Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #5 ***ARRESTS***

[Mr. Noatak]

You got me wondering - so what happens when the obsessed male become a meth addict? Does he become empowered to do things he wouldn't have done in the past?

My opinions only, no facts here:

Your question is insightful, intelligent and relevant.

First, I want to agree with another poster here that alcohol is the worst culprit. Always was, and always will be. However, remember that in our times, dopers are combining alcohol with far more bizarre/stronger drugs than in the past. The situation has become more brazenly pathological than in the 1960's when hopheads would down random handfuls of pills from a bowl at a party (while drinking booze, no less).

When you think about it, drug use in general starts at a relatively young age, and is almost always a subconscious attempt to supplant failed social-satisfaction and/or sexuality. Drugs make oneself feel better about real or perceived social/sexual failures, or even can temporarily create the physical sensations of magical relationships that can never exist. By their very definition, drugs are a replacement for the benefits of unfound or lost love for family or partners.

In this manner, drugs BECOME the unfound/lost love. So to answer your question, if a man with an obsession for a particular woman became later addicted to meth, he would be LESS LIKELY to obsess for the woman, since meth has supplanted and directed his obsession inwardly; now he obsesses for the drug that has temporarily satisfied his deficiencies on both a psychological and physical basis.

In less colorful language, many a drunk has 'successfully' replaced his memories of lost or imagined love with a bottle.

In more colorful language, quoting from the Fifth Edition of the Translation of the Rubáiyát of Omar Khayyám:

Yesterday, this day's madness did prepare,
Tomorrow's silence, triumph, or despair.
Drink! for you know not whence you came, nor why.
Drink! for you know not why you go, nor where.

Sleuth On!

 

[rtjedarling]

I knew a young fellow who was obsessed and an addict- the drug is the #1 lover, but the sex drive, or drive for fantasy release can still be there - another powerful motivator. His obsession continued and the occasional undesirable overtures to the object of his oddball desires. He may not be as capable, but he will still try to do his thing, and now his logic is even more off the wall. Some people are better at doing their thing than others- there are those who aren't worth a thing under the influence.

 

[reedus23]

Haven't checked in for a while. So there was no dismissal of the charges and the video is one step closer to reality, though not there yet. I suspect the DA will get past the grand jury as well. The burden is lesser at that stage than for a conviction and that is the way it should be and will be. While getting past that stage is easier, it is not automatic. However, most prosecutors are not going to file charges unless they firmly believe that they can obtain a conviction. If they firmly believe they can get a conviction, they will obviously be able to get through the grand jury stage.

I didn't read the article itself, but I did notice the quotes posted here with regard to the video. In essence, no one from TBI has seen the video. I am wondering if they are using carefully worded answers, as in the FBI or some other agency has seen it. Obviously, they would have to let that be known to the other side at some point, but they probably don't need it in order to get past the grand jury. But then again, I might have that quote completely wrong since I didn't read the article itself.

As for the witness, do we know the entirety of her testimony? I would assume if she had testified to details of the video, MSM would have reported it. My thought process for those concerned about relying on her statements is that it is possible that she includes descriptions or information from the video that could be verified outside of video itself. For instance, maybe there was an item of Holly's that she had with her that LE has held back from the public. If this witness described this item when she had no reason to know Holly ever had it much less with her at the time, it would certainly add some credibility to the witness and might be enough without any other evidence at all. Just throw that out there to say we really don't know nearly enough at this point to say if the charges are going to stick and convictions obtained or not.

 

[evelyn24]

Haven't checked in for a while. So there was no dismissal of the charges and the video is one step closer to reality, though not there yet. I suspect the DA will get past the grand jury as well. The burden is lesser at that stage than for a conviction and that is the way it should be and will be. While getting past that stage is easier, it is not automatic. However, most prosecutors are not going to file charges unless they firmly believe that they can obtain a conviction. If they firmly believe they can get a conviction, they will obviously be able to get through the grand jury stage.

I didn't read the article itself, but I did notice the quotes posted here with regard to the video. In essence, no one from TBI has seen the video. I am wondering if they are using carefully worded answers, as in the FBI or some other agency has seen it. Obviously, they would have to let that be known to the other side at some point, but they probably don't need it in order to get past the grand jury. But then again, I might have that quote completely wrong since I didn't read the article itself.

As for the witness, do we know the entirety of her testimony? I would assume if she had testified to details of the video, MSM would have reported it. My thought process for those concerned about relying on her statements is that it is possible that she includes descriptions or information from the video that could be verified outside of video itself. For instance, maybe there was an item of Holly's that she had with her that LE has held back from the public. If this witness described this item when she had no reason to know Holly ever had it much less with her at the time, it would certainly add some credibility to the witness and might be enough without any other evidence at all. Just throw that out there to say we really don't know nearly enough at this point to say if the charges are going to stick and convictions obtained or not.

How exactly is the video one step closer to reality?

 

[goldenbear]

How long before LE lets us know if the phone has been unlocked?

 

[tlcya]

I have a bad feeling and I wish LE would allay it by producing something, anything aside from one woman's testimony.

A few pages back OBE said something about never failing to be amazed at how some people will discount testimony by a witness in favor of believing a perp/defendant because they "assume" the witness is lying.

I wanted to speak to that from my own perspective and wanted to do so in a non kneejerk non emotional response. So I have waited for a few days, examining my thoughts on this case and cooling my jets so as to address the post responsibly.

I have been following cases here since 2009 and for years before that prior to my membership. I have a huge respect for law enforcement and for our justice system. That system has let me down on occasion - it is not perfect - but it is in general a process I have faith in.

So my concerns in this particular case and with the arrests of the Pearcy brothers is not indicative of my normal case following viewpoint.

ONLY in this case do I have concerns that there has been a rush to judgment based on the completely unsubstantiated word of one person against another. I am used to seeing evidence and testimony that supports one witness's account of something. I am not seeing that in this case and it concerns me. I resent the implication that because I take this woman's testimony (which none of us have heard for ourselves in its entirety BTW) with more than one grain of salt and wish for more that I am somehow cheerleading for defendants all over the country or that I am somehow gullible for wanting more in THIS case.

 

[reedus23]

How exactly is the video one step closer to reality?

As in one step closer to trial as opposed to charges dismissed. Was speaking more tongue in cheek. We'll probably never know with 100% certainty unless they're able to re-create something that has been deleted. So it will become a war or sides and which side one tends to believe.

 

[pearl]

I don't think LE will make an announcement about the phone still being locked or if its been unlocked. I think the best we will get will be to pay attention to the charges against the Pearcy brothers. Also, maybe it will lead to another arrest and someone knowing that person will tell why.

I am responding to Goldenbear's post. I thought it would be under GB's post. Still learning the new program here on WS.

 

[Wonless]

Can not stop wondering why ZA said "he is the one that started all this", talking about his brother. I can't help thinking that this whole situation fits together much more nicely if DA, who may have known Holly and or had some kind of relationship with her, is the kidnapper, ie she leaves with him, and that he delivers her to ZA, who in typical drug fueled psychopath fashion does the evil deeds. Or ZA kidnaps her on DA's behalf but then decides to keep her for himself. I wish we knew more about the ZA/DA dynamic. Why/how did DA start all this? Just babbling, wasting time while we wait.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

How long before LE lets us know if the phone has been unlocked?

:seeya: Hi GB !

This is JMO but I think we will find out about it at trial -- OR -- maybe sooner IF there are more indictments and arrests and will have no alternative but to introduce the phone/video at that time ?

LE has been so silent about Holly's case ...


Just had an idea about the "locked phone" : It probably would have been quicker for LE to find a 10-11-12 year old to unlock that phone ... I bet they know how :wink:

 

[shefner]

I do not trust TBI. Sorry to say this. But this case has been such a mess since day one. It was mishandled by local authorities the morning of the incident and I can almost understand that due to the fact that they are a small department in a rural area....but we can't let them off the hook- not post-911. There were no roadblocks set up, which was the first thing you should do when there has been an abduction and you are aware of it immediately. I believe they could have stopped this crime in progress if they had acted correctly and rapidly.

Then TBI entered the scene. They didn't release enough information for the general public to help. They wouldn't even release the 911 calls, which would have helped tremendously. From what I understand, they limited what the parents could say. And before anyone starts waxing philosophical by saying that LE doesn't owe us a dang thing, let me say that they DO owe us something. They owe it to the public to keep us safe from harm. And if they knew or suspected this was the work of one of these horrible career criminals, then they should have made a better effort to give us information. Instead, we have waited 3 years. And we still have next to nothing.

So I don't trust them. And I pray they have enough to garner convictions for the men they are holding. To be totally honest, when the arrests started happening, I thought we would be learning more about what authorities had. Not everything...but enough to make us feel confident. And I don't feel confident.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Can not stop wondering why ZA said "he is the one that started all this", talking about his brother. I can't help thinking that this whole situation fits together much more nicely if DA, who may have known Holly and or had some kind of relationship with her, is the kidnapper, ie she leaves with him, and that he delivers her to ZA, who in typical drug fueled psychopath fashion does the evil deeds. Or ZA kidnaps her on DA's behalf but then decides to keep her for himself. I wish we knew more about the ZA/DA dynamic. Why/how did DA start all this? Just babbling, wasting time while we wait.

:seeya: Hi Wonless,

BBM: This is JMO but I think it was DA who was the first to "spill the beans" on ZA and the rest of the bunch ...

DA was in :jail: on other charges -- so could he have been going for a better deal ? Possible, IMO ...

 

[reedus23]

I do not trust TBI. Sorry to say this. But this case has been such a mess since day one. It was mishandled by local authorities the morning of the incident and I can almost understand that due to the fact that they are a small department in a rural area....but we can't let them off the hook- not post-911. There were no roadblocks set up, which was the first thing you should do when there has been an abduction and you are aware of it immediately. I believe they could have stopped this crime in progress if they had acted correctly and rapidly.

Then TBI entered the scene. They didn't release enough information for the general public to help. They wouldn't even release the 911 calls, which would have helped tremendously. From what I understand, they limited what the parents could say. And before anyone starts waxing philosophical by saying that LE doesn't owe us a dang thing, let me say that they DO owe us something. They owe it to the public to keep us safe from harm. And if they knew or suspected this was the work of one of these horrible career criminals, then they should have made a better effort to give us information. Instead, we have waited 3 years. And we still have next to nothing.

So I don't trust them. And I pray they have enough to garner convictions for the men they are holding. To be totally honest, when the arrests started happening, I thought we would be learning more about what authorities had. Not everything...but enough to make us feel confident. And I don't feel confident.

I agree in some respects and not so much with others. No road blocks was certainly a mistake in hindsight. Not releasing 911 calls? I don't see how that would have served any purpose other than our desire to try to piece this thing together. If I remember correctly too, TN doesn't allow it. Can't remember if that's a mandate or if it's discretionary though.

I think a side effect of playing it so close to the vest as the TBI did is that it creates a vacuum and the rumor mill and crackpot will fill that void trying to answer the questions, making the investigation that much tougher. JMO.

 

[spooky24]

If I remember correctly too, TN doesn't allow it.

There is no statute against it however it's not done very often. They released the 911 call when Steve McNair was murdered because the crime scene was so very confusing and the national media was in feeding frenzy.

From the training I received from the FBI I can state that just because you don't like someone or you think they are guilty gives you the right to say a man has a very advanced psychosis.

There is nothing in his record that would point to a psychotic very sick man.

I save this sentence from training because it reminds me of the boundaries of the disorder. Psychopaths are born-not created and drug use exasperates anti-social personality traits however it never is the only cause.

Syd Barrett was born with certain antisocial traits that were impersonality-affective in his creativity. However after repeated LSD use the powerful hallucinogenic upset the biometric structure and left him open to expand on other parts of the disorder. While LSD was the cause of the breakdown it would not have led to Schizophrenia if the antisocial traits were not already present.

So, in general, drug use only highlights what is already there. If these men are indeed guilty-they can't stand up in front of the jury and proclaim methamphetamine made them do it.

In order to receive a one to five score on these major traits supposition, conjecture, dislike or any other emotion can't be part of the summation. Going through his record I see nothing that could score from the list other than what he said about himself-that he is a drug addict and a thief. A true psychotic would never make such a statement. Since I don't know the man and his juvenile record is sealed nothing released by the media or the FBI points to a major psychosis.


Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Poor behavioral controls
Early behavioral problem
Juvenile delinquency
Revocation of conditional release
Criminal versatility
Many short-term marital relationships
Promiscuous sexual behavior

Nothing about this list can be determined by what the media releases about this mans past. He has a long criminal record-but millions in
America have a long arrest record-that doesn't make them sick with a major psychosis that intersect fantasy and reality.

About Grand Juries: We would often do 40 DUI cases at the same time because they have already admitted to a crime (implied consent) and there really is no reason to have a jury trial when the state is offering to lower the charges to reckless driving. I never felt any pressure from prosecutors to do anything other what the Judge had charged us to do-be fair and follow the letter of the law.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

"This is what the ATF does, these people that are prohibitive people, convicted felons, violent criminals espoused to a racist extremist propaganda, and they're up to no good, so, we can use the firearms laws and our expertise to take them off, that is what we do," Fulton said.

Bolded and snipped by me.

The first phrase was a real heads scratcher for me, because I have never heard the word "prohibitive" used as an adjective to describe a person. I looked it up on the ATF's website. It basically refers to a convicted felon not having the right to own a gun.

As for the phrase, "take them off", I'm guessing he means arrest them? :dunno:

------------------------------

 

[Foxfire]

There is no statute against it however it's not done very often. They released the 911 call when Steve McNair was murdered because the crime scene was so very confusing and the national media was in feeding frenzy.

From the training I received from the FBI I can state that just because you don't like someone or you think they are guilty gives you the right to say a man has a very advanced psychosis.

There is nothing in his record that would point to a psychotic very sick man.

I save this sentence from training because it reminds me of the boundaries of the disorder. Psychopaths are born-not created and drug use exasperates anti-social personality traits however it never is the only cause.

Syd Barrett was born with certain antisocial traits that were impersonality-affective in his creativity. However after repeated LSD use the powerful hallucinogenic upset the biometric structure and left him open to expand on other parts of the disorder. While LSD was the cause of the breakdown it would not have led to Schizophrenia if the antisocial traits were not already present.

So, in general, drug use only highlights what is already there. If these men are indeed guilty-they can't stand up in front of the jury and proclaim methamphetamine made them do it.

In order to receive a one to five score on these major traits supposition, conjecture, dislike or any other emotion can't be part of the summation. Going through his record I see nothing that could score from the list other than what he said about himself-that he is a drug addict and a thief. A true psychotic would never make such a statement. Since I don't know the man and his juvenile record is sealed nothing released by the media or the FBI points to a major psychosis.


Glibness/superficial charm
Grandiose sense of self-worth
Pathological lying
Cunning/manipulative
Lack of remorse or guilt
Emotionally shallow
Callous/lack of empathy
Failure to accept responsibility for own actions
Need for stimulation/proneness to boredom
Parasitic lifestyle
Lack of realistic, long-term goals
Impulsivity
Irresponsibility
Poor behavioral controls
Early behavioral problem
Juvenile delinquency
Revocation of conditional release
Criminal versatility
Many short-term marital relationships
Promiscuous sexual behavior

Nothing about this list can be determined by what the media releases about this mans past. He has a long criminal record-but millions in
America have a long arrest record-that doesn't make them sick with a major psychosis that intersect fantasy and reality.

About Grand Juries: We would often do 40 DUI cases at the same time because they have already admitted to a crime (implied consent) and there really is no reason to have a jury trial when the state is offering to lower the charges to reckless driving. I never felt any pressure from prosecutors to do anything other what the Judge had charged us to do-be fair and follow the letter of the law.

<BBM for Focus>

Spooky24, not sure if TN Governor Haslam signed the bill into law, as I haven't followed it. Ironically, a bill was introduced to seal 911 calls in TN a couple of weeks before Holly's abduction;

Bill to seal 911 tapes could impact callers' privacy, public ...
www.thehunterreport.com/911PRIVATE.htm
Mar 24, 2011 - Conversations with 911 operators may soon be closed to the public, under a bill ... release of the tapes of emergency calls, a move that supporters say protects the safety and privacy of 911 callers. ... Amends TCA Title 7, Chapter 86, Part 1 and Title 10, Chapter 7, Part 5. HB 1539 - SB 1665 - March 1, 2011.

RE: There is nothing in his record that would point to a psychotic very sick man.

"Huh"? Spooky24, Zachary Adams is being held on $1 million bond on kidnapping, murder ... ZA was convicted of shooting his mother in the knee in 2004
Zachary Adams also threatened to shoot his grandmother with a shotgun...
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/03/06/holly-bobo-student-death-tn/6136361/

 

[rtjedarling]

more likely psychopathic not psychotic - except possibly some drug induced psychosis

 

[spooky24]

Here is an example of someone who has an advanced psychosis.

The judge found he met the criteria for an insanity defense when he committed murder as he was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia.

"This manifested itself that day, with him becoming extremely paranoid, and schizophrenic, and being convinced, unfortunately, that his father was trying to harm him in some way. Which of course was not true," explained Catrell's attorney David Raybin.

Raybin said Cantrell thought he and his father were robots the day of Oliver Cantrell's murder

I was finally able to access the complete records for the two men being held in connection with this case. I sure didn't know that Bobo's mother was Adams fourth grade teacher.

It matters none in the eyes of the law although I'm quite confident a defense attorney could use it to show doubt. If there is ever a trial and without a confession there will not be one.

There is not one single thing in any of past legal charges and convictions that indicate a mental disorder.

I don't think either one thought they were a robot.

 

[reedus23]

I'm not sure what's being discussed. Help me out. I'm lost. Has the defense brought forth an insanity defense instead of denying they did it? TIA

 

[Hatfield]

Shouldn't they have got warrants for his phone records and his phones and checked them out BEFORE bringing any charges? Not only is it troubling that they brought charges before checking his phone, but it's also troubling that a judge would sign off on an arrest warrant based on a woman's claim with no other backing evidence. That's not how the justice system is supposed to work.

I so agree.

All JMO
I'm just catching up and very disappointed so far in how the State is handling this case. From the surface, many people are in jail and there does not seem to be a lot of reason to believe the state is going to have much solid evidence. I hope I am surprised and they do produce a lot but it is very scary right now.

I am also very confused about this alleged video. Maybe its just me getting confused with different media articles but here is why I am so confused. No links but just things I thought I recalled seeing at some point.

-The person could have mistaken someone else on the video for HB.

-This person could have had personal reasons to make claims about a video. 3 easy examples could be personal Vendetta or Reward Money or getting a more favorable sentence for a relative or friend.

-Did i read it right that LE is taking one of JP's phone to Apple to check to see IF it contains a video. My goodness, that is not very confident sounding that the phone even has the video on it to begin with.

-I thought I saw where the person said that JP had to go to another persons house to retrieve said video. It seems the locations of where video was shown and where it was gotten from would be important.

-I thought I saw where the person said the MP person was approaching victim as if to have sex with victim, but then I read where the person said ZA was having sex with the victim. So which is it. Maybe both?

-Didnt she at one point claim she heard someones voice on the tape and knew who it was. Voices can be mistaken is all I know and not sure she even testified to that or not.

The bottom line is if LE cannot produce this video, this does not bode well for the State. The allegations are one thing but being able to prove what was seen on an alleged video is quite another.

I'm just so disappointed right now. I hope I get surprised that the State has much more than what we are hearing about. This is getting down right depressing at this point.