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

[Dr. Know?]

Nichole Manna ‏@NicholeManna · 3m
Pearcy says TBI is reaching for straws. "My heart goes to the Bobos" says he'd lay down his life for their children #HollyBobo

Nichole Manna ‏@NicholeManna · 3m
Pearcy says allegations against him are false and only heard of a tape when he was getting arrested #HollyBobo

https://twitter.com/NicholeManna

 

[dog.gone.cute]

WHOA ... HERE YA GO :


GPS Monitor Removed For Suspect Charged In Connection With Bobo Disappearance

Updated: Jul 01, 2014 1:55 PM CDT


HENDERSON COUNTY, Tenn. - One of two new suspects charged in connection with the disappearance of nursing student Holly Bobo will no longer have to wear a GPS ankle monitor.

During a brief hearing in Henderson County General Session Court on Tuesday afternoon, prosecutors told the judge that the Board of Probation could no longer monitor Jeff Pearcy's ankle monitor since he has not been convicted of a crime. The monitor will now be removed.

The judge set the next hearing for July 29 at 1 p.m. Pearcy was also warned not to contact any witnesses in the case.


http://www.newschannel5.com/story/25914792/court-hearing-for-suspect-charged-in-bobos-disappearance

 

[Tugela]

Taken from the last thread:

The lady witness's testimony (if believed by a jury) is proof that the video existed.

No. In the example you cited they had the video, but it had been overwritten (so there would still be trace evidence that it actually existed). Under those circumstances a witness could testify to what had been observed to be the tape. So there would be corroboration.

That wouldn't apply in this case since there is no evidence that the recording actually existed to corroborate the account.

Remember, the charges these guys are facing relates to the what happened to the alleged video itself, not what was on the video. They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points. With just one point you have a line that could go in any direction, almost all of which are the wrong direction. That is why corroboration is needed. If they want their charge to go anywhere they have to have at a bare minimum a second point.

 

[SteveS]

Taken from the last thread:

No. In the example you cited they had the video, but it had been overwritten (so there would still be trace evidence that it actually existed). Under those circumstances a witness could testify to what had been observed to be the tape. So there would be corroboration.

That wouldn't apply in this case since there is no evidence that the recording actually existed to corroborate the account.

Remember, the charges these guys are facing relates to the what happened to the alleged video itself, not what was on the video. They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points. With just one point you have a line that could go in any direction, almost all of which are the wrong direction. That is why corroboration is needed. If they want their charge to go anywhere they have to have at a bare minimum a second point.

"They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

"If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points."

That is simply not an accurate view of the law. The testimony to a single witness of a certain fact (in this case, the existence of the video) is sufficient as proof - if the jury believes them, of course.

In this case, a single witness could testify that there was a video, and as to what they saw on it.

Is that weak? In my opinion, absolutely. Is that weaker than having a video that has been destroyed by being overwritten? In my opinion, absolutely. But is it allowable and enough to convict, according to the law? Yes (at least in the jurisdictions I am familiar with). You only legally have to have one witness, not multiple ones.

 

[Tugela]

An article that goes into a little more depth about Zack's suicide and assualt.


On June 13, Chester County Sheriff Deputy Mark Griffin received an incident statement from corrections officer Mark Morris, which stated that Morris had overheard Adams make suicidal comments, “specifically to throw himself from the highest point to which he could climb inside his cell,” according to a report sent out from the sheriff’s department today.

“I advised second shift supervisor, Sgt Brown, to have Inmate Adams moved to a specialized cell so that he could be monitored and observed twenty-four hours per day to prevent him from injuring himself,” Griffin wrote in the report.

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/2...lly-Bobo-s-murder-suicidal-assaulted-officers

Zack is lucky it is summertime. It would be a little chilly sleeping naked in a concrete cell during the winter.

I really doubt they were polite about it. Most likely they just stormed the cell without him knowing what was going on. Why else would they send an entire team to move him when a single warden could do it? Is it normal to send a swat team in when moving an inmate from one cell to another? I think not. He would have assumed they were going to beat him up. It sounds from the description that he was just defending himself.

 

[Tugela]

I finally have caught up on posts and wanted to thank SteveS for the information on hearsay - particularly the decision wording. Very helpful.

As to the charges of destroying evidence, I had a thought: since we are likely talking about a video clip rather than a VHS tape or DVD, it is entirely possible (and likely in my view) that more than one copy existed. If so, then it's physically possible that LE has a copy of the video clip but that the Pearcy's also destroyed one of the copies shared among the monsters for their sick entertainment. And/or that they failed to report its existence.

I remember hearing on the news when they announced charges against the Pearcys that LE did NOT have a copy of the video. And that puzzled me. It's possible that report was incorrect

Having said that, I have no idea if you can charge someone for destroying evidence if they destroy one of multiple copies of a video clip. Not sure if there is any case law that speaks to that possibility. It would still be true that they destroyed evidence, it just wouldn't be the only instance of that evidence. Does anyone have thoughts about that scenario?

Thanks,

You wouldn't be charged under those circumstances unless you were also being charged for the primary offence.

They clearly do not have the video, otherwise they would not bother with these charges.

 

[Tugela]

You're right, but you also know how much fun a defense attorney will have pointing out all the inconsistencies. If the glove doesn't fit, you must acquit.

It just takes one juror to ruin the trial.

The only inconsistencies you could use in trial are statements made by the witnesses themselves, not what is reported in the media. A lot of this stuff has been paraphrased and recycled repeatedly. Whenever you get hearsay treated as evidence there is always the possibility that it is distorted, out of context or just plain wrong.

 

[Tugela]

"They will have to provide some kind of evidence to corroborate that the recording actually existed, a mere single claim is not sufficient.

"If you want a draw a connecting line you need at least two points."

That is simply not an accurate view of the law. The testimony to a single witness of a certain fact (in this case, the existence of the video) is sufficient as proof - if the jury believes them, of course.

In this case, a single witness could testify that there was a video, and as to what they saw on it.

Is that weak? In my opinion, absolutely. Is that weaker than having a video that has been destroyed by being overwritten? In my opinion, absolutely. But is it allowable and enough to convict, according to the law? Yes (at least in the jurisdictions I am familiar with). You only legally have to have one witness, not multiple ones.

No case goes to trial based solely on a single witness account. There is always some kind of corroboration. You might get arrested, or even charged, based on a single witness account and nothing else, but you are not going to get convicted unless the legal process is corrupted.

Remember (and you appear to be forgetting this), the prosecution has a duty to prove, and that requires at least two points of evidence that support each other, not just one.

If this witness is the only thing they have, it will never reach a jury. IMO the prosecution is well aware of this. Remember, just about all the charges in this case appear to be based on jailhouse confessions of one sort or another. Perhaps they want to add another one to the tally through passive coercion?

 

[SteveS]

No case goes to trial based solely on a single witness account. There is always some kind of corroboration.

Sorry, but there are many cases that go to trail with only a single witness (and no corroboration) to a fact or set of facts. It can be enough to convict, in the right setting. The jury gets to decide whether it's enough.

 

[SteveS]

Remember (and you appear to be forgetting this), the prosecution has a duty to prove, and that requires at least two points of evidence that support each other, not just one.

I don't know where you got this mantra from, but there is no need to remember it, because it is not the law.

 

[iluvmua]

I have a feeling Holly's case is going to be way worse than the Christian/Newsom case and that one was bad enough.

 

[iluvmua]

Please tell me the purse they found last year was taken away as potential evidence.

 

[maskedwoman]

I really doubt they were polite about it. Most likely they just stormed the cell without him knowing what was going on. Why else would they send an entire team to move him when a single warden could do it? Is it normal to send a swat team in when moving an inmate from one cell to another? I think not. He would have assumed they were going to beat him up. It sounds from the description that he was just defending himself.

I'm not sure why you would assume that they "stormed in" - I assume the SWAT team is hyperbole. He is being held in a special area so, for all we know, the rules require XX number of people to attend to a prisoner move.

As for being polite about it or not, I generally assume that people act professionally in their jobs unless I have proof they didn't. And, frankly, they would be complete idiots to deliberately storm in and create a situation where he could get hurt on a high profile case like this.

It sounds from the description I read that he resisted being moved. Period. Anything else would be an assumption on my part.

 

[Hatfield]

Thinking about what you wrote .... wouldn't you think in such a high-profile case as this, and considering all the $$ that must have been spend-to-date by LE.... you would think they would have ZA constantly monitored and recorded by CCTV!?

If something should happen to ZA, what a mess as far as leaving so many unanswered questions. While we may never know what really happened, it's important this case goes to trial.

Im not so sure they would have a video recording inside of a cell unless it was one of those special type cells. Because usually there are lots of cells so I kind of doubt each cell would have camera footage inside. More typically I would think there would be camera shots down the hall in front of the cells to allow monitors to see in front of many of the cells at once.

We do need that video though. The link below that someone kindly shared describes even more about the incident according to 3 jail employees who went into his cell to get him. We sure need to see that video if one does exist, but I am not going to hold my breath for it.

In other cases where jailors were accused of roughing up prisoners, sometimes the footage miraculously disappears or wasnt there to begin with. I am pretty sure jailors know what areas of the jail are monitored and if they were going to send a message to someone they disliked they could arrange that pretty easily. Not saying that happened here but the more we learn the more it sounds like it could have gone either way.
Provoked or not provoked? Not sure.

This case now has 2 videos that we need to find.

To your other point about wanting to ensure he makes it to trial. Yes, I agree, although if some people wanted to rough him up to send a message to him about who is in charge, I dont think his safety for the trial would have come into play.


http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/2...lly-Bobo-s-murder-suicidal-assaulted-officers

 

[reedus23]

An article that goes into a little more depth about Zack's suicide and assualt.


On June 13, Chester County Sheriff Deputy Mark Griffin received an incident statement from corrections officer Mark Morris, which stated that Morris had overheard Adams make suicidal comments, “specifically to throw himself from the highest point to which he could climb inside his cell,” according to a report sent out from the sheriff’s department today.

“I advised second shift supervisor, Sgt Brown, to have Inmate Adams moved to a specialized cell so that he could be monitored and observed twenty-four hours per day to prevent him from injuring himself,” Griffin wrote in the report.

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/2...lly-Bobo-s-murder-suicidal-assaulted-officers

Zack is lucky it is summertime. It would be a little chilly sleeping naked in a concrete cell during the winter.

What a dumb you know what. He's looking for attention. Most he's going to do doing that is bruise his butt or maybe a concussion if he goes head first. What's the highest he can get? 4-6 feet?

 

[Hatfield]

Here is an example of how a situation can be claimed as "resisting to officer demands" or "Resisting Arrest" when the video told a different story.

There was 1 case I saw on a crime show where some arresting officers had a guy pinned down and 1 of them had a knee in the middle of his back. The guy appeared to be trying to comply at first, but the officer was causing so much pain to him that he started to squirm. As the officer continued to apply all his weight with his knee in back, the guy finally tried to free himself to get away from the pain. So at this point, the officer begins to yell at him "Stop Resisting" "Stop Resisting". Then came out mace to the face and other officers got very physical with him and they finally hand-cuffed him.

It was upsetting to watch as the guy really appeared to be trying to comply and the officers actions purposely caused the situation to get much worse.

 

[maskedwoman]

Here is an example of how a situation can be claimed as "resisting to officer demands" or "Resisting Arrest" when the video told a different story.

There was 1 case I saw on a crime show where some arresting officers had a guy pinned down and 1 of them had a knee in the middle of his back. The guy appeared to be trying to comply at first, but the officer was causing so much pain to him that he started to squirm. As the officer continued to apply all his weight with his knee in back, the guy finally tried to free himself to get away from the pain. So at this point, the officer begins to yell at him "Stop Resisting" "Stop Resisting". Then came out mace to the face and other officers got very physical with him and they finally hand-cuffed him.

It was upsetting to watch as the guy really appeared to be trying to comply and the officers actions purposely caused the situation to get much worse.

I have certainly seen video of situations where officers seemed to go beyond what was necessary. And when they do, those officers deserve punishment - no doubt about it. There are also cases where officers may inadvertently make a situation worse for whatever reason.

However, at this point, we have no evidence that the guards in any way initiated or escalated an altercation between them and ZA.

 

[Hatfield]

I have certainly seen video of situations where officers seemed to go beyond what was necessary. And when they do, those officers deserve punishment - no doubt about it. There are also cases where officers may inadvertently make a situation worse for whatever reason.

However, at this point, we have no evidence that the guards in any way initiated or escalated an altercation between them and ZA.

I agree with you and am willing to offer the benefit of the doubt for now.

The only reason I am really concerned about this particular incident is this part from the article. Wondering why 3 of them entered his cell. Almost like something was going on.


"made statements that the three of them entered Adams' cell in order to move him and that Adams refused and resisted."

 

[maskedwoman]

I've been thinking about whether he could commit suicide in his cell by climbing. We don't know how high the ceiling is in his cell but I was able to find rules for corrections in Tennessee and they state that cell ceilings must be a minimum of 8 feet high. I suppose if he flung himself several feet down, head first onto the concrete floor, he might break his neck or at least fracture his skull.

 

[Hatfield]

I've been thinking about whether he could commit suicide in his cell by climbing. We don't know how high the ceiling is in his cell but I was able to find rules for corrections in Tennessee and they state that cell ceilings must be a minimum of 8 feet high. I suppose if he flung himself several feet down, head first onto the concrete floor, he might break his neck or at least fracture his skull.

Yeah, I agree. My luck if i wanted to commit suicide that way, I would probably just break my neck and be paralyzed, and then still in prison.