and I ain't talking about a Zip Drive!

Let's talk about recovering deleted data.

IF the data was classically deleted, using the software that came with the operating system, the Three Stooges could recover it while drunk and blindfolded. Why? Because when you delete using your operating system software, IT IS NOT DELETED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!. What happens is the area on the disk that you chose to delete is marked as "available for use and overwriting". The data is still there, pristine and untouched, even if removed from the recycle bin, until sometime in the future it is serendipitously overwritten by other data. When you shell out your money for Professional Data Recovery software, what you get is what should have come with your operating system in the first place (but doesn't for some reason). What you get is a program that can find any pristine data that has been 'marked for overwrite' and restore it for your use. It is common that some of this data will already be too corrupted for recovery. Data Recovery Software is not intended to recover erased data (read below) or data from a CD-DVD/floppy/hard drive that has been hard-formatted (long format).

You can install freeware or buy software that "erases" data. These programs randomly overwrite chosen data on your disk. The ability to recover overwritten sectors on a disk is nil, although mythical claims abound. Three overwrites is possibly enough. To be safe, you can use the DOD (Dept. of Defense) standard of 7 overwrites. If you are a subscriber to the theories of Gutmann, you can be REAAAAALLLLLY safe and conduct 26 overwrites!

Other ways to possibly remove data permanently? You could grind the active surface of a hard disk or CD/DVD with a power sander. Washing or bleaching the disk doesn't work. CD/DVD's, sticks, and floppies can also simply be burned until melted. I suppose that burning the entire camera or phone is feasible, if the fire is hot enough to melt metal.

Regarding the Holly Bobo case, it does not matter if we are talking about photos or videos, it all boils down to 0's and 1's on a disk. If the apocryphal video of the "new brothers" actually exists, and the data was classically deleted, it can be mostly recovered. If it was erased (which I doubt), the data is gone.

Sleuth On!

 

[Mountain_Kat]

They are accused of hiding the video. Interesting. Now, how is it the authorities are sure this video exists or existed?

Also how old was MP in 2000 and how old was the girl?
Sounds like a relationship or fling with a consensual but underage girl.

BBM

My questions exactly. I don't know what evidence TBI actually has in their possession, but what I'm seeing in this case so far is a whole lot of hearsay and circumstantial evidence. That concerns me on a number of levels. Let me paint a hypothetical visual here: let's say my neighbor is an animal hoarder and I call animal protection on her. Let's say she gets pissed and says, "Oh yeah, well Kat is in possession of a video that shows the murder of a child. I've seen it, and so has by sister. Go look into that!". TBI shows up at my house, searches for the video, and naturally turns up squat. TBI then postulates that I must have destroyed the evidence, so they arrest me for tampering with evidence. Does ANYONE here think I should be arrested based on the info given in this post? Don't they have to prove the existence of evidence BEFORE they charge me with tampering of evidence?

That is, of course, a hypothetical...I have no way of knowing what the actual circumstances are pertaining to this alleged video of Holly Bobo. But I will say this with every ounce of conviction in my body...TBI and local LE better have something REAL and SUBSTANTIAL in this case, because if they don't, not only is everyone arrested thus far in connection with this case going to walk, but they are going to walk away armed with some damned good violation of civil rights cases against the state.

JMO

 

[Mountain_Kat]

The court document states that Jeffrey Pearcy told the witness about the video, and that Jeffrey Pearcy then left the witness’s home and went to see Mark Pearcy. Jeffrey Pearcy returned to the witness’s home with the video, and used an electronic device to show the video to the witness, the affidavit says.

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/2...oice-video-connected-Holly-Bobo-investigation

Every bit of that is hearsay, and not admissible in a court of law. Unless, of course, they can introduce the video as evidence during the trial. Even if they did, miraculously, find a way to get this hearsay into trial, without the tape itself, even a mediocre defense attorney would rip holes in this large enough to drive a truck through. 1. Can you prove that the video you saw was Holly, and not just someone who looked like Holly? 2. Can you prove that this alleged video was taken AFTER Holly's abduction? Can you prove that, if this is a video of Holly, she wasn't there of her own freewill? And so on and so forth.

ETA: At this point, I question whether TBI even has the evidence to prove that Holly is dead. I hate to say that, and I hope like hell I'm wrong (time will tell), but in a murder case with no body, you better bring one hell of an A game, and so far, from the information made available to me, I'm not even seeing a D game here.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Looks like I'm in the minority. But having watched the press conference where a question about a video was asked, and having read the wording and the responses regarding the arrests of the Pearcy bros, I still believe that the idea that LE has personally seen a video or now possesses one is completely off base.

• From the way things have been worded, I take it that this was a video recording taken on a phone.
  
• The idea that they could retrieve the video depends on the ability to get their hands on a phone that has the data.
  
• But phones can be lost or destroyed, quite benignly in fact, and witnesses can lie or be mistaken.
  
• The Pearcy's are clearly being charged for things that have NOT been found, rather than for what has been found.

Taken together, I take all that to indicate that LE has no video, nor have they seen one, but they do think one exists. The inference I've drawn is that they were told of a video, chose to believe what they were told, and hope to use whatever means necessary (including these arrests) to get it.

What may be important is whether LE has compelling proof of a video's existence apart from a he-said she-said thing - - if they do, so far we absolutely haven't heard of any such proof.

Have you ever seen where someone was arrested and charged with AATF and tampering with evidence when the state didn't have any evidence to support it? I sure haven't. In fact I have never seen them arrest and charge someone based solely on a hearsay witness with nothing else to support it.

They wont even arrest someone for DV just based on the word of the supposed victim. They must see visible signs of physical harm showing that DV has occurred before they will arrest anyone.

To me they have not found the original and that is what they want and need to find.

They have long seen this video and that is why Gwinn mentioned (way back right after ZA was arrested) the other gruesome case done by meth heads when they tortured and brutalized the two men for seven long days before finally murdering them. TBI Director Gwinn knows it has happened again by other meth heads to Holly this time, imo.

And we will not hear about what proof they have. They have no reason to release that to the public. As the Judge said they need to try the cases in the courtroom and not in the media.

imo

 

[reedus23]

Every bit of that is hearsay, and not admissible in a court of law. Unless, of course, they can introduce the video as evidence during the trial. Even if they did, miraculously, find a way to get this hearsay into trial, without the tape itself, even a mediocre defense attorney would rip holes in this large enough to drive a truck through. 1. Can you prove that the video you saw was Holly, and not just someone who looked like Holly? 2. Can you prove that this alleged video was taken AFTER Holly's abduction? Can you prove that, if this is a video of Holly, she wasn't there of her own freewill? And so on and so forth.

ETA: At this point, I question whether TBI even has the evidence to prove that Holly is dead. I hate to say that, and I hope like hell I'm wrong (time will tell), but in a murder case with no body, you better bring one hell of an A game, and so far, from the information made available to me, I'm not even seeing a D game here.

I do believe such witness testimony is admissible as an admission. I don't think there would be much question that the witness could testify to all of that. Plus, what he saw or heard on the video is definitely admissible. Can it, will it and should it be attacked by a defense attorney? Of course. But the DA knew that before they brought the charges. If they thought those holes would be big enough to destroy the entire case, they wouldn't have brought the charges in the first place. DA's are all about conviction rates and they just rarely bring charges unless they are confident of their case.

As for the the rest, don't fret it. You probably know 1% of what LE and the DA know. Hard to put a grade on anything when you know so little. I bet if you added up all of the posts on WS about Holly, it's still only a fraction of the info that the DA is turning over to the defense and what they are turning over to the defense is only a fraction of what they know.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Every bit of that is hearsay, and not admissible in a court of law. Unless, of course, they can introduce the video as evidence during the trial. Even if they did, miraculously, find a way to get this hearsay into trial, without the tape itself, even a mediocre defense attorney would rip holes in this large enough to drive a truck through. 1. Can you prove that the video you saw was Holly, and not just someone who looked like Holly? 2. Can you prove that this alleged video was taken AFTER Holly's abduction? Can you prove that, if this is a video of Holly, she wasn't there of her own freewill? And so on and so forth.

ETA: At this point, I question whether TBI even has the evidence to prove that Holly is dead. I hate to say that, and I hope like hell I'm wrong (time will tell), but in a murder case with no body, you better bring one hell of an A game, and so far, from the information made available to me, I'm not even seeing a D game here.

And that is exactly why I think the TBI/DA has much more evidence to prove the AATF and tampering with evidence charges. A Judge wouldn't even agree to a SW based solely on a hearsay witness. So there is much more evidence that we don't know about nor should we.

The TBI didn't have to arrest the suspects concerning Holly. There is no statute of limitations on murder and they know all too well the DA only gets one bite at the apple. They arrested them when they had amassed the evidence where they knew the case can be proven BARD to a jury.

So I am positive they DO HAVE all they need to prove that Holly has been murdered and who kidnapped and murdered her.

If it can convince Holly's family after 3 years of refusing to believe anything other than she was being held alive somewhere then it will be more than enough to convince a jury. Because convincing parents their child is dead takes a lot more. It is not BARD for them .......it is beyond ALL doubt.

Cases involving bodies that have never been located are won time and time again. I don't know why some seem to think they are hard to win.

I think in the end it is going to wind up like the Torres/Sierra Lamar murder case and this DA will also opt for the death penalty and if that should happen then they have both of these defendants by the gonads when it comes to evidence against them.

So I am not worried in the least. The TBI nor the DA in this case is known for going around and arresting and charging people with crimes without supporting evidence. I think that accusation against them is quite ridiculous actually.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

And that is exactly why I think the TBI/DA has much more evidence to prove the AATF and tampering with evidence charges. A Judge wouldn't even agree to a SW based solely on a hearsay witness. So there is much more evidence that we don't know about nor should we.

The TBI didn't have to arrest the suspects concerning Holly. There is no statute of limitations on murder and they know all too well the DA only gets one bite at the apple. They arrested them when they had amassed the evidence where they knew the case can be proven BARD to a jury.

So I am positive they DO HAVE all they need to prove that Holly has been murdered and who kidnapped and murdered her.

If it can convince Holly's family after 3 years of refusing to believe anything other than she was being held alive somewhere then it will be more than enough to convince a jury. Because convincing parents their child is dead takes a lot more. It is not BARD for them .......it is beyond ALL doubt.

Cases involving bodies that have never been located are won time and time again. I don't know why some seem to think they are hard to win.

I think in the end it is going to wind up like the Torres/Sierra Lamar murder case and this DA will also opt for the death penalty and if that should happen then they have both of these defendants by the gonads when it comes to evidence against them.

So I am not worried in the least. The TBI nor the DA in this case is known for going around and arresting and charging people with crimes without supporting evidence. I think that accusation against them is quite ridiculous actually.

:seeya:

BBM: Good points, OBE !


:seeya: And Good Morning to All !

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am kinda leaning with you on this issue SteveS. I hope there is lots of compelling evidence that such a tape or recording ever existed because I am convinced they do not have any tape.

Even witness testimony can be compelling if there are enough witnesses that are credible to the jury.

My issue with this tape business is that I suspect anyone who did see such a tape (and I do sincerely believe one existed) is probably from among a tight circle of friends who have lots and lots of credibility issues.

Come one TBI! Nail this down. I know you can make a case against those who harmed and killed Holly. I KNOW you can. Keep digging, keep applying the pressure. We need more. We all want this case to be a slam dunk.

MOO

:seeya:

I think in cases like this with these list of characters as suspects no juror expects a Mr. Rodgers and Mother Teresa to be on the witness list. Often when the defendant has a vast criminal history the friends they hang out with also have the same background as the thugs they hung around with.

I mean really what law abiding citizen would hang out with a bunch of meth head criminals? What would they remotely have in common? I think jurors get that clearly and will understand that sometimes you have to go to the devil's pot to bring justice to the victim.

So, yes, there will be those who testify with checkered pasts, no doubt in my mind, however; we see that happen quite often in a lot of cases where the defendant has led a life of crime. And time and time again jurors do believe the witnesses that knew the defendants well. Who better to know their vile secrets than those who are around them all the time?

I believe there is going to be way more than one testifying against ZA and JA. With multiple people testifying to the same thing it is going to be hard to make a jury believe that everyone is lying but the defendants. That's a hard sell within itself anyway when its tried. It will be even harder to sell with these particular defendants.

But the one who does not seem to have much of a criminal history is Dylan Adams. As far as I know the federal gun charge is his only crime. I have often wondered if his very abusive narcissistic sociopathic older brother set him up to take the fall if caught giving the handgun to the ex-felon. It has been said that Dylan hates his brother. Well if he knew Zach set him up then that would be highly understandable as to the reason why. It seems ZA abused every member of his family so it is logical to me anyway that Dylan wasn't spared from his rage either.

I am not the least bit worried about the charges against the Pearcy Brothers. The only thing we can be sure of is the TBI/DA has much more evidence than they will ever tell the public. DAs don't lightly arrest and charge someone with a crime and they don't do it if they know they have absolutely no way of proving it. DAs are there to win cases (they are elected) and IMO they are certain they can win these too or they would have never charged them in the first place.

As I have said earlier, I think the TBI has long seen a copy of this video but they know they need to have the original video for it to be admitted at trial against Adams and Autry.

They may not need that in the charges against the Pearcys because I would think just possessing a copy would be considered tampering with evidence even if they tried to hide or delete the copy afterwards after the witness had already seen it.

I am afraid that a lot of people in that town that hung around the members and followers of the A-Train who may have copies and it has been viewed many times by others. Whoever these people are they should also be arrested for obstruction of justice imo if they didn't go immediately to the TBI to report it the minute they viewed it.

So many 'over there' from Darden seem to have known about this video way before it came to light.

 

[jggordo]

I believe it is interesting that there was NO press conference after these arrests. LE sure doesn't want to answer any more questions about this (these) recording (s). When LE, IIRC went before the GJ it was TBI and FBI agents that presented the case evidence. That is far and above the usual Sheriff or local LE presenting evidence. I don't believe either the State or Federal LE would ask for indictments if they did not have the goods.

I would be willing to bet there were others who were there while this all was going on and are asking themselves whether they too may have got caught on candid camera. I hope LE has some POI's phones tapped with court orders.

I believe it will be interesting however at the June 16 preliminary hearing there should be some "evidence" to support the arrest given. There is no "veil" of secrecy of GJ indictments. And it could be that this witness may be giving testimony to the court at that time.

JMO's

 

[oceanblueeyes]

:seeya:

BBM: Good points, OBE !


:seeya: And Good Morning to All !

Good Morning Cutie!:seeya:

Thanks.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

I do believe such witness testimony is admissible as an admission. I don't think there would be much question that the witness could testify to all of that. Plus, what he saw or heard on the video is definitely admissible. Can it, will it and should it be attacked by a defense attorney? Of course. But the DA knew that before they brought the charges. If they thought those holes would be big enough to destroy the entire case, they wouldn't have brought the charges in the first place. DA's are all about conviction rates and they just rarely bring charges unless they are confident of their case.

As for the the rest, don't fret it. You probably know 1% of what LE and the DA know. Hard to put a grade on anything when you know so little. I bet if you added up all of the posts on WS about Holly, it's still only a fraction of the info that the DA is turning over to the defense and what they are turning over to the defense is only a fraction of what they know.

BBM

My point here was that you can not put a witness on the stand to testify to evidence not presented in court. And for x to say that y told him about the existence of said evidence is hearsay. Plain and simple. No tape = no admissible testimony about said tape. IMO, of course.

 

[Wonless]

My opinions only, no facts here:

I tend to agree with you about what the authorities possess. At the moment (things may change tomorrow), I suspect the authorities have zip with regard to the aprocryphal video, and I ain't talking about a Zip Drive!

Let's talk about recovering deleted data.

IF the data was classically deleted, using the software that came with the operating system, the Three Stooges could recover it while drunk and blindfolded. Why? Because when you delete using your operating system software, IT IS NOT DELETED IN ANY WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM!. What happens is the area on the disk that you chose to delete is marked as "available for use and overwriting". The data is still there, pristine and untouched, even if removed from the recycle bin, until sometime in the future it is serendipitously overwritten by other data. When you shell out your money for Professional Data Recovery software, what you get is what should have come with your operating system in the first place (but doesn't for some reason). What you get is a program that can find any pristine data that has been 'marked for overwrite' and restore it for your use. It is common that some of this data will already be too corrupted for recovery. Data Recovery Software is not intended to recover erased data (read below) or data from a CD-DVD/floppy/hard drive that has been hard-formatted (long format).

You can install freeware or buy software that "erases" data. These programs randomly overwrite chosen data on your disk. The ability to recover overwritten sectors on a disk is nil, although mythical claims abound. Three overwrites is possibly enough. To be safe, you can use the DOD (Dept. of Defense) standard of 7 overwrites. If you are a subscriber to the theories of Gutmann, you can be REAAAAALLLLLY safe and conduct 26 overwrites!

Other ways to possibly remove data permanently? You could grind the active surface of a hard disk or CD/DVD with a power sander. Washing or bleaching the disk doesn't work. CD/DVD's, sticks, and floppies can also simply be burned until melted. I suppose that burning the entire camera or phone is feasible, if the fire is hot enough to melt metal.

Regarding the Holly Bobo case, it does not matter if we are talking about photos or videos, it all boils down to 0's and 1's on a disk. If the apocryphal video of the "new brothers" actually exists, and the data was classically deleted, it can be mostly recovered. If it was erased (which I doubt), the data is gone.

Sleuth On!

IF it is possible to recover a copy of it, LE will, no question. And so many electronic devices save your media to a cloud based storage. If it was out there being passed around, chances are high IMO that it was cached somewhere. IMO this is positive news. The worry IMO would be that in rural TN, there are so many ways to physically destroy or hide electronic evidence, like just throw it into the river or something. But good news, because once you enter the electronic data arena, its very likely that it exists somewhere and will be found. If in fact the story is true that HB's sim card for her phone was taken out and discarded separately does indicate some tech savvy among the perp/perps, so who knows