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

[SteveS]

But the thing that makes me question the identification is that he mistook the man for Drew.

I think "mistook the man for Drew" overstates his testimony on that point by a wide margin. He said he didn't really get a good look at the face and simply ASSUMED that it was Drew, from the camo outfit he saw (matching the fact Drew had been hunting) and the fact that the person was talking to HB at that place and time. Once he made that assumption in his mind, he had no particular reason to wonder who it was, or to look closer, so he didn't.

 

[MizStery]

:seeya: I just checked a couple of the news outlets and nothing ...

Strange, isn't it ?

:moo:

I just did a search for Mark Lynn Pearcy Decatur County. :rumor: A 'link' took me to the site Kimster cautions on in the beginning of this thread. A poster 'there' at the linked site checked a status report that indicated it's now rescheduled for "October 10, 2014 9:00 AM on illegal firearm possession (rescheduled from 9/12/2014)." I assume this 'poster' must have access to the docket schedule but I believe that would be for 'the' Federal charges NOT for Holly's case before Decatur Sessions Court. Or am I confused? :crazy:
.MOO

 

[pearl]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Before reading the following, I need to clarify my opinions. I think that the prosecution is praying for two or more of the suspects/POI's to rat out the others or at least cop a guilty plea. If all of the named individuals steadfastly refuse to plead guilty or cooperate, this will be a very tricky case. Equally, if a couple of the suspects/POI's do turn State's evidence, the Defense will have a field day during cross examination.

OK, I said my piece, and here is something we should talk about- how will the prosecution try this case?

Would everybody be tried at the same time, as a group? I doubt that- just too complicated. OK, can the authorities try everybody separately? That strategy would be expensive and lengthy.

My hunch is that they will try one of the two main suspects first, and hope that they obtain a conviction. The risk of course is- if you try a kingpin and lose- it can topple your other cases.

Don't forget about the importance of alibis. There are limited internet rumors that the "big guy" main suspect does have an alibi that places him far away at the time of the crime. We also have the bizarre (supposed) Facebook text-post by the other main suspect at the precise time of the abduction. What if this post was from his home computer? Alibis can be interesting in "usual suspect" cases like this, because the alibi witness is sometimes an unassociated honest law-abiding citizen.

All of the suspects/POI's must by now know that this case is not going to evaporate. Why are they so stubborn at this late date? Could one or more of them simply be innocent?

Sleuth On!

BBM
Possibly to prolong the inevitable.

 

[SteveS]

All of the suspects/POI's must by now know that this case is not going to evaporate. Why are they so stubborn at this late date? Could one or more of them simply be innocent?

Possibly to prolong the inevitable.

Whether the lack of a deal tells us something depends on the evidence that LE has, but unfortunately the evidence being used is something which we know almost none of.

If it's a case where the evidence points to a fuzzy future, where the outcome is murky for both parties, then that would lend itself to deal-making. If the case is weak and flimsy, LE would be looking to deal, but there's no reason for a defendant to make a deal. And if the case has so much evidence that a conviction is all but certain, the defendants might be eager to make a deal, but LE has no incentive to offer one.

Should a deal be logical here? Should one party or the other be eager to negotiate? If we knew the true extent and nature of the evidence for this trial, we would know what the lack of a deal implies. But without that, we really can't tell what it means -- you don't know what you don't know.

 

[Slab]

Seeing someone briefly from a distance in a stressful situation isn't necessarily the best way to judge size. So for him to say the guy was 5'10...I'm not necessarily going to hold him to that. There are people who see house cats and think they are lions and jaguars. But the thing that makes me question the identification is that he mistook the man for Drew. To me, these suspects look so vastly different from Drew that I have a really hard time believing it could be them. Their coloring is different, one is wayyy too skinny and too tall, the other is both too tall and too heavy.

I would add that- everything you read about the inaccuracies of eye witness testimony indicates humans are very prone to suggestion. If Clint expected Holly to be with Drew and expected Drew to be in camo, to his brain the person in camo some distance away with the blonde girl would be Drew. If Drew is around 5'10" and 210 lbs, I would guess this "observation" might have absolutely nothing to do with the actual size of the kidnapper.

 

[reedus23]

Whether the lack of a deal tells us something depends on the evidence that LE has, but unfortunately the evidence being used is something which we know almost none of.

If it's a case where the evidence points to a fuzzy future, where the outcome is murky for both parties, then that would lend itself to deal-making. If the case is weak and flimsy, LE would be looking to deal, but there's no reason for a defendant to make a deal. And if the case has so much evidence that a conviction is all but certain, the defendants might be eager to make a deal, but LE has no incentive to offer one.

Should a deal be logical here? Should one party or the other be eager to negotiate? If we knew the true extent and nature of the evidence for this trial, we would know what the lack of a deal implies. But without that, we really can't tell what it means -- you don't know what you don't know.

Just to expand on your points that I agree with...was the discovery ever complied with or was an extension granted? What I'm getting at is that it is probably also premature to be talking about any deals. Defense counsel is unlikely to engage in such talks until they, themselves, have a firm grasp on what the evidence is. Even if the raw info has been given to them, I doubt they've had a chance to truly absorb and analyze it yet. JMOO, but in addition to what you say, I just think it's too early to be talking about deals for those charged.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I just did a search for Mark Lynn Pearcy Decatur County. :rumor: A 'link' took me to the site Kimster cautions on in the beginning of this thread. A poster 'there' at the linked site checked a status report that indicated it's now rescheduled for "October 10, 2014 9:00 AM on illegal firearm possession (rescheduled from 9/12/2014)." I assume this 'poster' must have access to the docket schedule but I believe that would be for 'the' Federal charges NOT for Holly's case before Decatur Sessions Court. Or am I confused? :crazy:
.MOO

:seeya:

BBM: Yes, this "illegal firearm possession" charge is in federal court.

MP is being charged in State Court / Decatur County for "accessory after the fact" in Holly's case.

I check regularly for any news on Holly's case and nothing new that I can find.

I hope this helps !

 

[MizStery]

dog.gone.cute & ZooSleuth,
Great Posts! I am wondering also. I got the memo that state prosecutors had to ask a federal judge to turn over Mark Pearcy;for the preliminary hearing at Decatur County Court today. But,MSN really dropped the ball by not following up on the reason. This is a critical issue,"we demand justice for Holly".

:waiting: Unless all of us have missed the link on Mark Pearcy hearing today?MOO

The hearing was set for today September 22 at 9 a.m. OR 1p.m. depending on which MSN you read.

The following is from WKRM last week (last updated Sept 17th)

Both prosecutors and Pearcy's attorney said they would make sure to notify the court.
State prosecutors said they may have to ask a federal judge to order Pearcy turned over to appear in general sessions court in September.
http://wkrn.com/story/26305183/holly-bobo-suspect-mark-pearcy-fails-to-appear

I doubt it. It is a separate case, and if a hearing has been scheduled, a hearing will be held. Neither the DA nor the defence can change that because they feel like it.

:seeya: Hi jggordo,

BBM: MP is in federal custody.


From WSMV article:

But in one of the most high-profile cases in Tennessee, there was confusion in the courtroom.

It seemed both sides were unprepared for Mark Pearcy's hearing Monday in a Decatur County courtroom.

In court on Monday, officials said Mark Pearcy was in federal custody in Jackson.


http://www.wsmv.com/story/26307944/continuance-issued-in-case-of-holly-bobo-suspect

:gavel: Please post if you find any information on Mark Pearcy's rescheduled hearing.

:seeya:

BBM: Yes, this "illegal firearm possession" charge is in federal court.

MP is being charged in State Court / Decatur County for "accessory after the fact" in Holly's case.

I check regularly for any news on Holly's case and nothing new that I can find.

I hope this helps !

If you read the article at the WKRN link the judge at the Decatur Sessions Courthouse was :gaah: that Mark Pearcy was not in his courtroom. He charged his officers with coordinating with the Feds to get Mark Pearcy at a hearing before him on the "assessory after the fact" charges. Oh where,Oh where are the reporters and why is no one but us trying to figure out what the heck is going on? There are top notch people on this forum checking on this information! Are we the only one's asking questions? MOO

 

[SteveS]

Clearly, in August the judge presiding over MP's "accessory" charge was angered when LE didn't bring him to court for a scheduled hearing as they were supposed to, forcing the hearing to be moved to September. But September came and went without a hearing being conducted, to our knowledge. If it happened, MSM missed it.

But more likely, the schedule was changed and it wasn't reported.

I don't read too much into it. If we lived there, we could get an answer fairly easily by going to the courthouse and looking at the public record on the case, to figure out what and why. But since we're not there, we only know what MSM figures out and tells us, so for now we're in the dark.

I also believe that, if it was botched again, we'd have heard about it and that it would have been a very big deal, leading me to think that something procedural or evidential detoured the process a bit at this time.

 

[MizStery]

Clearly, in August the judge presiding over MP's "accessory" charge was angered when LE didn't bring him to court for a scheduled hearing as they were supposed to, forcing the hearing to be moved to September. But September came and went without a hearing being conducted, to our knowledge. If it happened, MSM missed it.

But more likely, the schedule was changed and it wasn't reported.

I don't read too much into it. If we lived there, we could get an answer fairly easily by going to the courthouse and looking at the public record on the case, to figure out what and why. But since we're not there, we only know what MSM figures out and tells us, so for now we're in the dark.

I also believe that, if it was botched again, we'd have heard about it and that it would have been a very big deal, leading me to think that something procedural or evidential detoured the process a bit at this time.

Thank-you Steve! I think you are probably correct. :smile:

But,we are assuming that it was 'procedural'. Which to me is rationalization~making excuses. There are numerous news outlets covering this story. Investigative journalism (questioning)requires some digging.Sounds like if news drops in the reporters laps it gets reported. There are people like Amanda R and dog.gone.gone that keep impeccable records of Holly's case. Should we not expect the same level of diligence of the reporters:whose duty it is to report on this case? MOO

 

[SteveS]

"Should we not expect the same level of diligence of the reporters: whose duty it is to report on this case?"

I really part company with you on most of this point. Journalists, just like you and me, have a limit on time, and have to select their spots and prioritize their efforts on things that are interesting/important, over the mundane or routine procedure. And at the end of the day, it's a profession, not an obligation - - in other words, I don't think reporters have a "duty" to report on ANYTHING, frankly.

That having been said, with the level of detailed reporting on almost everything that has happened in court to date, I think they've have gone FAR "above and beyond" with this case. And I certainly don't see a worth-mentioning story in emails or calls between judge and attorneys and a date getting moved on the docket, if that's what happened here. Being in court, and what's said there, that's the story people want to hear and that justifies their time. IMO.

 

[MizStery]

I am absolutely 100% a detail person! My 26 year old son calls me "the steamroller". Thanks Steve,for giving me your opinion. We are all here for the same reason justice for Holly.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Quoting from an interview with Holly's brother at http://edition.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1108/04/ijvm.01.html

"Well, I stated originally and never wavered from the description of the man being approximately 5`10 and 200 pounds."

Let us pretend that this interview happened and that this statement was made. This is much more specific than the watered-down FBI description of the kidnapper, and could (and should) be emphasized by the defense attorneys.

In spite of considerable research, I am unable to find an official description of the size and weight of the recently-arrested younger brother of the main suspect. Keep looking out for this info and notify me if you see it. I evaluated file photos of the younger brother in two ways. First, I assumed that his head is about as long as his older brother's head (his older brother's height is known). In the second test, I assumed that the buttons on his jail uniform are 9/16 of an inch in diameter. Either way, he comes out shorter and certainly thinner in stature than the implied stocky 5' 10" 200 pound kidnapping suspect, as supposedly preferred by Holly's brother. Although both of the tests I applied are qualitative and subject to perspective errors, I doubt that the younger brother of the main suspect is the kidnapper because of how thin and sleight he appears.

But, I do not disagree when the DA implies that someone else may be arrested. They can start this process by arresting and properly charging a male who fits the witness description of the actual kidnapper. This is the only man I am interested in at the present time.

Sleuth On!

Hi Mr. N !

Just jumping off your post here and adding my :twocents:


1st BBM: JMO but I do not think that DA, ZA's younger brother, is the kidnapper -- not because his size and weight -- but because he was not charged initially with "kidnapping" with respect to Holly's case.

ZA and JA were not only charged with murder, but they were charged with "kidnapping" -- and IIRC, it is "especially aggravated kidnapping."

Now, does that mean that ZA and/or JA performed the actual kidnapping -- OR -- does that mean that ZA and/or JA were involved in only the planning of the kidnapping ?

Now, as to the other "A" that we know about, SA -- who has this "immunity deal" which is still "up in the air" -- could it be that SA performed the actual kidnapping -- OR -- was involved in only the planning of the kidnapping ? JMO but IF SA was the actual kidnapper, he would have been charged with kidnapping and not given an "immunity deal" ... of course, I could be wrong ... but ...

Back to height and weight of CB's description of the abductor, also known as "camo man" -- with respect to the 4 A's :

JA - taller and larger than the 5'10" / 200 lb. description ... and no doubt IF he would have been "camo man" CB's description would have been completely different, IMO.

ZA - appears taller than 5'10 and skinnier than 200 lb. IMO, but with camo clothing on, would this make him look larger ?

DA - from the one appearance in court video that I saw, he looks like he could almost fit the 5'10" but weight ?

SA - he looks like he could fit the weight, but not the height, IMO.


2nd BBM: The prosecutor will need PROOF of WHO was the actual abductor of Holly -- they will need to prove WHO was "camo man."

They cannot just base it only on eye-witness testimony, which can be inaccurate ... they are going to need evidence that not only supports the eye-witness testimony, but also proves WHO was the actual kidnapper.

Now, could "camo man" be one of the 4 above -- OR -- someone that has not been named yet ?

I don't know ...

All My Opinions Only.

 

[Fence Sitter]

SA was offered immunity for leading LE to Hollys remains but when they searched that area there was nothing.
Does anyone know where this area was?
Just thinking out aloud here.
Where Holly was found had previously been searched in the weeks after she went missing and now 3 years later she is found there? Very odd and adds more concrete to the theory that she was in fact moved?
I think SA did know where she was when he made that deal (or why bother), i think he just didn't know she had been moved.
I would be really interested to know where he proposed she was and where they searched.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Before reading the following, I need to clarify my opinions. I think that the prosecution is praying for two or more of the suspects/POI's to rat out the others or at least cop a guilty plea. If all of the named individuals steadfastly refuse to plead guilty or cooperate, this will be a very tricky case. Equally, if a couple of the suspects/POI's do turn State's evidence, the Defense will have a field day during cross examination.

OK, I said my piece, and here is something we should talk about- how will the prosecution try this case?

Would everybody be tried at the same time, as a group? I doubt that- just too complicated. OK, can the authorities try everybody separately? That strategy would be expensive and lengthy.

My hunch is that they will try one of the two main suspects first, and hope that they obtain a conviction. The risk of course is- if you try a kingpin and lose- it can topple your other cases.

Don't forget about the importance of alibis. There are limited internet rumors that the "big guy" main suspect does have an alibi that places him far away at the time of the crime. We also have the bizarre (supposed) Facebook text-post by the other main suspect at the precise time of the abduction. What if this post was from his home computer? Alibis can be interesting in "usual suspect" cases like this, because the alibi witness is sometimes an unassociated honest law-abiding citizen.

All of the suspects/POI's must by now know that this case is not going to evaporate. Why are they so stubborn at this late date? Could one or more of them simply be innocent?

Sleuth On!

1st BBM: Ah, the alibis ... interesting ...

First, these so-called alibis have to be proven when Holly was abducted -- which they have proof of the approximate time of abduction due to the 9-1-1 calls, the neighbor who heard the "scream," CB's witnessing the abduction, etc.

BUT -- WHO is going to say they had an "alibi" at the time Holly was murdered ?

None of them, IMO, because that would be like an admission ... KWIM ?


2nd BBM: JMO but I do not believe any of the A's are "innocent" -- and -- I do believe the P brothers had knowledge AFTER the fact ...

What I am waiting to see is WHO ELSE was involved and WHO ELSE had knowledge BEFORE or AFTER Holly's abduction and murder ?

All JMO and :moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Obsessing over a desire to nail down who led/lured/coerced Holly from her home when she was abducted may be more of a curiosity item than anything else, at this point (unless you believe LE doesn't have any solid evidence against these guys).

Accounting for the difference between CB's rough description, and the perps, can be explained in other ways. Maybe, lacking a measuring tape and a chance to measure the perp, CB simply mis-estimated the size. Or maybe someone else besides ZA or JA did the initial act, and delivered her to them. Or maybe something else. But knowing the time and circumstance of the initial act of abduction, without being able to know who took her, isn't a case killer (otherwise, you could never convict an abductor without seeing the initial act.) It's just a lack of something you wish you had.

But no matter how you resolve that, OR EVEN IF YOU DON'T FIGURE IT OUT, the legal case against them is more likely to hinge on the ability to definitively prove somehow that HB was in JA/ZA custody after she was abducted, using eyewitness testimony bolstered by evidence gleaned from search-warrant-enabled evidence and from what the remains revealed. Prove the defendants had her, after she was abducted, and that she was at some point killed (not hard to prove, with the remains having been found), and the defendants hang, even if they can't definitively prove who had her at 8:01 a.m. on that morning.

Hi Steve,


BBM: Respectfully disagree that the abductor is a "curiosity item" -- WHO abducted Holly and WHY Holly was abducted are critical points which must be proven at trial.

The DA is going to have to connect the dots and in order to that, the DA has to PROVE Holly was 1st kidnapped, WHO kidnapped her, and then LINK Holly to the perps who murdered her.

ZA and JA were both charged with "especially aggravated kidnapping" along with murder, so obviously they have something with respect to these 2 perps regarding the kidnapping ...

Now, what role ZA and JA played in the kidnapping, we do not know ... so were they involved in the planning and/or the actual kidnapping ?

And IF ZA and JA were not the ACTUAL abductors, then IMO, the DA is going to have to prove WHO was the actual abductor and make connections from there.

All JMO and :moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

If that's where they go with the case, so what? This case, if tried correctly, probably won't be hinged on PROVING the identity of the person at HB's house on the day of abduction, so if they don't know FOR CERTAIN who it is, no big deal. A sharp DA will simply admit the fuzziness, explain why it doesn't matter to figure out, and go on about the business of proving what needs to be proven.

Why doesn't it matter? Because she wasn't killed at that point or in that place. Presumably, they have evidence such as blood, DNA, and eyewitness testimony that will place HB in the custody of the defendants later on. That's all that really matters, because "custody at a later time" shows with certainty that SOMEHOW they must have taken her, either personally or by having her taken. In turn, that removes any burden of having to figure out the particulars of who the person was at her house at 8 a.m. on that day.

Hi Steve,

BBM: We know she was not killed at her home because cadaver dogs were brought in ...

BUT -- Holly was injured at her home ... There was a "pool of blood" found in the carport/yard area, and this was verified [sorry, do not have the link handy].

Now, how much blood and/or any other evidence of an injury we do not know.

Holly's abduction led to her murder ... And while the kidnapping may not "legally" carry the same "weight" as the murder charges, the abduction is crucial in that Holly did not survive ... she was murdered as a result of the abduction.

All JMO and :moo:

 

[SteveS]

Hi Steve,


BBM: Respectfully disagree that the abductor is a "curiosity item" -- WHO abducted Holly and WHY Holly was abducted are critical points which must be proven at trial.

The DA is going to have to connect the dots and in order to that, the DA has to PROVE Holly was 1st kidnapped, WHO kidnapped her, and then LINK Holly to the perps who murdered her.

Thanks, but I respectfully disagree. I think there is a mistake being made, which is the idea that you have to know who had her at 8:00 a.m. on the day of abduction.

LE does not have to prove "chain of custody" of her body while alive, only that she was held against her will by ZA/JA. Now maybe that's shown at 8:00 a.m. when she was abducted, but maybe their proof is at some time thereafter. If it can be proven they had her, and that she had already been kidnapped at the point at which they had her, the custody details prior to that point become somewhat moot.

One thing that might help in the recognition of this truth: in any scenario you want to create, either ZA or JA was definitely not there when she was taken. And maybe neither was there. But they still charged both with the kidnapping, of course.

The elements of the crime are these:
1 she was abducted
2 subsequent to being abducted, ZA and JA held her in custody against her will
3 she died
4 their actions caused her death

 

[SteveS]

Dog-gone-cute

1 I am not arguing that she was not kidnapped. In fact, I think it's undeniable that she was taken against her will by someone that day, and the fact that she was taken is an element that must be proved.
2 I am simply pointing out that they won't have to prove the identity of the camo man per se. As long as they can prove that at a subsequent time, she was being held by these specific defendants (ZA/JA) against her will, then they can be charged with her kidnapping.
3 The "especially aggravated kidnapping" doesn't require the identity of the camo man. It's simply a technical term to indicate that she died at some point, while still being held against her will by the defendants.
4 The blood was described as a small puddle, not a "pool." It sounds like there was some blood, but it wasn't much.
5 I don't think the small amount of blood tells much, although it does tell the story of an injury or wound at that point. But she was walking away under her own power alongside the camo man when last seen, so the injury couldn't have been severe.
6 My point about the fact that she was not killed at her home, was that we don't have any clue as to the time of death, and maybe not even the exact day. So JA or ZA couldn't possibly have an alibi regarding the time of her death.
7 In addition, if they can prove she was in the custody of ZA/JA subsequent to being grabbed, then an alibi for 8:00 wouldn't matter either.

At the end of the day, I'm coming to think that this case might revolve around a video that supposedly shows her in their custody being held against her will. And in a case with that as the focus, positively proving the identity of the camo man isn't going to matter that much.

If so, getting that video (if it exists) is everything, and a case with that as the focus would explain why they've taken the approach they have in general. If they can't get it, they might have a hard time getting a conviction on charges like these based on the contents of a perhaps-mythical video that no one admits to having had and only one person is saying even existed.

I'm not saying that's all they have that might be compelling. Who knows what they've found. Maybe a lot, maybe very little. But "volumes" of evidence doesn't tell us anything about the quality or weight of that evidence.

 

[Tugela]

I would add that- everything you read about the inaccuracies of eye witness testimony indicates humans are very prone to suggestion. If Clint expected Holly to be with Drew and expected Drew to be in camo, to his brain the person in camo some distance away with the blonde girl would be Drew. If Drew is around 5'10" and 210 lbs, I would guess this "observation" might have absolutely nothing to do with the actual size of the kidnapper.

That might be true if it was someone he didn't know well, but in the case of someone he DOES know well, that sort of error is unlikely.

Usually when people talk about the unreliability of eye witness with regards to appearances, it is a situation involving a complete stranger, or something that happens very dramatically and quickly. Neither of those apply in this case.

When it comes to recognition of people you know, the human brain is very accurate, so whoever this person was would have to look pretty much like the boyfriend from behind, so much so that it would fool the brother.