TN - Holly Bobo, 20, Darden, believed abducted 13 April 2011 - #25

[Eileen730]

In my mind, the discrepancy lies with what LE believed initially whether Holly was led into the woods voluntarily (with someone she knew) versus being abducted (by a stranger).

And I don't understand why the family was kept out of the woods to search for their beloved Holly. No one could have kept me out those woods to search for my loved one. I know hindsight is 20/20, but something seems off here and I can't shake it. JMO.

We all seem to forget it was hunting season Maybe they had to make sure no one got shot? Just a thought!

 

[Frogzilla]

I'm thinking that Karen had a meltdown, considering that 2 days later, she couldn't even walk. Dana and Clint would have been trying to take care of her. Clint must have been half out of his mind. They may have sedated the whole family.

All the above making it a necessity that TBI get their info from local LE.

But... bottom line, I'm just trying to guess at likely reasons why the info may have gotten mixed up. There's usually a very simple explanation to these things. Not an excuse - just an explanation.

I believe the different versions are a misinformation tactic to obscure the actual details of the case, in the hopes somebody slips up during interviews, also effective for figuring out which leads are the most credible, since LE is the only one holding the cards, but this is effective for only so long.
Since my last post regarding the most recent article has disappeared(another mystery for me), I will say again. If the version of accounts the Bobo's are telling in the most recent video is the same account given to LE, then it is no wonder LE seems so confused. If so it seems to me like giving them a canoe and a 20$ fishing rod to go catch a marlin or a whale.

 

[BeanE]

I believe the different versions are a misinformation tactic to obscure the actual details of the case, in the hopes somebody slips up during interviews, also effective for figuring out which leads are the most credible, since LE is the only one holding the cards, but this is effective for only so long.

The thing is, for me, Frog, I just don't know of any missing person cases - or murder cases for that matter - where misinformation was deliberately propagated by LE. Every case I know of, LE simply doesn't release any information about a particular subject ("No comment") in hopes of catching slip ups.

My understanding is that the reason LE doesn't deliberately issue false information is because they have an obligation to uphold the public trust. Lying to the public, particularly via media, which can go national, would be a sure way to erode that trust, and abdicate their responsibility.

Do you know of any missing person or murder cases where LE has come back later and stated that they had deliberately issued false statements as a strategy?

 

[Frogzilla]

The thing is, for me, Frog, I just don't know of any missing person cases - or murder cases for that matter - where misinformation was deliberately propagated by LE. Every case I know of, LE simply doesn't release any information about a particular subject ("No comment") in hopes of catching slip ups.

My understanding is that the reason LE doesn't deliberately issue false information is because they have an obligation to uphold the public trust. Lying to the public, particularly via media, which can go national, would be a sure way to erode that trust, and abdicate their responsibility.

Do you know of any missing person or murder cases where LE has come back later and stated that they had deliberately issued false statements as a strategy?

No I cannot think of a case offhand where LE admitted they lied during the course of an investigation, that is not the kind of thing LE broadcasts. But I would venture to say they twist the truth to suit their own purposes in every investigation that LE has ever done and will ever do. In HB case for example, maybe the perp has no idea CB caught a glimpse of him and LE shared that info to rattle his cage. Maybe CB didn't see anything, either way it would worry a perp to think they were spotted when they were not aware of it. These kinds of lies, not the sky is purple and pink when we know it is blue type of lies. On the flipside, if LE takes this to far then rumors begin to swirl around falsehoods and really muddies the waters. That is my concern for what would happen in this case and is still a HUGE concern. LE even admitted the rumors were to much to process.
I know this is not what you were getting at, but here is one case I found where the LE was caught lying during trial testimony in a drug case. This is farrrrr worse that what you were asking for, IMO, because this happened during a trial. Many other stories just like this as well.

An Exclusionary Rule for Police Lies
In July, 2008, two officers of the Los Angeles Police Department took an oath in
a criminal jury trial and testified that the defendant, who was charged with possessing
cocaine, had run from them before throwing a “black box,” which concealed both powder
and crack cocaine.
Normally, the officers’ testimony would have been sufficient to
convict the defendant. But this time the officers’ testimony fell short. Unknown to the
police, the whole incident had been captured on a grainy video from a surveillance
camera mounted on a nearby apartment building.
The video, which the defendant’s lawyer produced for the first time at trial, “sharply contradicted the testimony of the two police officers.”
As a result of the tape, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the case, and
the judge agreed.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewco...&sei-redir=1#search="cases where police lied"

And here is what you were getting at!
Jerome H. Skolnick, author of Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society, is Professor of Law and Director of the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley.

(1997 note: Professor Skolnick is currently Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Co-Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice.)

Deception by police- Jerome H. Skolnick
Whatever the answer to that question--if, indeed, an answer be formulated--it has to be measured against a hard reality of the criminal justice system. That reality is: Deception is considered by police--and courts as well--to be as natural to detecting as pouncing is to a cat. As we shall see, that is why it is so difficult both to control deceptive practices of detectives and to prescribe long-term measures to guarantee control.

The Stages of Detecting
Deception occurs at three stages of the detecting process: investigation, interrogation, and testimony. If we place these three stages within the framework of a broad portrait of the moral cognition of the policeman, we observe that the acceptability of deception varies inversely with the level of the criminal process. Thus, deception is most acceptable to police-- as it is to the courts -- at the investigation stage, less acceptable during interrogation, and least acceptable in the courtroom.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/cje/html/sample1.html

 

[cocomod]

I just caught up from the most recent posts.

First - I need to say that it appears that the Examiner article written by Isabelle was later confirmed by the interview with MSM. I must say that I do post links to her articles because I know her. I have talked to her throughout this case; and I truly believe that Isabelle is not like all Examiner writers and is certainly not like Gather writers. I have talked to her as she was talking to and emailing with Kristin Helm (the spokesman for the TBI). I know for a fact that Isabelle has not reported many things that have been given to her until she verified it with LE or received permission from the family. I guess the family finally gave permission. She doesn't always say her sources, but they are always locals or someone close to the family. She likes to be an honest investigative reporter; not just a blogger. ... Stepping down off my soap box. (sorry )

Second - regarding the 911 calls. Remember this law in Tennessee: http://www.newschannel9.com/articles/bill-1000479-senate-public.html

This is likely why the 911 calls have not been released. They are trying to start the banning now.

Third - :banghead::banghead::banghead: I can't imagine how frustrating it is for the Bobo family. To have the hindsight that LE is not going to solve her case and find Holly immediately. To know that she was in those woods and they were not allowed to help her. To know that NO effort was made to put up road blocks!! :banghead: I know that many here on WS commented on the lack of road blocks early on. Obviously, it seems like common sense to us; but LE did not follow through with this basic item that could have saved this young woman.

I cannot believe we are here today - and we do not know. Where is HOLLY?!!

 

[Carla Lashelle]

This is the most convoluted bunch of __________________ I have evrer seen. Honestly, the more I hear from the Bobos, the more I believe them, although I wonder why it took them 3 months to say something they should have said within oh, say, 3 days. I never had a bad feeling toward them in this case but have sure been confused and puzzled by their protracted silence. As for LE... I don't know. Its like someone somewhere just made up the whole story of what happened without talking to the ONE eyewitness. How on earth did they get not only ONE incorrect story, but seemingly half a dozen. Carport, woods, driveway, walked, dragged, led, in fear for her life, boyfrined, camo guy, tall fat camo guy, pools of blood, flecks of blood, a small amount of blood, blood on the yard, a spilled coke can (did the coke mix in with the blood?) etc etc etc.

Now to my original question earlier... if the pool is roughly to the west of the house then North is not this bit wild deep woods but what 50-75 yards to the road which angles north-west to the side and above the house. A car could have been parked there quite easily and to anyone driving by on the main road it would look like perhaps a disabled vehicle. Also. this direction is probably the easiest way to go if he got her from the driveway in front of the house (East) where at least some reports say her car was parked.

 

[BeanE]

No I cannot think of a case offhand where LE admitted they lied during the course of an investigation, that is not the kind of thing LE broadcasts. But I would venture to say they twist the truth to suit their own purposes in every investigation that LE has ever done and will ever do. In HB case for example, maybe the perp has no idea CB caught a glimpse of him and LE shared that info to rattle his cage. Maybe CB didn't see anything, either way it would worry a perp to think they were spotted when they were not aware of it. These kinds of lies, not the sky is purple and pink when we know it is blue type of lies. On the flipside, if LE takes this to far then rumors begin to swirl around falsehoods and really muddies the waters. That is my concern for what would happen in this case and is still a HUGE concern. LE even admitted the rumors were to much to process.
I know this is not what you were getting at, but here is one case I found where the LE was caught lying during trial testimony in a drug case. This is farrrrr worse that what you were asking for, IMO, because this happened during a trial. Many other stories just like this as well.

An Exclusionary Rule for Police Lies
In July, 2008, two officers of the Los Angeles Police Department took an oath in
a criminal jury trial and testified that the defendant, who was charged with possessing
cocaine, had run from them before throwing a “black box,” which concealed both powder
and crack cocaine.
Normally, the officers’ testimony would have been sufficient to
convict the defendant. But this time the officers’ testimony fell short. Unknown to the
police, the whole incident had been captured on a grainy video from a surveillance
camera mounted on a nearby apartment building.
The video, which the defendant’s lawyer produced for the first time at trial, “sharply contradicted the testimony of the two police officers.”
As a result of the tape, the prosecutor moved to dismiss the case, and
the judge agreed.
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewco...&sei-redir=1#search="cases where police lied"

And here is what you were getting at!
Jerome H. Skolnick, author of Justice without Trial: Law Enforcement in a Democratic Society, is Professor of Law and Director of the Center for the Study of Law and Society at the University of California, Berkeley.

(1997 note: Professor Skolnick is currently Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University Law School, and Co-Director of the Center for Research in Crime and Justice.)

Deception by police- Jerome H. Skolnick
Whatever the answer to that question--if, indeed, an answer be formulated--it has to be measured against a hard reality of the criminal justice system. That reality is: Deception is considered by police--and courts as well--to be as natural to detecting as pouncing is to a cat. As we shall see, that is why it is so difficult both to control deceptive practices of detectives and to prescribe long-term measures to guarantee control.

The Stages of Detecting
Deception occurs at three stages of the detecting process: investigation, interrogation, and testimony. If we place these three stages within the framework of a broad portrait of the moral cognition of the policeman, we observe that the acceptability of deception varies inversely with the level of the criminal process. Thus, deception is most acceptable to police-- as it is to the courts -- at the investigation stage, less acceptable during interrogation, and least acceptable in the courtroom.
http://www.lib.jjay.cuny.edu/cje/html/sample1.html

Neither of those is what I was getting at.

You were talking about LE lying to the public via the media about missing person cases, and I was responding to that.

Neither of those address that.

LE is permitted, via a Supreme Court ruling, to lie in the course of an investigation - to those they question in relation to that investigation. That's what your second citation appears to be addressing. I see nothing in it about LE lying to the public at large.

 

[cluciano63]

This is one case that I do believe LE messed up early and could never get back on track. I am all about LE for the most part, but this case has never sounded right, I never believed they knew more than they were saying or that they were "one clue away" from solving it anymore than any case is always one clue away. As long as that clue happens to be the one with the answer. I think Holly was long gone in an unknown vehicle before any LE even showed up and possibly out of the state or county. She could be anywhere.

Wasn't her phone (top secret find on Easter) found near access to an interstate? I seem to remember that from some article. But of course, media has been all over the place on this case.

 

[~n/t~]

This is one case that I do believe LE messed up early and could never get back on track. I am all about LE for the most part, but this case has never sounded right, I never believed they knew more than they were saying or that they were "one clue away" from solving it anymore than any case is always one clue away. As long as that clue happens to be the one with the answer. I think Holly was long gone in an unknown vehicle before any LE even showed up and possibly out of the state or county. She could be anywhere.

Wasn't her phone (top secret find on Easter) found near access to an interstate? I seem to remember that from some article. But of course, media has been all over the place on this case.

I've always felt they had tunnel vision from the very beginning.

 

[shefner]

I've always felt they had tunnel vision from the very beginning.

Where was the tunnel leading?

 

[~n/t~]

Where was the tunnel leading?

I think they made some huge mistakes from the very beginning.

1) Not clearing family members and BF from the start.

2) Convinced it was a local.

3) Allowed the public to trample on potential crime scene.

4) Searches were done by anyone. Unorganized.

5) I don't recall an Amber Alert being issued.


IMO, they had their eyes set on a local, perhaps a sex offender and when their investigation proved wrong, they were/are now left with having to deal with the consequences. Over 3 months later, they're back to square one.

IMO

 

[shefner]

I think they made some huge mistakes from the very beginning.

1) Not clearing family members and BF from the start.

2) Convinced it was a local.

3) Allowed the public to trample on potential crime scene.

4) Searches were done by anyone. Unorganized.

5) I don't recall an Amber Alert being issued.


IMO, they had their eyes set on a local, perhaps a sex offender and when their investigation proved wrong, they were/are now left with having to deal with the consequences. Over 3 months later, they're back to square one.

IMO

There were some mistakes, thats for sure. But I think we all agreed the Amber Alert would not apply to Holly since she is not a minor.

 

[Frogzilla]

Neither of those is what I was getting at.

You were talking about LE lying to the public via the media about missing person cases, and I was responding to that.

Neither of those address that.

LE is permitted, via a Supreme Court ruling, to lie in the course of an investigation - to those they question in relation to that investigation. That's what your second citation appears to be addressing. I see nothing in it about LE lying to the public at large.

I have shared an article that is all about encouraging LE to be deceitful, maybe there is not a specific example of that article that relates to the media, but in the end it is the same. The media is a tool for LE, not somebody they have to answer to. I would like to add that the government (political) and media will also twist the truth on their own if it suits their needs as well. LE has given multiple accounts of the that day already, is that not enough to feel there is deception at work? You would rather believe TBI and local LE are barney fife's who cannot handle the task assigned to them and that the family being so devastated they cannot relay to LE any helpful information vs. people involved twisting the truth to serve a purpose? Just an honest question.

I don't want to link to a bunch of random websites, so search for "Police misinformation media" and see what you think about some of the articles. It's hard to sift through it all and you may have to browse several pages to find more relevant articles. Also, since LE doesn't feed media information about their own misinformation, it is hard to find specific examples. LOL

 

[cluciano63]

There were some mistakes, thats for sure. But I think we all agreed the Amber Alert would not apply to Holly since she is not a minor.

Even more so without a vehicle...what could they say, look out for a blond girl in a moving...vehicle of any type? Imagine fielding those calls...that is why a vehicle description is so important in Amber Alerts...

 

[wishuwerehere]

So - it seems to come down to this:

The perp is one of three types:

1) A family member or close friend of the family.

2) A complete stranger who just happens to randomly come across Holly while he/she is hunting in the woods, and decides to abduct her because of convenience.

OR

3) Someone who knows of her (acquaintance) and plans an attack and abduction - right place and right time of their choosing.

I believe it's #3 - because she wasn't found in the woods near her home. Does this make any sense to anyone else?

 

[mag84]

I'm pretty much new here, although have followed this closely long before joining and posting. I hope Im not out of line, but I've always felt LE dropped the ball from the beginning, and my gut feeling is the silence is because they don't, and never did, have a clue, in this case. I have a best friend who is LE, I do not bash LE, although I do feed them well (long story re grill on balcony that isn't supposed to be there), but this whole thing has never seemed right imo and no matter how many times people say LE withholds info for the benefit of the case, I think they have no info to share in this one, even if hey wanted to. Sigh. I hope I'm wrong, but 3+ months of how many different versions of the story? I feel so sorry for Holly. I'm not sure what else to say without getting in trouble here.

 

[Eileen730]

The thing is, for me, Frog, I just don't know of any missing person cases - or murder cases for that matter - where misinformation was deliberately propagated by LE. Every case I know of, LE simply doesn't release any information about a particular subject ("No comment") in hopes of catching slip ups.

My understanding is that the reason LE doesn't deliberately issue false information is because they have an obligation to uphold the public trust. Lying to the public, particularly via media, which can go national, would be a sure way to erode that trust, and abdicate their responsibility.

Do you know of any missing person or murder cases where LE has come back later and stated that they had deliberately issued false statements as a strategy?

I dont think i have ever seen a case where LE lied. I cant imagine them issuing
false statements. INot even as a strategy!
I dont understand what is going on at all, most confusing case i have ever
heard of!

 

[wishuwerehere]

I'm going to go out on a short limb here.

I ask myself WHY is this case so confusing. Is it because the eyewitness testimony has changed and is unreliable for some reason. (This does not seem to be out of the ordinary. There are no perfect eyewitnesses.)

Is it because LE is/was shortsighted w/their leads.

Or is it because someone is driving this investigation into a ditch?

 

[Frogzilla]

I'm pretty much new here, although have followed this closely long before joining and posting. I hope Im not out of line, but I've always felt LE dropped the ball from the beginning, and my gut feeling is the silence is because they don't, and never did, have a clue, in this case. I have a best friend who is LE, I do not bash LE, although I do feed them well (long story re grill on balcony that isn't supposed to be there), but this whole thing has never seemed right imo and no matter how many times people say LE withholds info for the benefit of the case, I think they have no info to share in this one, even if hey wanted to. Sigh. I hope I'm wrong, but 3+ months of how many different versions of the story? I feel so sorry for Holly. I'm not sure what else to say without getting in trouble here.

Without knowing where HB is located, they are at a stand still. Period. Only they know what they know and they have done quite the job of muddying the waters, regardless if anyone wants to believe "tactics" or not. 100% feel the frustration though.

 

[curiousc]

I'm going to go out on a short limb here.

I ask myself WHY is this case so confusing. Is it because the eyewitness testimony has changed and is unreliable for some reason. (This does not seem to be out of the ordinary. There are no perfect eyewitnesses.)

Is it because LE is/was shortsighted w/their leads.

Or is it because someone is driving this investigation into a ditch?

You know, I've had a feeling for awhile that it's the last reason you stated. Something is not right here!