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

[Hatfield]

He had no choice put to turnover his phone. They had a SW. He cries victim and protests too much. If he truly wanted this matter cleared up he would have given them the pass code in a nano second like any innocent person would do with nothing to hide. He forgets the devil is in the details.

I don't think thousands are wrongly convicted every year. Do you have a link to that information? In about 20+ years the Innocent Project has found about 250-300 or so that were completely exonerated.

If we had to wait at WS until a trial is held and the evidence entered... we would have nothing to post about. We aren't in a court of law. We have a right to express our opinions before, during, and even after the verdict is rendered. That is what crime message boards are for.

I have been keeping up with criminal cases for over three decades so I have seen/read about many many criminal trials. Like countless others who I thought were guilty and were.... I think these defendants are very guilty as well. I have no qualms in stating it either.

It is my opinion that ZA and JA are very guilty of the horrific crimes for which they are accused. The TBI didn't arrest these diabolical brutes for three years. So they weren't trying to pin it on just anyone. They charged them when they knew they had the irrefutable evidence to prove they did it. They found that proof when they did the extensive search of their home and property, imo. It was only then they were arrested.

IMO

The innocense project typically can only pick and choose DNA type cases that they can prove. I hate to think of all the innocent people that were railroaded and are stuck in prison. especially smaller crimes.

I dont know anything about statistics but I can guarantee there are way more than 200-300 innocent people sitting in jail right now for crimes they did not commit. Most of the ones I am talking about are smaller drug crimes where friends that just happened to be in a home that was raided got hauled in with the rest of them.

A LOT of people that dont have money for good lawyer will end up pleading guilty in a plea deal because they dont want to risk an even lengthier prison sentence.
Things that perhaps should have been simple "possession" people get convicted of being dealers all the time just because they were present in a home where dealing was going on.

Im not saying these type of people are the best citizens but I can guarantee there are many in jail today that should have never been convicted in the first place or should have had much lighter possession sentence rather than the plea deal they agreed to. Our system is flawed to people that can afford good lawyer and also do not get railroaded by others.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The number of people exonerated is just the tip of the iceberg. It is really, really, really difficult to overturn a conviction once it has been handed down, because while there is a presumption of innocence during trial when the prosecution has to prove guilt, the reverse is true during appeal. There is a presumption of guilt, and the appellant has to PROVE that the conviction was in error. That is a difficult thing to do, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence where convictions are largely due to emotion and rhetoric (and on occasion corruption on the part of the judicial process). Even in cases where there has clearly been a false conviction, it often takes over a decade to get the conviction overturned. It is a not a simple thing because the system refuses to accept the possibility of an error.

In cases where there is irrefutable evidence of guilt the chances of a false conviction are very low, but when a case is decided largely on circumstantial evidence there is a significant probability of a false conviction.

BBM

Good morning Tugela!

In the part that I have bolded I find your theory actually backwards.

One of the main reasons people have been falsely accused and sent to prison is because of DIRECT EVIDENCE. Direct evidence is eye witness testimony by someone who testifies it was the defendant they saw committing the crime.

Circumstantial evidence cases are tried far more often in our nation everyday than solely direct evidence cases. I cant recall seeing a totally direct evidence case. In fact in this particular case it will have direct evidence testimony as well as circumstantial evidence, imo. The courts have long held that circumstantial evidence is as strong, reliable, trustworthy, and in some cases more so.. than direct evidence. Direct evidence testimony can often be faulty due to eye witnesses being wrong and it wasn't the person they were sure it was.

I have been a juror five times in my life and have seen both direct evidence and CE entered. I much prefer a CE case rather than relying solely on a witness to identify the defendant as the one who perpetrated the crime. Now of course eye witnesses testimony can be very valuable but only if it lines up with all the other circumstantial evidence found during the investigation pointing to the same person the witness has IDd.

All of the forensic evidence are circumstantial pieces and the jury is allowed to infer from those CE facts that is shows the defendant is guilty BARD. CE is all about using one's commonsense. People don't have to see it rain for them to know it rained. They assess all the CE facts surrounding them and know it indeed has rained. Just like if they found Holly's blood, possessions, hair, etc. in the home or on the property of ZA then the jury will know from those CE facts that Holly was taken there during her kidnapping and murder.

CE has nothing to do with emotions and rhetoric. They are allowed in because they are CE facts.

I have seen many defense attorneys try to diminish the weight CEs carries and then I have seen some defense attorneys who have been truthful and admitted CE cases can be and are solid and are chocked full of CE facts and very hard for the defendant to overcome.

I respectfully do not agree. More CE cases are tried than any other. There is nothing proving CE has a significant probability of a false conviction. In fact from what I have read, as I stated above, more people are likely to be falsely imprisoned based on direct eye witness testimony. And the courts have long held that CEs is as strong as direct.

IMO

 

[shefner]

Ain't it the Truth, Plumeria5.. Been posting over there using my actual name for over three years.. It has been interesting..

You're a better man than I! I go and read and then play in my head all the things I want to say. Then I post nothing and move on. Am I the only one who doesn't understand half of what is going on over there? Geez....crazy people in this world.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I am definitely not a cell phone ping wizard. It took me a couple days to figure out how to answer a call on my smartphone which was, should I say, rather dumb on my part. :blushing: and also :gaah: Then I accidentally called a few people that I haven't spoken to in years trying to look through the contacts. That aside, why did "he" ZA allow Holly to take her backpack, phone, lunch and whatever else she had with her that morning? I guess I am assuming ZA had a reason or was somehow a little smarter than he probably is. Giving him too much credit. Did he know CB was in the house and not want Holly to leave evidence something was horribly wrong? Surely he knew she would be carrying a phone and the pings could be traced. Or, since CB's truck was in the garage, he thought Holly was alone. Obviously he cut her or injured her in some way because of the blood so it wasn't like he said, "Holly, I just want to take you to school and talk along the way. Bring your books and lunch with you." I can't get into the head of someone like ZA so I guess I should be glad I can't. Just rambling my thoughts here but I should go back and look at Hollye's map again. The lunch box could have been thrown out along the route to his house? It was on the way wasn't it? I am thinking the sim card was planted later. ZA and his group may have thought to put it there as a taunt. Were the locations of the future searches made public?

Great questions.

Although we tend to have so many questions in so many cases here and most are never answered.

I do remember when G-Torres kidnapped Sierra in broad daylight none of her possessions were scattered and left behind where he kidnapped her. Could it be that kidnappers like this don't want anyone to see something belonging to the victim on the ground because it would immediately cause alarm?

I have always felt that Adams wanted people to think Holly may have gotten a ride to school with someone else that day. That way it would buy him time. He never knew that Clint saw him.

So maybe Adams was like G-Torres and knew leaving things behind belonging to the victim would immediately cause alarm so he made her take everything with her knowing he could discard them in other areas later on.

These aren't the only two cases either where none of the victim's belongings were found at the kidnapping scene. They simply seemed to have vanished without a trace and only later were items belonging to the victim found away from the original kidnapping scene.

IMO

 

[shefner]

TBI, please continue to arrest the people you keep referring to in your media contacts! We're waiting.....

 

[Hatfield]

Great questions.

Although we tend to have so many questions in so many cases here and most are never answered.

I do remember when G-Torres kidnapped Sierra in broad daylight none of her possessions were scattered and left behind where he kidnapped her. Could it be that kidnappers like this don't want anyone to see something belonging to the victim on the ground because it would immediately cause alarm?

I have always felt that Adams wanted people to think Holly may have gotten a ride to school with someone else that day. That way it would buy him time. He never knew that Clint saw him.

So maybe Adams was like G-Torres and knew leaving things behind belonging to the victim would immediately cause alarm so he made her take everything with her knowing he could discard them in other areas later on.

These aren't the only two cases either where none of the victim's belongings were found at the kidnapping scene. They simply seemed to have vanished without a trace and only later were items belonging to the victim found away from the original kidnapping scene.

IMO

Thats the best theory I have heard regarding why her items were found like the lunchbox and some of her school stuff.

I never could understand why it seemed like her things started showing up. This is a good theory.

I do think that last item cell phone was most likely thrown out some days after her kidnapping so the perp(s) were thinking it was good idea to throw some of her stuff out well after they took her. I never understood why they would do that and your theory is a good one as to why.

Its amazing to think the perps were just driving around that area with her stuff and pitching it out the window like the cell phone since right along road.

The other stuff they must have either been during the kidnapping itself on a 4 wheeler or were on foot since it was further in woods. I suppose even that stuff could have been deposited some # of days after they took her too.

 

[OldSteve]

Great questions.

Although we tend to have so many questions in so many cases here and most are never answered.

I do remember when G-Torres kidnapped Sierra in broad daylight none of her possessions were scattered and left behind where he kidnapped her. Could it be that kidnappers like this don't want anyone to see something belonging to the victim on the ground because it would immediately cause alarm?

I have always felt that Adams wanted people to think Holly may have gotten a ride to school with someone else that day. That way it would buy him time. He never knew that Clint saw him.

So maybe Adams was like G-Torres and knew leaving things behind belonging to the victim would immediately cause alarm so he made her take everything with her knowing he could discard them in other areas later on.

These aren't the only two cases either where none of the victim's belongings were found at the kidnapping scene. They simply seemed to have vanished without a trace and only later were items belonging to the victim found away from the original kidnapping scene.

IMO

Regarding what I respectfully BBM -
I've wonder why thugs are so quick to discard belongings and personal effects of the person they've abducted? Are they afraid if they are stopped by police - but how does that make a difference since the abductee is still with them...

We've seen this discarding take place in Mickey Shunick abduction as well.
Sierra's is more complicated since her Juicy Couture bag was found as if carefully hidden and protected by cactus where there was a family of Siamese cats.

As for not leaving where the abduction takes place .... (smiley for broken record goes here) - it the rule-of-three...
Latest case of this appears to be Hannah-
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...zabeth-Graham-18-Charlottesville-13-Sept-2014

ETA - perhaps the thugs in these cases is able to trick the victim into going off with them.... but certainly not the case for poor Mickey, why did he bother spending time taking her bike only to then dump it later?

 

[Lanesmommy]

My biggest question is who do we think was involved in the actual abduction kidnapping vs. Who knew about it in general? I go back and forth about ZA doing this alone and then afterwards involving JA, SA. etc. Or did ZA and JA plot it out together along with SA? I go back and forth. Just wondering opinions from the veterans of this thread. And newbie posters like me as well! TIA

 

[oldwindow]

Not sure you understand the applicability of the technology as relates to this case.

"They have to build a case around it (pings), to prove if the graves was switched" ...<<That is pure nonsense. The pings cannot tell us where Holly's body was at any time, nor can they tell us if her dead body was moved from one site to another.

"holly bobo or some one was moving in these areas, it play s a major factor in alibi or who was where and when" ...<<That's also absurd. At best, the pings trace a general route that the cell phone traveled. (And they might not even offer that much.) But the ping info has never changed from the first week, so if it offered evidence to tie the abduction to someone, we would have had an arrest 2-3 years sooner.

"if your in that radius and they have you as a suspect, they can pick you up on suspicion" ...You're saying they can arrest anyone and everyone within the radius of that tower, because Holly's phone pinged off of it? Um, no.

1.if holly bobo has the phone in her way,it tell where she is assumed to be.. thus her body is assumed to be there dead or alive.

2. Your being naïve here. That is very relative and subjective thinking. Have you ever heard of proper planning.


3. Yes. They can arrest you if they have radius for a crime . Have you ever a photo line up.. all those guys didn't do the crime ,only one did, if that is the case.. They were in the radius of the crime. Ther-for suspected of the crime. the sad thing about it all the wider the radius the better, for some crimes.. Not all crime are the treated the same, that something a lot don't know

All you need is doubt in the court room. You don't know how hard it is, to prove you were not there if your in the radius of a crime and said to be part of a crime. If your in 25 miles radius of crime and don't have a good alibi and some one say your name... You better be ready to be indicted as a suspect. The longer you wait to say your behalf the harder it become to get off. I see a 3 years wait here on these guys behalf.. Words mean nothing after some much time and a body has been gathered, and these boys have no real hard evidence to support a alibi. I been in law game 45 yrs.retired in July. Trust me you don't know the half nor does these young men know what they're in for .

 

[Plumeria5]

Great questions.

Although we tend to have so many questions in so many cases here and most are never answered.

I do remember when G-Torres kidnapped Sierra in broad daylight none of her possessions were scattered and left behind where he kidnapped her. Could it be that kidnappers like this don't want anyone to see something belonging to the victim on the ground because it would immediately cause alarm?

I have always felt that Adams wanted people to think Holly may have gotten a ride to school with someone else that day. That way it would buy him time. He never knew that Clint saw him.

So maybe Adams was like G-Torres and knew leaving things behind belonging to the victim would immediately cause alarm so he made her take everything with her knowing he could discard them in other areas later on.

These aren't the only two cases either where none of the victim's belongings were found at the kidnapping scene. They simply seemed to have vanished without a trace and only later were items belonging to the victim found away from the original kidnapping scene.

IMO

Very true. IF ZA (assuming he is the one) hadn't injured Holly in the carport (there would have been no blood) and IF Rascal hadn't barked (Clint wouldn't have awoken), Holly would simply have disappeared without an inkling of what happened to her. A spilled coke and that would have been it.

 

[~Lyric~]

Mother of Zach Adams speaks out..............

Grab your hankies.......:boohoo:

His mother, Cindy Adams, spoke exclusively to Channel 4 about the move.

"I think it was inevitable that Zachary would be moved at some point. I think that he's going to be in a better place that will be more equipped to take care of his needs," she said.......

Cindy Adams said her son wasn't able to call, write or have visitors in Chester County, but she's now hoping this will change.

"It is now my hope that he will get some of his privileges back, as to phone privileges and writing his family," she said.

http://www.wsmv.com/story/26539341/...e-talks-about-sons-move-to-williamson-co-jail

 

[Foxfire]

You're a better man than I! I go and read and then play in my head all the things I want to say. Then I post nothing and move on. Am I the only one who doesn't understand half of what is going on over there? Geez....crazy people in this world.

shefner, ya just have to understand crazy people, and learn to differentiate them from those that are sane.. After you have been there for a while, you are able to distinguish those who are there for the right reasons..

 

[Plumeria5]

Mother of Zach Adams speaks out..............

Grab your hankies.......:boohoo:





http://www.wsmv.com/story/26539341/...e-talks-about-sons-move-to-williamson-co-jail

Hoping he is thinking about how Holly felt when he was walking her into those woods, as he is walking to his fate.
Probably not, he is incapable of those type of feelings.

http://static1.nydailynews.com/polo...ives/article_970/tennessee-woman-abducted.jpg

 

[Foxfire]

Hoping he is thinking about how Holly felt when he was walking her into those woods, as he is walking to his fate.
Probably not, he is incapable of those type of feelings.

http://static1.nydailynews.com/polo...ives/article_970/tennessee-woman-abducted.jpg

I agree, Plumeria5. ZA, obviously a narcissistic and sadistic psychopath thought of himself as a professional, above the law, and was never going to get caught. ZA was 29 years old when charged with Felony First Degree Murder and Especially Aggravated Kidnapping of HB. Imo, ZA began his trail of terror as a sexual predator at a much younger age..
Due to the signs, patterns, and observations of the residue that he left in his wake on and after 04/13/2011. I feel that he was confident, of above average intelligence, cagey, calculating, manipulative, and had been stealthily preying on his innocent victims for over a decade, imo..

"My analogy of him is that of a 'Mountain Lion"...

Imo, ZA possesses no human emotions or empathy for others... He would stalk his prey, ambush and then attack. 'Capture, then return them to his primary den, terrorize them by performing torture & rituals. He would then devour them; 'mind, soul, and spirit'.. "as would a 'Mountain Lion"...and yes I said Them..jmo

 

[Lanesmommy]

A gun can be a very convincing thing. In Holly's situation he had already injured her, and she might have been threatened that if she didn't comply and come with him that he would shoot her. I feel this is the likely scenario. The reason why I connect with Holly's case is that at one point in my life I was abducted from my home by an ex. He broke into my house while I was in the shower and hid. My boxer barked her head off and I discovered him in my laundry room. He then threatened me and forced me to drive to the country. By the grace of God I saw headlights, threw my mustang in park, and fled from the vehicle. Long story short, he had no weapon but I knew he could subdue me at any given time. If he would have had a gun I would have probably never gotten away... The perp(s) in this case had weapons IMO, and Holly knew she had to go with him. I think she might have tried to "talk him down" or bargain with him and that is why it took a full 10 minutes for him to get her into the woods. That is where your mind goes in this situation, you eventually try to reason with the person. IMO. I feel so much for Holly. Because I remember how terrifying it is when you are powerless. I'm sure she tried to escape at some point too. I hope ZA never, ever, ever feels joy or happiness or peace of mind again. All is MOO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

My theory is that is was not really a random abduction, and that the bad guy came looking for someone in particular who he had reason to believe was there. When she said "no, why?" that would have been in answer to a question and I think that question was "Is X here?". When she said no, he took her as a kind of hostage instead, or to make an example of her to send a message to someone. Why would they go to her house? Perhaps they were looking for the boyfriend, and had heard that he was hunting on Bobo property. So they thought it was Holly's property when the BF was actually hunting at relatives property, and consequently went looking in the wrong place. Or perhaps he came looking for the brother, and Holly covered for him, that might explain why the brother didn't intervene.

I do not for one moment believe that this was a random attack, or a stalking attack. There was a reason for that guy being there IMO, and it was not for Holly herself.

If you consider that as a potential scenario, then it would be a way of rationalizing how and why these particular accused might have taken her, even though she apparently did not know them at all.

I think she was just at the wrong place at the wrong time, and that someone else was the real target.

I don't believe for one second they came there for anyone else but Holly. They easily could have contained her and forced her to go into the home with them. They certainly wouldn't take her word for anything. We know they had a weapon of some sort... since her blood was shed in the carport iirc. Nothing was preventing them from entering the house if they were looking for someone else. They weren't. They had who they came for and that is why they took her and left.

Imo, they weren't looking for anyone else. They waited until her parents left for work. If they weren't looking for Holly they could have just waited in the woods until she drove off to school too. But, they didn't. As soon as Holly came out they had who they wanted and that is why she was led off into the woods never to be seen alive again.

This wasn't random on that, I agree. She was targeted because she was a very beautiful young woman and the kidnapper knew the only way he could have his way with her... is if he gave her no choice and that is exactly what he did. Then, imo, he took her to his home and let all of his buddies have their way with her too. These pack of meth thugs are worse than rabid dogs because poor rabid dogs cant help being rabid.

When the witnesses testify who were there when Holly was being tortured and brutalized they are going to tell she was brought there and was repeatedly beaten, tortured, and raped while she was clinging to life, IMO.

That is WHY she was taken. Adams was use to settling for unattractive women... who were just like him... who also used meth... and also had criminal dealings with the law just like he did. Holly was unobtainable to him and he knew it. She didn't associate with meth heads like him.

So he took what he knew he couldn't have any other way. And to be the big leader of the pack he passed his helpless kidnapped victim around to the other savages that were there.

If you have read the articles that has been linked here about the other brutal murder case of two men in TN which was done by deranged meth heads... you would know when meth heads resort to murder.... they like nothing better than to torment and torture their victims for days on end before they finally get around to murdering them.

It is the same motive it is in every case when a very attractive woman is kidnapped and later found murdered. Its all about libido and sex... fueled by meth and thinking they could do whatever they wanted to do...just like Adams who always thought he was above the law.

The only difference in this case is there was more than one sexual predator that preyed upon Holly.

IMO

 

[Bali]

He had no choice put to turnover his phone. They had a SW. He cries victim and protests too much. If he truly wanted this matter cleared up he would have given them the pass code in a nano second like any innocent person would do with nothing to hide. He forgets the devil is in the details.

I don't think thousands are wrongly convicted every year. Do you have a link to that information? In about 20+ years the Innocent Project has found about 250-300 or so that were completely exonerated.

If we had to wait at WS until a trial is held and the evidence entered... we would have nothing to post about. We aren't in a court of law. We have a right to express our opinions before, during, and even after the verdict is rendered. That is what crime message boards are for.

I have been keeping up with criminal cases for over three decades so I have seen/read about many many criminal trials. Like countless others who I thought were guilty and were.... I think these defendants are very guilty as well. I have no qualms in stating it either.

It is my opinion that ZA and JA are very guilty of the horrific crimes for which they are accused. The TBI didn't arrest these diabolical brutes for three years. So they weren't trying to pin it on just anyone. They charged them when they knew they had the irrefutable evidence to prove they did it. They found that proof when they did the extensive search of their home and property, imo. It was only then they were arrested.

IMO

I'm not trying to say you shouldn't express your opinion about the case. Far from it! Express away!

It's just that we're trying to get to the the truth and I see some things that worry me. I'm just bothered by people expressing the opinion that because they were arrested or because the police believe they are guilty they necessarily are. Research demonstrates that that simply isn't true. In terms of the innocence project, they only deal with DNA based exonerations. The 300 cases you are referencing are DNA based exonerations. Not all exonerations. Most cases don't have DNA to test and there are many MANY cases in which prosecutors either block DNA testing or have already destroyed the DNA (if it was collected in the first place). So these 300 cases are only a small fraction of the whole. The innocence project is only one of many wrongful conviction groups and it has very strict guidelines as for what cases they take. For instance, most cases don't have DNA evidence. Most cases don't qualify. Also, it's very difficult to prove that you aren't guilty. That's why we don't require that at trial. We also aren't catching the many cases in which innocent men take plea deals because they worry that they won't get a fair trial. This is a widely documented phenomenon and those people never get exonerations. There are also many people who aren't exonerated, but they end up getting taken off death row because there are serious questions about their guilt. Some of them also make deals with the prosecution to plead guilty to a lesser sentence in exchange for release/a lesser sentence (like the West Memphis three did).

In terms of numbers, it's simply a matter of statistics. This guy did a survey of what people in law enforcement believed the numbers to be. They put it at 0.5%. In 1990, when he did the survey, there were just shy of 2 million convictions for index crimes, (murder and non-negligent manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, robbery, burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft and arson.) If his 0.5% number is correct, that puts the number of wrongful convictions at 9,969 for that year. That doesn't even include non-index crimes and that is the estimation given by people who work on the prosecution side of things, who would likely estimate the number to be low.


This research puts the number of death row inmates who were wrongfully convicted at 4.1%, although they make it very clear that that is a conservative estimate and the numbers are likely higher. If we go with the 1990 number and assume that the same percentage of people are convicted for lower level offenses that are convicted of capital crimes, that puts the number of wrongful convictions for that year at 81, 749. Only 1.5% of death row inmates are exonerated, but even if that is the correct figure, that still puts the 1990 figure at 29,908 wrongful convictions.

 

[Bali]

I have always felt that Adams wanted people to think Holly may have gotten a ride to school with someone else that day. That way it would buy him time. He never knew that Clint saw him.

So maybe Adams was like G-Torres and knew leaving things behind belonging to the victim would immediately cause alarm so he made her take everything with her knowing he could discard them in other areas later on.

^Best theory I've seen thus far

 

[shefner]

I have always believed this story is complex and that this was more than a sexually motivated crime. These guys are too tied up in a whole host of bad things for this to be that simple.

In addition, I think Holly probably thought to herself that she could eventually break free and get away from her abductor. She was probably in shock and trying to rationalize to herself that she would cooperate until an opportunity to get away safely presented itself. Poor Holly....

 

[Bali]

My biggest question is who do we think was involved in the actual abduction kidnapping vs. Who knew about it in general? I go back and forth about ZA doing this alone and then afterwards involving JA, SA. etc. Or did ZA and JA plot it out together along with SA? I go back and forth. Just wondering opinions from the veterans of this thread. And newbie posters like me as well! TIA

I don't think there is enough evidence available to us to really say either way.