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

[SteveS]

But like i said, it only takes one person to come up with something different, a different angle and theory. That could change the entire direction of a case that no one thought possible and actually end up being a case cracker.

I know you want that "aha" moment. We all do. But there's no way to get there, with what we have to work with.

The problem isn't a lack of ideas. It's a lack of evidence. With such limited evidence, especially when the little evidence you have says whatever you want it to say, you end up pointing in every direction (which cannot possibly crack the case) rather than one.

But the ideas are interesting, even if they can't possibly solve the case.

What's needed is evidence that eliminates some or most of the theories, and you advance the case. But in this forum, we have no way to get that evidence, so we're left to bat around random ideas that can't prove anything.

 

[Fence Sitter]

Then i guess im missing your point. Because havnt we just come full circle in our discussion? I agree with you but im not really sure i understand what the point of posting about it is. I think we are all well aware that without any evidence known to us, that we are now just theorising.

We are hardly ever aware of all of the evidence or facts of any case, yet we all still come on and throw what we can around in the hopes of a breakthrough.

My point is, why bother pointing it out that we basically know nil. I think everyones aware of that but if we cant and dont post our theories, then essentially theres no need to be here or for websleuths to exist. We could just wait for the outcome like everyone else watching the news.

 

[tlcya]

seeing both sides. During the lulls, when new info or evidence is not forthcoming, we kick the same cans around over and over. Some find it helpful to keep teh case alive and in the forefront, others find it irritating to do so and pretty much all find it frustrating that there are no new facts, etc. to discuss.

Some deal with that frustration by going over the "old" ground or speculating heavily about the limited new ground. Others go to ground til something new breaks to comment on.

Its the nature of what we do - shrug

 

[SteveS]

My point is, why bother pointing it out that we basically know nil.

We all have our own angle on how to deal with the fact that we know nothing. Some opt to point out this (unsupported) theory or that. I opt to point out that the only theories we can come up with using THIS set of sparse and fuzzy evidence will be ones that we each simply make up, rather than ones demanded by the evidence.

I don't mind the theories. I hope you don't mind my reminder that we don't have any evidence to support any of them as the answer over any other of thousands of possibilities.

 

[SteveS]

FS, by the way, at this point is there really an unsolved case here to "crack"? LE (who has the evidence that we do not have) claims they already have what's needed to hang two guys for the crime(s).

 

[tlcya]

I am waiting to hear that evidence that is needed to nail two guys. I am hopeful, but really, til someone confesses or evidence is presented, I am in wait mode before I can settle in comfortably.

 

[Fence Sitter]

I understand SteveS. I just felt it a little unnecessary to point out to people that they are essentially going around in circles and have no real proof, only ideas. I think you either join in on the theory discussions or do as tlcya is and wait for something more substantial or new before you rejoin the conversation. Posting just to discredit (and this is how i took it) seemed unneeded.

But that is all just IMO and im not going to enter into it any more. Each and all have their own opinions and ways. The downside of forums are the fact that we all read and interprate others posts in our own way and that may not necessarily be the way they were meant to be read.

 

[Fence Sitter]

FS, by the way, at this point is there really an unsolved case here to "crack"? LE (who has the evidence that we do not have) claims they already have what's needed to hang two guys for the crime(s).

Well thats open to interpretation aswell i guess. Some may say its cracked and they have the perps. Others may say there is too many other parties involved and more is yet to unravel.

 

[SteveS]

I understand SteveS. I just felt it a little unnecessary to point out to people that they are essentially going around in circles and have no real proof, only ideas. I think you either join in on the theory discussions or do as tlcya is and wait for something more substantial or new before you rejoin the conversation. Posting just to discredit (and this is how i took it) seemed unneeded.

I respectfully disagree.

If you'll notice, I didn't try to shoot down anyone's specific theory, and in fact noted that any of them could be correct.

But part of the presentation of any theory should be an expectation of feedback about the theory. And whether you like it or not, it's valid feedback to observe that each of these theories is simply based on inventiveness rather than evidence pointing in that direction (instead of others).

 

[pearl]

I began visiting WS in 2002 when the Laci Peterson disappearance happened. I found WS by way of a google search. I joined in November, 2004, and slowly began to post. I don't follow a lot of cases, just one or two at the time from start to finish. I have no problem distinguishing a poster's contribution as fact, opinion, or theory. I have noticed over the years that when there is a lull in a case, some posters tend to obsess over some details of the case or fuss with other posters. This is fine with me because all posters have the freedom of speech to post what they want. Do I think reading and posting here when we know so few actual facts is a waste of my time? No, I do not. My time is mine to do with as I please. If someone doesn't want to read what I post, just ignore them. I have actually learned new things while reading about various theories on different cases. Posters provide links to explain a point, and I learn something new. Most posters back up any information they feel is factual with a MSM link.

As always, just my own thoughts.

 

[pearl]

Back to the Adams property search warrants. Since ZA is the owner of record of the property, he was the one who received the LE list of evidence removed from the property. So, I think this means that he has known since shortly after his arrest what evidence LE has against him. Am I correct in assuming that JA will not/did not know what was taken from the Adams property until his lawyer gets the info during discovery? Do ya'll think that ZA will use the advantage that he had in knowing the info before JA to his advantage and JA's disadvantage? I am basing my assumption about the search warrant receipt on GA law. In GA, receipt is given to property owner.

 

[MizStery]

I began visiting WS in 2002 when the Laci Peterson disappearance happened. I found WS by way of a google search. I joined in November, 2004, and slowly began to post. I don't follow a lot of cases, just one or two at the time from start to finish. I have no problem distinguishing a poster's contribution as fact, opinion, or theory. I have noticed over the years that when there is a lull in a case, some posters tend to obsess over some details of the case or fuss with other posters. This is fine with me because all posters have the freedom of speech to post what they want. Do I think reading and posting here when we know so few actual facts is a waste of my time? No, I do not. My time is mine to do with as I please. If someone doesn't want to read what I post, just ignore them. I have actually learned new things while reading about various theories on different cases. Posters provide links to explain a point, and I learn something new. Most posters back up any information they feel is factual with a MSM link.

As always, just my own thoughts.

i think it is interesting our interest are so similar:highfive:. I also began following the Laci Peterson case in the same timeframe & joined Websleuths in '05. I understand the passion and nuances of posters.Many years ago I took a Philosophy class studying the analysis of both oral and written arguments and their validity. If I remember correctly the coarse emphasize was on strength and fallacies in evaluating arguments. Therefore I am measured in my posts. I also remember to add that my posts are"my opinion". Like yourself I also am amazed at how much I learn from reading everyone's opinions. I may not agree but I dutifully file it in my obscure case history. OK,I am waiting to hear news on Mark Pearcy's hearing tomorrow. Now, fftobed:

 

[SteveS]

Back to the Adams property search warrants. Since ZA is the owner of record of the property, he was the one who received the LE list of evidence removed from the property. So, I think this means that he has known since shortly after his arrest what evidence LE has against him.

Am I correct in assuming that JA will not/did not know what was taken from the Adams property until his lawyer gets the info during discovery?

Do ya'll think that ZA will use the advantage that he had in knowing the info before JA to his advantage and JA's disadvantage? I am basing my assumption about the search warrant receipt on GA law. In GA, receipt is given to property owner.

"Am I correct in assuming that JA will not/did not know what was taken from the Adams property until his lawyer gets the info during discovery?"

That sounds right.

"Do ya'll think that ZA will use the advantage that he had in knowing the info before JA to his advantage and JA's disadvantage?"

I'm not sure how an "advantage" would be gained, or what sort of advantage it would be. JA should have everything that ZA has, at this point, and the trial is still a long ways away.

A different question is, was there ever a SW on JA's home? If so, when did it occur, and could it have yielded something? If not, doesn't that seem odd?

 

[pearl]

"Am I correct in assuming that JA will not/did not know what was taken from the Adams property until his lawyer gets the info during discovery?"

That sounds right.

"Do ya'll think that ZA will use the advantage that he had in knowing the info before JA to his advantage and JA's disadvantage?"

I'm not sure how an "advantage" would be gained, or what sort of advantage it would be. JA should have everything that ZA has, at this point, and the trial is still a long ways away.

A different question is, was there ever a SW on JA's home? If so, when did it occur, and could it have yielded something? If not, doesn't that seem odd?

BBM
I'm sure the MSM link to the below info is somewhere on WS because I followed a link here to view the press conference after the search of the Adams property. I'm also sure I don't know where to look for it. At this press conference, LE said that search warrants were being served at several locations not just the Adams property. They never said where the other warrants were served. This was at the same time frame of the Adams property search.

 

[Tugela]

I am using your post as a springboard. Perhaps Holly's strategy was one of delay,delay,delay. Holly knew by having a dialog with her assailant it would accomplish two important things. 1)it kept her close to home a little longer 2)raised the probability of an intervention & rescue. MOO

Don't forget that the brother supposedly saw her walking off into the woods, and supposedly believed that the person with her was her boyfriend. If that were the case then it would imply that she was not acting distressed at all and that her behavior was no different than casually walking into the woods. I am sorry, but that just does not jive with a forcible abduction to me. Her reported behavior does not add up to the scenario we are being asked to believe.

So, as far as I am concerned it means one of two things, either (A) she knew who this person was and was reasonably comfortable with him; or (B) the account given by the brother is less than accurate.

 

[SteveS]

So, as far as I am concerned it means one of two things, either (A) she knew who this person was and was reasonably comfortable with him; or (B) the account given by the brother is less than accurate.

Or (c) he accurately and completely relayed what he recalled (or thought he recalled), but looks were deceiving and his observation was quick and cursory.

Don't forget that he didn't know he had any reason to take a close look, or try to figure out anything, because he thought he knew what he was seeing and dismissed it quickly. By the time he was made aware that something was amiss, there was nothing to observe.

 

[TedMac]

Quote Originally Posted by Tugela View Post
So, as far as I am concerned it means one of two things, either (A) she knew who this person was and was reasonably comfortable with him; or (B) the account given by the brother is less than accurate.

Or (c) he accurately and completely relayed what he recalled (or thought he recalled), but looks were deceiving and his observation was quick and cursory.

Don't forget that he didn't know he had any reason to take a close look, or try to figure out anything, because he thought he knew what he was seeing and dismissed it quickly. By the time he was made aware that something was amiss, there was nothing to observe.

BBM

Or D: She had been wounded (puddle of blood found in the garage/carport) and felt it best not to resist or E she had been threatened with a weapon and told something to the effect that "if you don't come with me, it will be a lot more of your blood spilled".

 

[Roselvr]

Or (c) he accurately and completely relayed what he recalled (or thought he recalled), but looks were deceiving and his observation was quick and cursory.

Don't forget that he didn't know he had any reason to take a close look, or try to figure out anything, because he thought he knew what he was seeing and dismissed it quickly. By the time he was made aware that something was amiss, there was nothing to observe.

Plus he just woke up.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I received an email from WKRN producer and MP's next court date is Oct. 10th, next Friday.

:bump: Bumping Dr. Know's post about MP's court date, which is today.

I checked the major news outlets and I cannot find anything about today's court date.

PLEASE post if you see anything !

:tyou:

 

[MizStery]

:bump: Bumping Dr. Know's post about MP's court date, which is today.

I checked the major news outlets and I cannot find anything about today's court date.

PLEASE post if you see anything !

:tyou:

Thanks dog.gone.cute for your post.

I e-mailed Andy Cordan at WKRN this morning. I asked him for any information he has OR if he could provide a Link to where I could find the court information for Mark Lynn Pearcy. I explained I post at Websleuths and I am not local to the Nashville area. I added Dr. Know (a Websleuths member)had communicated with someone at his newsroom on the Oct 10,2014 court appearance. I told him any help would be appreciated. I have not received an answer as of yet.

If if any one is interested his e-mail is:
acordan@wkrn.com