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

[shefner]

I'm really tired. I just want more information.

Same as day one. Give us more. Please. And Thank You.

I might be in the grave before this case is settled.

 

[Bali]

Laws in other jurisdictions are irrelevant.

In Tennessee, as I've been saying, there must be a conviction on the underlying crime, in order to charge anyone as an accessory. That conviction is one (but not the only) of the required legal elements that must be proven to obtain a conviction.

Not that it matters in this case, but I'm curious as to which jurisdictions allow a person to be convicted of being an accessory, without a conviction of the underlying crime. It really doesn't make sense to me to be able to convict a person of helping someone who legally didn't do anything wrong.

Well that's good to hear.

I don't have a complete list of states and how they come in on the matter, but I've been told at least Minnesota allows for convictions on accessory without conviction of the main crime.

 

[Wildflower85]

I thought I read that Clint was in the shower when he heard the dog barking and that's why he didn't run outside, but looked out the window and saw who he thought was her bf at a quick glance. If he was in the shower that could maybe mask a scream.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

I thought I read that Clint was in the shower when he heard the dog barking and that's why he didn't run outside, but looked out the window and saw who he thought was her bf at a quick glance. If he was in the shower that could maybe mask a scream.

My opinions only, no facts here:

There have been numerous recent posts regarding what happened at the Holly Bobo home around the time of the abduction. I have previously posted a complete timeline at [http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...amp-TiMeLiNe-only!-*NO-DISCUSSION*/page9page9]
Posts 215 to 216

Having said this, I never found enough info to suggest that the shower story is supported, so this version is absent from my timeline. This thread is not the correct place to post complete timeline info, but to clear up certain questions over the past couple of days, I snipped this tiny portion of my timeline:

?7:35-7:39 AM?: Holly Bobo should have been gathering her stuff together and getting ready to leave her home during this time period. For example, gathering her purse, cell phone, lunch, and school materials.
7:39 AM: Newschannel5.com reports that ?a post was made to the Facebook page of the later-to-be-identified ‘main suspect’? who is ultimately arrested for Holly Bobo’s abduction. This Facebook post, if it actually happened, was sinister and derogatory towards an unidentified woman. However, the ‘main suspect’s on-and-off girlfriend at the time claims that ?the ‘main suspect’ was actually referring to her? (and by inference, not Holly Bobo). Ironically, depending upon the location from where this Facebook post originated, it could provide an alibi of sorts for the ‘main suspect’- UNLESS more than one perpetrator is involved. (And I am well aware such theories, including the most recently-proposed “triad” of perpetrators).
Slightly before or at 7:40 AM: (Holly is going outside to her car which is 10 to 12 feet from the nearest home exit door- possibly at 5 minutes earlier than her usual schedule so as to not miss an important college exam, no available witnesses except the perpetrator). (?Some reports suggest the car was in her long driveway, and other reports suggest it was in a carport?). (Her car was probably in the carport attached to the back of her house, based upon numerous later reports and blogs).
About 7:40 AM-1st event: (Holly is confronted by the perpetrator near her black Mustang automobile. She drops her can of soda in surprise or because of an immediate physical confrontation. According to officials the mystery perpetrator is likely to be someone who was familiar with her daily schedule). (?It is also said that Holly was led a short distance from the carport back into a semi-enclosed garage?). Holly’s car is said to have been washed four days earlier, so it was now more clean and reflective. It is reported that Holly’s abductor ?may have been hiding around the corner in the carport watching for Holly’s reflection on her car?. In my opinion, these theoretical scenarios hardly make the abductor sound like some random stranger; it seems that the abductor was quite familiar with Holly’s morning schedule, BUT the abductor would have to be unaware that Holly’s brother was still at the house. I mean- would you try to abduct a woman if you believed her brother was still in her home and did not know if he was watching with a gun or whatever?
About 7:40 AM-2nd event: (Someone screamed in the direction of Holly’s house; male witness to this scream lives in a house ?nearest? to Holly’s home). This male witness is an adult man who lives with his mother. The timing of this entry should be fairly accurate.
About 7:40 AM-3rd event: (Holly is attacked/restrained in some manner and leaves a small amount of blood on the carport floor; also see later entries). There seems to be very widespread support that blood was found. (My personal opinion- although the perpetrator may have had a firearm, for the sake of silence- a knife was used to commit the abduction and the blood was from Holly being incidentally scratched/cut somewhere OR struck on the face to promote submissiveness).
?7:40-7:45 AM?: (The adult male in the neighboring household tells his mother who lives with him about hearing the scream from the direction of the Bobo home). (According to one post I saw, this man ?may have been adding oil to his vehicle at the time of the scream?). (?This might have led to a couple-minute delay in reporting it to his mother?). It has been reported by some that this neighbor woman then called 911, but in my opinion this particular event did not happen.
?7:40-7:50 AM?: (The adult male neighbor’s mother tries to call Holly’s mother at work about the scream, witness is school secretary who relays this info to Holly’s mother, who is now in class).
7:50 AM: Holly’s brother wakes up because his family’s house dog is barking; available witness is himself. Note that I have previously suggested on Websleuths that Holly’s brother may have ?been awakened as early as 7:40 to 7:45 AM?, only because this allows more time for the numerous closely-spaced incidents listed below to occur. However, until shown otherwise, I will treat this as a fairly-accurate time entry. (?It has been claimed that there were two dogs, one inside the house and one tied up or penned outside of the house?). (The latest reports suggest that any dog outside the house was not tied up or penned and was friendly and trusting). In my opinion, it might be worth considering that the family dog outside was already familiar with the scent of the perpetrator from previous experience, but I equally recognize that 9 out of 10 house dogs become submissive when approached by a dominant-behaving male human.
?7:51- 7:52 AM?: (Now, looking out of his window, Holly’s brother notices Holly’s car is unexpectedly still there and sees the silhouettes of two people kneeling down by the car; he also hears voices of two people, available witness is himself). (Note that I am confused from various reports about whether the two silhouettes were seen leaning down, kneeling, squatting or sitting). (Most recently the story is that the brother saw Holly and a man kneeling and facing each other and talking. Holly sounded very upset and heated, but most of the talking was being done by the perpetrator. The only words of the conversation the brother could understand was Holly saying- “no, why?&#8221. From Holly’s brother’s witness description, the FBI describes the perpetrator as being 5’ 8” to 6’ 0” tall, weighing 200 pounds, and wearing camouflage clothing.

Sleuth On!

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Long-term contributors to this thread may wish to skip my following post. Those who are newer to this thread can use this post to locate certain historically-relevant news stories. I cannot vouch for the accuracy of cited news-media reports. The main suspect's younger brother is supposedly described as having "learning disabilities" by his own mother; see part 2 of [http://heavy.com/news/2014/03/holly-bobo-disappearance-suspect-zachary-adams/] and his mother's cousin supposedly says he is "mentally challenged"; see
[http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...y-disposed-evidence-holly-bobo-case/16128815/]. If either of these claims are true, such a man could be easily manipulated and coerced. Also, remember he was possibly prematurely released from a long Prison sentence after testifying against his older brother (the main suspect), although this possible detail is oddly obscure or contradictory; for example read [http://www.wbir.com/story/news/crim...osed-of-evidence-in-holly-bobo-case/16147427/] and [http://tasteofcountry.com/holly-bobo-murder-suspects/]. Based upon the arrest affidavit, we apparently had one investigator overhearing another investigator interrogating the younger brother (I edited names out): "On September 17, 2014, this agent heard (the younger brother) tell another agent with the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation that on April 13, 2011, (the younger brother) disposed of item(s) he knew possessed evidentiary value relating to Holly Bobo, the report said." Regardless of this odd situation (does one investigator have to be a witness for another?), this potential sweet deal that may have got the younger brother out of prison is another issue that could be raised by the Defense at trial. I somehow doubt that the Prosecution wishes to subject the main suspect's younger brother to cross-examination by the Defense in court. I doubt even more that he will be a willing witness for the Prosecution (especially since the authorities have subsequently blind-sided and re-arrested and imprisoned him with new charges in the Holly Bobo case). It sounds to me like the younger brother did not "play ball" with the authorities once he was given a free-pass out of prison (was he actually released or instead moved to safer digs?). But did he double-cross the authorities? I doubt this somewhat- read about what his relatives have said about his state-of-mind (above). Once out of prison (or at least given some sort of better deal) he may have thought he had done what the authorities demanded that he do and now that he was a good guy again, he didn't have to "repeat those stories anymore".

Now, consider the un-indicted co-conspirator (the man who claimed to be able to find Holly's remains). He volunteered for this duty in return for a broad immunity agreement. If you go to:
[http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/2...ment-with-alleged-holly-bobo-suspect-released] and click on the appropriate link you can get a PDF file that in the Appendix contains the original immunity agreement. Read this immunity agreement-it is near the end of the document. In my opinion, it gives this man almost complete immunity from most future charges in the Holly Bobo case, as well as future charges in ANY OTHER unrelated cases. At present we have been told that this man could NOT successfully lead authorities to Holly's body and the State is reportedly now trying to revoke the immunity agreement. Or did he lead authorities to the final location of the remains, in the end? Since the authorities are not giving him credit for this, I have to stand back for now. To make a long story short, will the Prosecution be able to use this man for their criminal cases? Do they want HIM on the stand to defend their arguments?

There is also the lady who testified in court about the "cell-phone video" brothers. I believe that she claimed that the older brother showed the video to her in May 2014, but his younger brother was the one who actually filmed it. If you are particularly interested read ALL of this following story carefully word-by-word, before forming an opinion:
[http://www.tennessean.com/story/new...she-saw-holly-bobo-tied-up-in-video/13330099/]. A slightly different version is at
[http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/new...nnection-To-Bobo-Disappearance-269023111.html]. Did the police have this lady call the older "cell-phone video brother" in the hopes that he would incriminate himself about her earlier-claimed cell-phone video? What little has been published about his answers to this supposed phone call looks ambiguous and non-incriminating and remember that HE claims to have an ex-wife who is named or nicknamed Holly! Also note that the older cell-phone brother apparently has NO prior felony convictions (only traffic tickets). However, the younger cell-phone brother may have have previous relevant convictions; see:
[http://www.wkrn.com/story/25744903/2-men-arrested-in-connection-to-holly-bobo-case]. In spite of the younger cell-phone brother's supposed prior criminal record, I doubt that the authorities have anything more significant against him than the currently-stated charges, or the full charges against him should be much more serious by this late-date. The authorities' actions to-date would seem to show that they possess NO EVIDENCE or strong suspicions of direct involvement in the kidnapping of Holly Bobo by the younger cell-phone brother.

The "main suspect" was originally arrested (shortly before the Holly Bobo charges against him) based upon claims of assault by his female friend at the time (she is possibly the sister of his then-girlfriend); note that this female friend of his may have owned the van associated with a major freshwater pearl-heist; see: [http://wreg.com/2014/03/04/affidavit-reveals-why-man-was-charged-during-holly-bobo-search/] AND
[http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/248467971.html]. I have read in several places on the internet that this female friend later either rescinded the assault claims and/or refused to testify, but the possibly main original news source for this story is a broken link for me:
[http://archive.jacksonsun.com/relart/20140429/NEWS01/140429009], and I have no other links to this story that I am allowed to post here. Were the charges for this assault case actually dropped, or is this an internet myth? In the U.S. as I know it, domestic abuse claims can proceed even if the victim changes their mind.

Of the two "main suspects" I consider the 'big guy' to be a fairly weak suspect. In fact, he may even have an alibi to present in court; see [http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/news/260031741.html]. Because of his huge size, I am confident that the Prosecution will not claim that he is the kidnapper (he does not remotely fit the description of the kidnapper). I personally believe he has been dragged into this affair because of his past associations with the other main suspect, AND because of the testimony of the main suspect's younger brother (see above) OR the un-indicted co-conspirator (see above), OR some other source that we are not yet privy to. Of the two "cell-phone video brothers", the older one is the weaker suspect. His record is so clean that even at his advanced age he possesses a legal firearm-carry permit. Why in the heck would he choose to suddenly become involved with kidnapping and capital murder in any fashion, even after-the-fact? If anything, the moment someone gave him the purported video, he would have turned it over to police immediately and claimed the very large reward. Let me present my logic in another way: if we choose to say that those suspects with endless felony rap sheets are guilty by history, then the older "cell-phone video brother" is innocent by history.

But this is neither here nor there. My point here is- who among these people referred to above will be the "star witness" for the Prosecution who can neatly wrap up this entire criminal case for them? I just don't see any one person here who can fulfill this objective AND withstand cross examination. The lady who claimed that she saw the video of Holly Bobo after the kidnapping is possibly the very best witness for the Prosecution. But, unless and until the actual video surfaces, there will be ample room for reasonable doubt by a Jury and the Prosecution may choose to not put her on the witness stand, if the video never surfaces.

So, in my opinion, if charges against the current suspects are sustained until trial, by hook or by crook, remarkable and amazing forensic evidence must surface by the time of trial. How important can a singular and remarkable piece of forensic evidence be? Read about the parking garage receipt in this case:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nelson_Serrano] (read this word-for-word). By the way, the term "by hook or by crook" may refer to Olde England, where the owner of the Estate allowed peasants and commoners to gather firewood for their cooking-fires from low-hanging dead tree-branches that they could reach with the curved-end of their shepherd's staffs or their bent walking-sticks. I miss these simpler times..... or do I! NOT!

Did the current spate of mass-arrests begin with the main suspect's younger brother's testimony from prison? Likely, but not absolutely. It may have begun at even this earlier point in time (snipped from my timeline):

"JAN. 28, 2014:

The official FBI internet site reports the arrest of 14 people (mostly in Tennessee) for the manufacturing, distributing, and selling of marijuana and methamphetamines. This includes one person from Decatur County. At least 70 firearms were seized. I mention this to clarify that suspected organized criminal activity exists in Tennessee (even rurally). Yet, I do not believe that the local drug or gun trade played a direct part in Holly Bobo’s abduction. However, such stories partially-exonerate those who have dared to propose the possibility of Holly’s abduction being related to organized criminal activity. But let me repeat myself- I personally believe that such theories are a red herring in this particular case, but not in lots of other cases. But let me speculate- could one or more of the arrested people offered up information to the FBI about the Holly Bobo case in return for a sweet deal? Just a thought."

Again, everything above is my opinion only, and I hope that I have not mixed up my url links or neglected relevant ones!

Sleuth On!

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

I am still working on my PART III (Gooch Road evidence) post for this interesting and complicated criminal case.

Regarding your individual working hypotheses, also please consider that the kidnapper may have had to complete the task and make it to work on time, so as to establish an alibi.

(Yesterday, this day's madness did prepare, tomorrow's silence, triumph, or despair!).

Just saying.

Sleuth On!

 

[SteveS]

I thought I read that Clint was in the shower when he heard the dog barking and that's why he didn't run outside, but looked out the window and saw who he thought was her bf at a quick glance. If he was in the shower that could maybe mask a scream.

Nope, he explicitly said he was asleep when the barking woke him. Holly's abduction took place in a very well-defined window that was relatively short, and he has no motive to lie about the sequence of events as he recalls them.

 

[Mightymight]

Laws in other jurisdictions are irrelevant.

In Tennessee, as I've been saying, there must be a conviction on the underlying crime, in order to charge anyone as an accessory. That conviction is one (but not the only) of the required legal elements that must be proven to obtain a conviction.

Not that it matters in this case, but I'm curious as to which jurisdictions allow a person to be convicted of being an accessory, without a conviction of the underlying crime. It really doesn't make sense to me to be able to convict a person of helping someone who legally didn't do anything wrong.

SteveS, I'm going to have to disagree with your legal conclusions regarding accessory after the fact in TN.

39-11-411. Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.


The bold text above does not state "after the conviction of a felony." We know a felony occurred. HB was kidnapped and murdered, both felonies. Anytime after the kidnapping, is after the commission of a felony. Acquittal/dismissal of charges/conviction do not change the fact that a felony has occurred. Therefore an Acquittal/dismissal of charges/conviction of ZA and/or JA is irrelevant to MP's case.

 

[psyquestor]

^ But to prove they had an association, you would need to prove the whom and when and where (beyond a reasonable doubt). It isn't the defenders job to prove they didn't do anything, it is the prosecution's job to prove they did. How would they do that without these known facts?

Just asking - not insisting either side is incorrect or correct. I am not as versed on law as some of you seem to be.

 

[tlcya]

Laws in other jurisdictions are irrelevant.

In Tennessee, as I've been saying, there must be a conviction on the underlying crime, in order to charge anyone as an accessory. That conviction is one (but not the only) of the required legal elements that must be proven to obtain a conviction.

Not that it matters in this case, but I'm curious as to which jurisdictions allow a person to be convicted of being an accessory, without a conviction of the underlying crime. It really doesn't make sense to me to be able to convict a person of helping someone who legally didn't do anything wrong.

Steve, this makes sense to me and I was a little surprised to think that you could convict someone on an accessory crime without the underlying crime having been proven or found to have occurred in any district in these united states. Do you have a link to the statutes which outline that the accessory convictions are reliant upon the underlying conviction of the primary perps? Not doubting its existence as I said makes total sense to me. If you have linked it prior to this just say so and my lazy behind will go back and locate it. But if it has not been linked yet I think it would be very helpful to me and maybe others. Please and thanks.

 

[jggordo]

I have to believe that at this point defense attorneys have had an opportunity to review at least a good part of discovery evidence against ZA and JA. If there is nothing there to implicate the crimes and the defendants, at least JA's defense attorney's would be screaming for dismissal of charges. Especially on the behalf of ZA where he is only in jail on behalf of these charges only without bond. Yet not a peep from defense attorneys. Many of us question what goods LE has but there must be at least probable cause to continue

JMO's

 

[tlcya]

I have to believe that at this point defense attorneys have had an opportunity to review at least a good part of discovery evidence against ZA and JA. If there is nothing there to implicate the crimes and the defendants, at least JA's defense attorney's would be screaming for dismissal of charges. Especially on the behalf of ZA where he is only in jail on behalf of these charges only without bond. Yet not a peep from defense attorneys. Many of us question what goods LE has but there must be at least probable cause to continue

JMO's

I tend to think so too jggordo but the charges against the P bros are what are most troubling to me. The evidence substantiating those charges seems flimsy (to me) so I am most curious about how those will play out in relation to the charges against the main perps. Because to my mind, if the initial perps are not convicted as charged I cannot begin to see how any of those charged with lesser crimes having to do with the murder can be convicted. So the angle of how all that could conceivably play out is very interesting to me.

 

[jggordo]

One of the things I find most interesting about this case has to do with the change in the Sheriff, and subsequent claims of "new searches" to be done after his taking office. Coincidentally less than two weeks later Holly's remains were found without a formal "search" being conducted. As soon as the Sheriff was elected he became the family "spokesperson". The finders of her remains are required to secrecy as to what was found exactly. I fear that many of the questions we have will be fodder for defense attorneys down the line, and lack of transparency in this case will backfire.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.

The bold text above does not state "after the conviction of a felony." We know a felony occurred. HB was kidnapped and murdered, both felonies. Anytime after the kidnapping, is after the commission of a felony. Acquittal/dismissal of charges/conviction do not change the fact that a felony has occurred. Therefore an Acquittal/dismissal of charges/conviction of ZA and/or JA is irrelevant to MP's case.

1 Regarding the wording of the law itself, there's a key element that you overlooked in your examination of it. It's that the accessory has to have been an accessory to "the offender" of that felony. Legally, you cannot specify that a person was "the offender" without him having been tried and convicted.

2 In addition, TN case law, specifically the rulings of the TN Supreme Court, have made it crystal clear that conviction on the underlying is one of the required elements to obtain a conviction on an accessory charge. And that just stands to reason -- if the people I'm helping didn't legally do anything wrong, then logically I shouldn't be able to be put in jail for helping them.

3 The "after a commission of a felony" is not a reference to the timing of the charges but rather to the timing of whatever accessory act that may have occurred - for example, if MP took a video of Holly while she was still alive, he couldn't be charged with being an accessory to her murder based on that video.

4 If you want an easier-to-follow explanation of the TN accessory charges than I can write, there's an excellent one here:
http://www.joebakerlaw.com/accessory-after-the-fact.html

Here's how they explain it, as pertains to our issue being asked: "Since accessory after the fact is derivative of an underlying felony, the State must also introduce evidence that the principals have been tried and convicted of the underlying crime. Therefore, if John and Mary have been found innocent of robbing a bank or found guilty of a misdemeanor, Luke cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact."

The website explanation is fuller and better than any response I can offer you, and I'd commend you to its fuller outline of the charge and its elements.

 

[jggordo]

TN case law, specifically the rulings of the TN Supreme Court, have made it clear that conviction on the underlying is one of the required elements to obtain a conviction on an accessory charge. And that just stands to reason -- if the people I'm helping didn't legally do anything wrong, then logically I shouldn't be able to be put in jail for helping them.

The "after a commission of a felony" is not a reference to the timing of the charges but rather to the timing of whatever accessory act that may have occurred - for example, if MP took a video of Holly while she was still alive, he couldn't be charged with being an accessory to her murder based on that video.

If you want an easier-to-follow explanation of the TN accessory charges than I can write, there's an excellent one here:
http://www.joebakerlaw.com/accessory-after-the-fact.html

Here's how they explain it, as pertains to our issue being asked: "Since accessory after the fact is derivative of an underlying felony, the State must also introduce evidence that the principals have been tried and convicted of the underlying crime. Therefore, if John and Mary have been found innocent of robbing a bank or found guilty of a misdemeanor, Luke cannot be convicted as an accessory after the fact."

I believe what we are speaking about has to do with is TN law. The link you have provided is a link to a law firm. Have they won a case based on that? As I read the law based on a link provided earlier it is not provisional to the primary offender.

If there are any references made to law I would appreciate a link to it or a statement that it is an opinion to law. Trying to learn and be open minded. But would like to also be realistic. It is not rational to me that LE has nothing to offer to prosecute this case.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

Jggordo, I was editing my post to make it clearer, and your reply/question was posted as I did so. The answer to what you've asked was already included in my editing, except I will add the following.

(a) You said "As I read the law based on a link provided earlier it is not provisional to the primary offender" - - and I'd have to disagree completely with that. Yes, accessory conviction IS relative to helping the offender of the underlying crime, and that's a key and repeated part of the law.
(b) I have read some of the case law, including rulings by the TN SC, and it supports the interpretation offered by this law firm. But I am not a TN lawyer.
(c) The law firm and law explanation I cited was a TN law firm commenting on TN law, and specifically on the very law in question.
(d) I would think that if you want an "expert" to explain TN law, a TN law firm is probably as good as you're going to get.

 

[tlcya]

SteveS thanks for bumping the discussion about the statute above which gives the TN specific statute and I too am struck by the obvious (to me) that without a named and convicted "offender" on which to base this accessory act how then could one be convicted of that crime. I see this as you do. You cannot prove accessory without first having proven that a specific offender is responsible for the underlying crime and that you aided and abetted that offender by your own actions. At least that is how my non attorney mind read it.

http://statutes.laws.com/tennessee/title-39/chapter-11/part-4/39-11-411

 

[jggordo]

A Law Firm can explain the interpretation of the law. The statute is a different matter. I cannot depend on a law firm to explain the Law on their interpretation of it. In cases where an accessory destroys evidence to prevent an apprehension or conviction of a crime IMO will not shield a defendant from prosecution, but only amplify involvement.

I only ask that to claim knowledge of criminal law cite the law and link to it or express it as an opinion. Should you be an insider or a verified professional then go through the process and welcome.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

A Law Firm can explain the interpretation of the law. The statute is a different matter. I cannot depend on a law firm to explain the Law on their interpretation of it. In cases where an accessory destroys evidence to prevent an apprehension or conviction of a crime IMO will not shield a defendant from prosecution, but only amplify involvement.

I only ask that to claim knowledge of criminal law cite the law and link to it or express it as an opinion.

Sorry but I am not offering an "opinion" here. I have provided information about the particulars of the law in question, and offered an obvious expert's explanation as well.

Cite the law? Done.
Cite an obvious expert? Done.

There is no need for me to provide my personal bona fides as well, just to provide facts.

I would respectfully suggest that you read the law again, where any charge of being an accessory has to do with acts assisting "the offender" of the underlying crime. Period. Who is the offender? The person convicted BARD in a court of law of the underlying crime. Until someone is convicted, the offender of that felony is legally undetermined.

 

[SteveS]

... but the charges against the P bros are what are most troubling to me. The evidence substantiating those charges seems flimsy (to me) so I am most curious about how those will play out in relation to the charges against the main perps. Because to my mind, if the initial perps are not convicted as charged I cannot begin to see how any of those charged with lesser crimes having to do with the murder can be convicted.

"if the initial perps are not convicted as charged I cannot begin to see how any of those charged with lesser crimes having to do with the murder can be convicted."

You are correct in the analysis that if ZA and JA are acquitted, none of the rest can be convicted of being their accessory. That's the law.

However, technically, it is incorrect to classify the charges against the others as "lesser crimes having to do with the murder [or kidnapping]." The charges are not about any participation in the murder or kidnapping, but for (allegedly) helping the named criminals cover up a crime that had already been committed by them.