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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mr. Noatak said:
I have followed criminal cases for about forty years. Simple female abduction cases that involve oodles of perpetrators and after-the-fact conspirators/witnesses are the exception and not the rule (but possible). More importantly, abduction cases that involve more than two perpetrators + independent witnesses + after-the-fact conspirators, are typically solved quickly. In the Holly Bobo case we are told that there are multiple kidnappers and after-the-fact conspirators/witnesses, yet it took three years to 'solve'.

<respectfully snipped>

In my sole opinion, there is one man we still need to hear from and one place we still need to look.
Click to expand...

So in your opinion, who is that person, and where is that place?
 
Foxfire said:
<BBM for Focus>

Thanx for sharing Mr. Noatak..
As we know witnesses estimates of the description of suspects are seldom precise. Add the many different styles of camo attire on the market, type of undergarments worn, and the variance of the height and weight of HB's abductor would have been virtually impossible to determine, imo...
Full camo adds weight and height to the person wearing it.. Factor in the three years before arrests in HB's case, and the suspects in the case may have either lost or gained weight.

The style of camo(if accurate) used in the reenactments by AMW and TV4 would have added to this difficulty, imo;

WSMV TV4 - "THE MAP" - INSIDE THE HOLLY BOBO CASE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xs2e1V-2kmE
Click to expand...

My opinions only, no facts here:

I do not disagree about the possibilities of attire-influenced observations or weight-changes over the years. But this is a good time to talk more about the general subject.

I believe the concept that witnesses are unreliable is indiscriminately-applied, without consideration of what makes an observation unreliable. First, consider how many cases were aided or solved by an eyewitness description of a human face, briefly-viewed. A face provides an unique set of features, all scaled directly and closely with one another. SCALE is the key here.

If I show you a topographic map without a scale bar, you become an unreliable witness, if asked how many miles-wide the map represents. This is the same as a light in the sky. Since you have no vertical scale as to its height above you, your witness description may be unreliable. In a real-life example, I was a witness to the great fireball of 1972. It passed from south to north in broad daylight and appeared as bright as the sun and about the same diameter. It seemed to be moving at a leisurely pace. My friends thought it was a crashing flying saucer and sped off to the north to find the wreckage. I knew immediately that it was a low-angle meteor, yet I could not have testified as to its elevation, speed, or size. As it turned out, it was moving almost ten miles a second, never got closer than 35 miles from earth and bounced back into space.

The analogy of a college professor having a stranger walk into their classroom for a moment and then leave, followed by questioning students as to the stranger&#8217;s height, weight, clothes, etc. is a non sequitur. First, the students are sitting down and depending upon the stranger&#8217;s path, may lack a scale-comparison with an object of known size. Much more importantly, the students HAVE NO EMOTIONAL STAKE with the stranger. This analogy has nothing to do with the Holly Bobo case. When you witness a stranger walking away with your sister for the last time, the image is burned into your mind. Furthermore, you know the exact height of your sister, providing precise scale for the height of the man right next to her.

There is one more thing- witnesses become unreliable when asked the wrong questions. You cannot ask a color-blind person about the color of a suspect&#8217;s clothing, but you CAN ask about patterns in their clothing. You cannot ask a witness seated in a chair to estimate the height of a lone person standing by their chair, unless the witness stands up and then observes the lone person.

On a more direct note: at what estimated suspect height should we begin to believe Holly&#8217;s brother&#8217;s accuracy? Five feet, five inches? Four feet, two inches? I believe that the five-inch difference between the suspect description (by Holly&#8217;s brother) and the main suspect is significant. Almost half-a-foot of difference. And the second suspect (the big guy)? Not a chance that he was the actual abductor.

Sleuth On!
 
BoboMap_policeroute.jpg

PART II (Part I is at “Holly Bobo missing from TN discussion thread” *Arrests* #5, post no. 571; please read this prior post first, if you have not seen it).

My opinions only, no facts here:

It bugs me that I cannot find out which direction the police arrived from on the day of Holly Bobo’s abduction. This is a very important piece of the puzzle. Has anybody here ever seen a definitive statement about this?

The attached image shows the logical response route that the Parson city police followed (my red line that overlays the black road line), after notification of Holly Bobo’s abduction. It is the shortest route and probably possesses the best roads. When the 911 call or calls first came in, the police could not have had any inkling of the seriousness of the affair. Face it- many such 911 calls turn out to be domestic squabbles or even events of lesser consequence.

Any local perpetrator would probably assume that police will arrive from the south. So, any local perpetrator would head north from the abduction site.

PART III to follow, when completed.
 
Mr. Noatak said:
My opinions only, no facts here:

I do not disagree about the possibilities of attire-influenced observations or weight-changes over the years. But this is a good time to talk more about the general subject.

I believe the concept that witnesses are unreliable is indiscriminately-applied, without consideration of what makes an observation unreliable. First, consider how many cases were aided or solved by an eyewitness description of a human face, briefly-viewed. A face provides an unique set of features, all scaled directly and closely with one another. SCALE is the key here.

If I show you a topographic map without a scale bar, you become an unreliable witness, if asked how many miles-wide the map represents. This is the same as a light in the sky. Since you have no vertical scale as to its height above you, your witness description may be unreliable. In a real-life example, I was a witness to the great fireball of 1972. It passed from south to north in broad daylight and appeared as bright as the sun and about the same diameter. It seemed to be moving at a leisurely pace. My friends thought it was a crashing flying saucer and sped off to the north to find the wreckage. I knew immediately that it was a low-angle meteor, yet I could not have testified as to its elevation, speed, or size. As it turned out, it was moving almost ten miles a second, never got closer than 35 miles from earth and bounced back into space.

The analogy of a college professor having a stranger walk into their classroom for a moment and then leave, followed by questioning students as to the stranger&#8217;s height, weight, clothes, etc. is a non sequitur. First, the students are sitting down and depending upon the stranger&#8217;s path, may lack a scale-comparison with an object of known size. Much more importantly, the students HAVE NO EMOTIONAL STAKE with the stranger. This analogy has nothing to do with the Holly Bobo case. When you witness a stranger walking away with your sister for the last time, the image is burned into your mind. Furthermore, you know the exact height of your sister, providing precise scale for the height of the man right next to her.

There is one more thing- witnesses become unreliable when asked the wrong questions. You cannot ask a color-blind person about the color of a suspect&#8217;s clothing, but you CAN ask about patterns in their clothing. You cannot ask a witness seated in a chair to estimate the height of a lone person standing by their chair, unless the witness stands up and then observes the lone person.

On a more direct note: at what estimated suspect height should we begin to believe Holly&#8217;s brother&#8217;s accuracy? Five feet, five inches? Four feet, two inches? I believe that the five-inch difference between the suspect description (by Holly&#8217;s brother) and the main suspect is significant. Almost half-a-foot of difference. And the second suspect (the big guy)? Not a chance that he was the actual abductor.

Sleuth On!
Click to expand...

Mr. Noatak, the most important function of camo is not to make you look like a tree, but is to break up the human silhouette.. This is referred too by hunters, photographers, etc., as 'break up effect'.. CB viewed the abductor squatted down in the carport, and then farther away when walking with HB near the tree line. See the photos in the linked article below and you should see the dilema that CB may have been faced with of estimating the height and weight of the abductor on that tragic morning?

http://whitetail.com/camo1.html
An Informal Camo Study
 
Mr. Noatak said:
View attachment 58263

PART II (Part I is at &#8220;Holly Bobo missing from TN discussion thread&#8221; *Arrests* #5, post no. 571; please read this prior post first, if you have not seen it).

My opinions only, no facts here:

It bugs me that I cannot find out which direction the police arrived from on the day of Holly Bobo&#8217;s abduction. This is a very important piece of the puzzle. Has anybody here ever seen a definitive statement about this?

The attached image shows the logical response route that the Parson city police followed (my red line that overlays the black road line), after notification of Holly Bobo&#8217;s abduction. It is the shortest route and probably possesses the best roads. When the 911 call or calls first came in, the police could not have had any inkling of the seriousness of the affair. Face it- many such 911 calls turn out to be domestic squabbles or even events of lesser consequence.

Any local perpetrator would probably assume that police will arrive from the south. So, any local perpetrator would head north from the abduction site.

PART III to follow, when completed.
Click to expand...

Mr Noatak, DCSO & HCSO were dispatched to Swan Johnson Road via 2+ 911 calls on 04/13/2011. Imo, responding LE may have been on other calls and could have been responding from other locations other than sheriff's headquarters..jmo

Map: DCSO - HCSO - Swan Johnson Road
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/Dec...233d755740!2m2!1d-88.1699204!2d35.6928497!3e0
 
Foxfire said:
Mr. Noatak, the most important function of camo is not to make you look like a tree, but is to break up the human silhouette.. This is referred too by hunters, photographers, etc., as 'break up effect'.. CB viewed the abductor squatted down in the carport, and then farther away when walking with HB near the tree line. See the photos in the linked article below and you should see the dilema that CB may have been faced with of estimating the height and weight of the abductor on that tragic morning?

http://whitetail.com/camo1.html
An Informal Camo Study
Click to expand...

I really think way too much weight is put on Clint's description of the kidnapper. It is a known fact that eye witnesses can be and are very faulty. Eye witness testimony is one of the top reasons cases are overturned and people being exonerated when they IDd the wrong person. Some courts in our nation now even allow experts to come into testify about how many eye witnesses can be wrong. They have now allowed this to be entered due to the many false eye witnesses putting innocent people in prison. Other courts are still stagnated and doesn't allow it which is a shame. Most DAs fight it because they know it is hard for a jury to believe a witness can be flat wrong when identifying who they thought they saw.

There are so many variables that come into play that can actually make the description off. First the witness only sees the person for a short time. Secondly, Clint at the time had no idea Holly was being kidnapped or that he would need to remember every detail. Thirdly, he never got to see the face of the suspect and only saw him from the back when the suspect was leading Holly into the woods.

But most of all Clint assumed at the time this was Holly's boyfriend. The image of Holly's boyfriend is already locked into his memory. By assuming this at the time the description is going to be who he thought it was whether it was or not. The description then becomes subjective and is based on a wrong assumption. Assumptions changed Clint's memory of the event. He is trying to adjust the description to who he already thought he was seeing creating a false impression and memory. The faulty impression that it was Holly's boyfriend at the time has made his memory flawed so therefore; the description is flawed and unreliable.

That is why five people can see one event and all describe the suspect differently including height, weight, hair color, eye color,.

IMO
 
Mr. Noatak said:
My opinions only, no facts here:

I do not disagree about the possibilities of attire-influenced observations or weight-changes over the years. But this is a good time to talk more about the general subject.

I believe the concept that witnesses are unreliable is indiscriminately-applied, without consideration of what makes an observation unreliable. First, consider how many cases were aided or solved by an eyewitness description of a human face, briefly-viewed. A face provides an unique set of features, all scaled directly and closely with one another. SCALE is the key here.

If I show you a topographic map without a scale bar, you become an unreliable witness, if asked how many miles-wide the map represents. This is the same as a light in the sky. Since you have no vertical scale as to its height above you, your witness description may be unreliable. In a real-life example, I was a witness to the great fireball of 1972. It passed from south to north in broad daylight and appeared as bright as the sun and about the same diameter. It seemed to be moving at a leisurely pace. My friends thought it was a crashing flying saucer and sped off to the north to find the wreckage. I knew immediately that it was a low-angle meteor, yet I could not have testified as to its elevation, speed, or size. As it turned out, it was moving almost ten miles a second, never got closer than 35 miles from earth and bounced back into space.

The analogy of a college professor having a stranger walk into their classroom for a moment and then leave, followed by questioning students as to the stranger&#8217;s height, weight, clothes, etc. is a non sequitur. First, the students are sitting down and depending upon the stranger&#8217;s path, may lack a scale-comparison with an object of known size. Much more importantly, the students HAVE NO EMOTIONAL STAKE with the stranger. This analogy has nothing to do with the Holly Bobo case. When you witness a stranger walking away with your sister for the last time, the image is burned into your mind. Furthermore, you know the exact height of your sister, providing precise scale for the height of the man right next to her.

There is one more thing- witnesses become unreliable when asked the wrong questions. You cannot ask a color-blind person about the color of a suspect&#8217;s clothing, but you CAN ask about patterns in their clothing. You cannot ask a witness seated in a chair to estimate the height of a lone person standing by their chair, unless the witness stands up and then observes the lone person.

On a more direct note: at what estimated suspect height should we begin to believe Holly&#8217;s brother&#8217;s accuracy? Five feet, five inches? Four feet, two inches? I believe that the five-inch difference between the suspect description (by Holly&#8217;s brother) and the main suspect is significant. Almost half-a-foot of difference. And the second suspect (the big guy)? Not a chance that he was the actual abductor.

Sleuth On!
Click to expand...

The reliability of a witness will be affected by a range of factors. If an event is fast or traumatic, the details are probably not going to be accurate. If the witnessed event was mundane it will probably not be accurate (and very likely will be completely wrong), unless the witness was paying specific attention to it for a specific reason. If it involves a stranger then details will be foggy at best. Greater accuracy if the witness knows the person they saw.

In this case the witness knew (or believed he knew) who the person was, so we can expect that the physical description is extremely accurate (if in fact he did actually see someone). If the current suspects don't match it, then it was not them who took Holly.
 
OldSteve said:
Thanks for the map!

Placement of Holly's cellphone and lunchbox - what do you make of that? Seems out of the way looking at where main suspect lives.
Click to expand...

The placement of the items is random. If they were tossed out of the window on the way to somewhere from Holly's house, they should be relatively close, or at least on a line.
 
Foxfire said:
Mr. Noatak, the most important function of camo is not to make you look like a tree, but is to break up the human silhouette.. This is referred too by hunters, photographers, etc., as 'break up effect'.. CB viewed the abductor squatted down in the carport, and then farther away when walking with HB near the tree line. See the photos in the linked article below and you should see the dilema that CB may have been faced with of estimating the height and weight of the abductor on that tragic morning?

http://whitetail.com/camo1.html
An Informal Camo Study
Click to expand...

Living in a rural area at a relatively isolated house then seeing some unknown person squatting down outside with your sister as she was heading off to school, and not at least going out to see what was going on? I don't buy that.

If that is what actually happened, I would interpret that behaviour as hiding.
 
oceanblueeyes said:

I really think way too much weight is put on Clint's description of the kidnapper. It is a known fact that eye witnesses can be and are very faulty. Eye witness testimony is one of the top reasons cases are overturned and people being exonerated when they IDd the wrong person. Some courts in our nation now even allow experts to come into testify about how many eye witnesses can be wrong. They have now allowed this to be entered due to the many false eye witnesses putting innocent people in prison. Other courts are still stagnated and doesn't allow it which is a shame. Most DAs fight it because they know it is hard for a jury to believe a witness can be flat wrong when identifying who they thought they saw.

There are so many variables that come into play that can actually make the description off. First the witness only sees the person for a short time. Secondly, Clint at the time had no idea Holly was being kidnapped or that he would need to remember every detail. Thirdly, he never got to see the face of the suspect and only saw him from the back when the suspect was leading Holly into the woods.

But most of all Clint assumed at the time this was Holly's boyfriend. The image of Holly's boyfriend is already locked into his memory. By assuming this at the time the description is going to be who he thought it was whether it was or not. The description then becomes subjective and is based on a wrong assumption. Assumptions changed Clint's memory of the event. He is trying to adjust the description to who he already thought he was seeing creating a false impression and memory. The faulty impression that it was Holly's boyfriend at the time has made his memory flawed so therefore; the description is flawed and unreliable.

That is why five people can see one event and all describe the suspect differently including height, weight, hair color, eye color,.

IMO
Click to expand...

No. This is a person who he believed he knew. People make mistakes in the description of people they don't know, but they are very accurate in descriptions of the appearance of people they DO know.

I don't know about you, but I can immediately recognize people I know looking at them from behind, I don't need to see their face. Even if it subsequently turns out not to be them, they are still extremely similar in aspect and body movement, enough so to fool me. If he thought that the abductor was the boyfriend, whoever it was looked the same from behind.

What concerns me most about the account is not so much the description of appearance, but the lack of description of body language. That tells me (if it really happened that way) that neither Holly or the abductor was behaving abnormally in any way while they walked. In other words it was casual and relaxed. That is not consistent with an abduction, in other words either it did not happen that way, or Holly knew who this person was and was reasonably comfortable with them.
 
Tugela said:
No. This is a person who he believed he knew. People make mistakes in the description of people they don't know, but they are very accurate in descriptions of the appearance of people they DO know.

I don't know about you, but I can immediately recognize people I know looking at them from behind, I don't need to see their face. Even if it subsequently turns out not to be them, they are still extremely similar in aspect and body movement, enough so to fool me. If he thought that the abductor was the boyfriend, whoever it was looked the same from behind.

What concerns me most about the account is not so much the description of appearance, but the lack of description of body language. That tells me (if it really happened that way) that neither Holly or the abductor was behaving abnormally in any way while they walked. In other words it was casual and relaxed. That is not consistent with an abduction, in other words either it did not happen that way, or Holly knew who this person was and was reasonably comfortable with them.
Click to expand...

I respectfully do not agree. You are going on the premise it was the boyfriend and it turned out it wasn't. No matter the true height and weight of the suspect he thought it was Holly's boyfriend. I don't think he picked that up due to the stature of the person which he only saw from the back but he came to the assumption solely based on Holly going into the woods with this man and he knew the bf had gone turkey hunting that morning and would be in camo. The false impressions came from the events he saw when he tried to apply a logical assumption it was the b/f.

I have found men are not nearly as observant as females. I doubt seriously he could identify with any certainty even the boyfriend from his backside simply by the way he walked and he wasn't trying to identify him that day. He simply assumed the most logical person it could be was the boyfriend. This had already made a false memory/image in his mind since it wasn't him at all.

I also don't agree that the description is correct. He was not IDing the man by his size. It had everything to do with him assuming it was someone it was not... based on the events that transpired. So therefore the description would fit who he thought it was.

I haven't seen any evidence that Clint knows the man well enough (or at all) to be able to identify him from behind many yards away in a tree line from the back. He may have seen the suspect from time to time but for purposes of being able to identify this person he was a stranger in an environment Clint had never seen ZA in before.

It does not concern me whatsoever that she appeared calm and compliant. Unfortunately she isn't the only victim that has been led away by a kidnapper and then wound up murdered. Several of the kidnapping victims who have lived and did get away said they felt if they did exactly as the perpetrator told them to do it may save their life.

I don't think Holly ever associated with the that kidnapped her. Not one person has ever said she hung around any of these meth heads. So the assumption she was 'comfortable' with this creep is preposterous and has nothing to support it. Imo, she was in fear of her life, and confused as to why this was happening to her, and thinking if she could remain calm she may be able to talk him into not hurting her. She never knew who she would have to deal with nor the sadistic pain and torture they would inflict before they murdered her.

I believe it happened just as Clint said it happened.
 
Tugela said:
Living in a rural area at a relatively isolated house then seeing some unknown person squatting down outside with your sister as she was heading off to school, and not at least going out to see what was going on? I don't buy that.
Click to expand...

That analysis is wrong, because in the moment, that's not what happened.

CB saw his sister outside with someone he knew, her boyfriend. There was no reason for him to go outside and interrrupt bf and gf, so he didn't. He did not come to believe it was anything except bf and gf until AFTER he had already seen them about to walk into the woods.
 
Tugela said:
The placement of the items is random. If they were tossed out of the window on the way to somewhere from Holly's house, they should be relatively close, or at least on a line.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, without a lot more info than we have right now, I don't think much if anything can be known about those items and where they were found.

We really don't know (1) who kidnapped her, (2) where they were headed, or (3) whether or not they took a direct route to their eventual destination.

Maybe they were randomly placed after the fact. Or maybe not. All we know, from finding the items, is that someone related to the kidnapping was at that place at some point - maybe on the kidnap day, or maybe not, maybe with Holly and/or the kidnapper present, or maybe not. The geography is small enough that there was time and accessibility for a single person to visit all of those places in succession, at almost any day or time, so anything is possible.
 
OldSteve said:
Thanks for the map!

Placement of Holly's cellphone and lunchbox - what do you make of that? Seems out of the way looking at where main suspect lives.
Click to expand...

My opinions only, no facts here:

I intend to discuss my interpretation of the physical evidence in upcoming posts.

In my PART I and PART II posts above, I basically have opined that the kidnapper does not closely resemble the two jailed major suspects, AND that Holly was taken northward after the kidnapping. In PART III, I will talk about the possible route to, and the possible significance of the Gooch Road evidence.

Sleuth On!
 
Mr. Noatak said:
My opinions only, no facts here:

I intend to discuss my interpretation of the physical evidence in upcoming posts.

In my PART I and PART II posts above, I basically have opined that the kidnapper does not closely resemble the two jailed major suspects, AND that Holly was taken northward after the kidnapping. In PART III, I will talk about the possible route to, and the possible significance of the Gooch Road evidence.

Sleuth On!
Click to expand...

As always, eagerly await your thoughts!

In the meantime, after looking at your map, I realize that this is another case that fits the "rule-of-three" that I go on about and bog.

ETA:
Now if the rule applies - since Holly was taken (on land) and her belongings were scattered on land, then places with water needs to be checked - including not only rivers, lakes, but wells too. Also, the background of the suspects - places they are most familiar with, where they spent time? May not be local, but where they stayed, retreated too...
 
OldSteve said:
As always, eagerly await your thoughts!

In the meantime, after looking at your map, I realize that this is another case that fits the "rule-of-three" that I go on about and bog.

ETA:
Now if the rule applies - since Holly was taken (on land) and her belongings were scattered on land, then places with water needs to be checked - including not only rivers, lakes, but wells too. Also, the background of the suspects - places they are most familiar with, where they spent time? May not be local, but where they stayed, retreated too...
Click to expand...

OldSteve, the only "rule-of-three" that I am familiar with is the public safety rule of threes. Tragedies such as fires, plane crashes, etc., seems to frequently happen in threes.. Criminologist Dr. Steve Egger, mentioned a rule of seven..
OldSteve, what is the third tier of your rule-of-three?
_______________

Dr Egger's 'rule of seven' crime scenes locations of a serial killer;

It is hard for law enforcement agencies to identify a serial killer due to "linkage blindness," another term coined by Egger. "Police don't share information across jurisdictional boundaries," Egger said. "There's always some friction there." Agencies prefer to worry only about their own jurisdiction, instead of sharing information to work together to solve a murder. Egger says a serial murder investigation may, but not always, have as many as seven different crime scenes: the place the victim was initially lured, transportation to a different location, the place the victim was kept, transportation to another location, where the victim was killed, where the body was dumped, and where the weapon was dumped.

"In most instances all the police have is the dumpsite," Egger said. Egger says the other crime scenes are never investigated because of linkage blindness and the fact that law enforcement officials usually treat serial murder as a single homicide. "But if you find out that you're talking about multiple dumpsites in different jurisdictions, then you have a higher possibility of coming up with some trace evidence, particularly in the first kill," Egger said. "The offender brings something to the crime scene, leaves something at the crime scene, and takes something away from the crime scene,"

Egger said when explaining his three part premise of a crime scene and the reason there is not always a lot of trace evidence. "If you have someone who is aware of that, who is careful, and you're only dealing with one dumpsite, and you're treating it as a single homicide, you have no way of managing your suspects," Egger said. Egger says a typical homicide is not difficult to solve because you are simply dealing with people's alibis, and the person without one becomes the prime suspect. However, in a serial murder you do not have that. "All crime is serial in nature," Egger said. "Most criminals, if not caught, will repeat their crime. And if that's true, then you've got to share information."
<sniped - read more>

Egger Compiles Database of Serial Killers
http://prtl.uhcl.edu/portal/page/portal/USN/TheSignal/Life?articleId=402
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 119 more.
Total: 2,159 (members: 120, guests: 2,039)

Online statistics

Members online
120
Guests online
2,039
Total visitors
2,159
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,400
Messages
18,124,198
Members
231,044
Latest member
detectivegotcha
Back
Top