TN - Holly Bobo, 20, Darden; believed abducted 13 April 2011 - #35

[masootz]

devil's advocate - i don't think it's 21. with no body her family doesn't know for sure that she's dead and i can't see them having a pretty good idea of who did it and keeping quiet about it. you'd at least be hearing "person of interest" type chatter and you'd also likely have le asking more focused questions of the public. i really think all parties still have zero clue what happened to her.

 

[~n/t~]

Again, I think the clues are there.

Assuming her flip flops and purse are still missing and all other items were disposed of.

1) Why would the perp allow her to keep her shoes on? Flip flops. I'm guessing it's not easy walking in the woods with flip flops especially if your life is in danger.

2) Why would the perp let her keep the purse? (Again assuming the purse is still unaccounted for?)


He got rid of her cell, lunch bag and alleged school books/papers.


He did allow her to carry all those items until a certain point.


:moo:

 

[reedus23]

With Karens extremely quick reaction, I suspect the family, 1 or all members had been threatened prior. Once Clint told Karen that holly had been taken out to the woods with drew, karen, faster than a bullet knew holly was in danger!
Jmo

I thought she knew she was in danger because at that point, she was the one with the most information. She knew that there had been screams heard, she knew Holly should be at school and she knew Drew couldn't be there. If I heard all that information leading up to being told "Drew" was taking my daughter into the woods, I think I'd freak out too and probably do 100 m.p.h. all the way home. Hell, I do 80 m.p.h. home just because she doesn't answer the phone just to get home and find she was sleeping.

Clint was aware a male was walking Holly into the woods but he wasn't aware of the screams. He wasn't aware Drew couldn't be there because he was on the other side of the County. He wasn't even sure if Holly had school that day. So he had no reason to panic any earlier.

The neighbor was aware screams were heard but had no idea of the rest, so their reaction (calling Karen) was pretty reasonable.

I'm not saying they didn't have prior threats, but I also think Karen's reaction and reaction time are pretty reasonable even if there were no previous threats.

 

[reedus23]

I agree. I have tried to put myself in Karen's position, receiving a phone call that there was a scream at my house. There are a lot of scenarios associated with a scream that are not an abduction.

Feel free to add one.

1. An accident of some sort where someone is injured.
2. Startled by some kind of animal, skunk, rat, etc.
3. ?

Did Karen fall to her knees with the news of the scream or was it
after Clint said Holly was with Drew?

It was after Clint said Drew was walking her to the woods. She didn't freak out when she heard about the screams. She became a worried when, already knowing about the screams, she was told Holly's car was still there. She didn't freak out until, after knowing all of that, she was told "Drew" was walking Holly into the woods, when she also knew at that point that "Drew" could not physically be at their house. I think her reaction to just the scream was to tell the secretary to call the neighbor back and ask her to check to make sure everything was ok and also called Clint to make sure everything was ok. At that point, Clint told her Holly's car was still there, creating some concern. So I think her initial reaction coincides with your thoughts, she took steps to find out what it was...whether an accident, startled by a skunk or anything else.

 

[reedus23]

devil's advocate - i don't think it's 21. with no body her family doesn't know for sure that she's dead and i can't see them having a pretty good idea of who did it and keeping quiet about it. you'd at least be hearing "person of interest" type chatter and you'd also likely have le asking more focused questions of the public. i really think all parties still have zero clue what happened to her.

I think they have a pretty good idea today who was involved. The problem is that yesterday and tomorrow, they're probably like many of us here and that name probably changes, meaning you are probably right, they probably have zero idea of what happened. I think if they were confident about who it was, you may not hear a specific name mentioned but you'd hear comments about RSO's in general or drugs in general or something like that.

 

[reedus23]

Again, I think the clues are there.

Assuming her flip flops and purse are still missing and all other items were disposed of.

1) Why would the perp allow her to keep her shoes on? Flip flops. I'm guessing it's not easy walking in the woods with flip flops especially if your life is in danger.

2) Why would the perp let her keep the purse? (Again assuming the purse is still unaccounted for?)


He got rid of her cell, lunch bag and alleged school books/papers.


He did allow her to carry all those items until a certain point.


:moo:

First, just because they haven't been found doesn't mean he let her keep them. Likely he discarded them too but they just haven't been found.

What I do find interesting is why he had her carrying all that stuff in the first place. The only answer I can come up with is to leave as little evidence of an abduction behind as possible hoping to stall raising red flags that something bad happened thereby giving him more time to make his escape. I know I wondered the same thing in Mickey Shunick's case as to why the perp took her bike and the only reason I could think is because if he leaves it and someone sees it immediately, a search would begin that much faster. In this case, if someone sees her purse or her books laying there, they'll know immediately something is wrong and the searches will begin immediately. So in the perp's mind, not knowing anyone was home, he doesn't want to leave anything behind so that it would hopefully take longer for someone to realize Holly was taken so he can get further away. JMHO

 

[lilsleuth]

First, just because they haven't been found doesn't mean he let her keep them. Likely he discarded them too but they just haven't been found.

What I do find interesting is why he had her carrying all that stuff in the first place. The only answer I can come up with is to leave as little evidence of an abduction behind as possible hoping to stall raising red flags that something bad happened thereby giving him more time to make his escape. I know I wondered the same thing in Mickey Shunick's case as to why the perp took her bike and the only reason I could think is because if he leaves it and someone sees it immediately, a search would begin that much faster. In this case, if someone sees her purse or her books laying there, they'll know immediately something is wrong and the searches will begin immediately. So in the perp's mind, not knowing anyone was home, he doesn't want to leave anything behind so that it would hopefully take longer for someone to realize Holly was taken so he can get further away. JMHO

Most criminals, I would think, want to cover their tracks completely by not leaving anything behind so allowing her to keep her things didn't surprise me. What does make me wonder is the placing of them items after the fact. It wouldn't take a genius to figure out that LE would be searching the area for clues. Perhaps it was done on purpose. Maybe some sort of calling card? He may have wanted these particular items found for a reason.

On the issue of whether LE knows the perp: This may be possible and what gave away the clues to me is the releasing of her schedule after all this time. They may be trying to place a person at the scene or around Holly, possibly needing witnesses, because they could be trying to build a circumstantial case. Who knows but it seems logical.

 

[~n/t~]

First, just because they haven't been found doesn't mean he let her keep them. Likely he discarded them too but they just haven't been found.

What I do find interesting is why he had her carrying all that stuff in the first place. The only answer I can come up with is to leave as little evidence of an abduction behind as possible hoping to stall raising red flags that something bad happened thereby giving him more time to make his escape. I know I wondered the same thing in Mickey Shunick's case as to why the perp took her bike and the only reason I could think is because if he leaves it and someone sees it immediately, a search would begin that much faster. In this case, if someone sees her purse or her books laying there, they'll know immediately something is wrong and the searches will begin immediately. So in the perp's mind, not knowing anyone was home, he doesn't want to leave anything behind so that it would hopefully take longer for someone to realize Holly was taken so he can get further away. JMHO

Discarded them a little at a time? Somewhere else? Here and there? Why?

 

[Plumeria5]

First, just because they haven't been found doesn't mean he let her keep them. Likely he discarded them too but they just haven't been found.

What I do find interesting is why he had her carrying all that stuff in the first place. The only answer I can come up with is to leave as little evidence of an abduction behind as possible hoping to stall raising red flags that something bad happened thereby giving him more time to make his escape. I know I wondered the same thing in Mickey Shunick's case as to why the perp took her bike and the only reason I could think is because if he leaves it and someone sees it immediately, a search would begin that much faster. In this case, if someone sees her purse or her books laying there, they'll know immediately something is wrong and the searches will begin immediately. So in the perp's mind, not knowing anyone was home, he doesn't want to leave anything behind so that it would hopefully take longer for someone to realize Holly was taken so he can get further away. JMHO

I was also thinking that he may have feared his fingerprints, dna, etc...may have gotten on some of Holly's things in the struggle.

 

[Plumeria5]

Discarded them a little at a time? Somewhere else? Here and there? Why?

That screams local to me but it contradicts my thoughts of dna left on them. How could he feel sure he had cleaned them well enough that he didn't leave something that could be traced back to him? Why was it worth the risk to leave them somewhere they could be found. He could have burned them or buried them.

 

[wfgodot]

We've heard for decades that "the perpetrator leaves a part of himself at the crime scene." Does anyone thing this perp left anything, and, if so, that LE found it but it's "under wraps"? (Which it should be unless something the public could utilize to help the case.)

 

[wfgodot]

With Karens extremely quick reaction, I suspect the family, 1 or all members had been threatened prior. Once Clint told Karen that holly had been taken out to the woods with drew, karen, faster than a bullet knew holly was in danger!
Jmo

Me too.

 

[EnBrown]

First, just because they haven't been found doesn't mean he let her keep them. Likely he discarded them too but they just haven't been found.

What I do find interesting is why he had her carrying all that stuff in the first place. The only answer I can come up with is to leave as little evidence of an abduction behind as possible hoping to stall raising red flags that something bad happened thereby giving him more time to make his escape. I know I wondered the same thing in Mickey Shunick's case as to why the perp took her bike and the only reason I could think is because if he leaves it and someone sees it immediately, a search would begin that much faster. In this case, if someone sees her purse or her books laying there, they'll know immediately something is wrong and the searches will begin immediately. So in the perp's mind, not knowing anyone was home, he doesn't want to leave anything behind so that it would hopefully take longer for someone to realize Holly was taken so he can get further away. JMHO

I thought he let her take those items because he wanted her to think she wouldnt be gone long. Or, he wasn't sure how long he would keep her. If he's so experienced then why did he leave the soda can behind? Thoughts?

 

[wfgodot]

I thought he let her take those items because he wanted her to think she wouldnt be gone long. Or, he wasn't sure how long he would keep her. If he's so experienced then why did he leave the soda can behind? Thoughts?

Everything screams, "unorganized perpetrator" - well, until the time he escorted her into the woods.

 

[~n/t~]

We've heard for decades that "the perpetrator leaves a part of himself at the crime scene." Does anyone thing this perp left anything, and, if so, that LE found it but it's "under wraps"? (Which it should be unless something the public could utilize to help the case.)

You mean his own lunch bag?

Sorry couldn't resist.




I'll go sit in my corner nowresent:

 

[wfgodot]

You mean his own lunch bag?

Sorry couldn't resist.




I'll go sit in my corner nowresent:

His would have been called a lunch tote.

 

[lilsleuth]

Everything screams, "unorganized perpetrator" - well, until the time he escorted her into the woods.

Could be possible he is both.

Organized offenders tend to be high in the birth order of their family, usually an oldest child. They are very intelligent, and usually have their lives together, but a series of stressful situations caused them to act out. Most of them have a live-in partner, are socially adept, and will follow the coverage of their crimes in the media very carefully.

A spontaneous offense is often the work of a disorganized offender. He will often depersonalize the victim, to make the crime less real and allowing him to remain detached throughout the course of the crime. There is very little conversation, if any, between the offender and victim, and the crime scene has a random and sloppy feel to it. Criminal profiling makes it possible to draw a lot of conclusions about this offender, too. Disorganized offenders are often of average or slightly below-average intelligence. They are younger children, live alone, and are not as socially mature as an organized offender. They often live or work near the scene of the crime, and have a poor work history.

A mixed offender is harder to use criminal profiling for, but it is still possible. The crime scene combines characteristics of both organized and disorganized offenders. For example, the offender may have provided his own tools, but picked a victim randomly. The profile of a mixed offender may not be as accurate as other profiles, giving police less to go on.

 

[EnBrown]

Been thinking more about ex-boyfriend LB. Where was he that morning?

 

[reedus23]

We've heard for decades that "the perpetrator leaves a part of himself at the crime scene." Does anyone thing this perp left anything, and, if so, that LE found it but it's "under wraps"? (Which it should be unless something the public could utilize to help the case.)

I think the most obvious thing he left behind got destroyed because of LE's lack of control over the crime scene. Given the composition of the parking area and the area leading to the woods, I would put money on it that there were usable footprints left behind but once 100 people are walking all over the place they become useless.

 

[reedus23]

I thought he let her take those items because he wanted her to think she wouldnt be gone long. Or, he wasn't sure how long he would keep her. If he's so experienced then why did he leave the soda can behind? Thoughts?

Not wanting her to think she would be gone long sounds as if he is coaxing her into the woods. To me, the presence of blood contradicts any coaxing. The first thing that jumps out at me is that a soda can being present isn't necessarily going to cause alarms to go off like her purse or phone or books would. It could also be that he simply didn't notice it, wasn't worried about it because he never touched it, was already loaded down with stuff to carry. Just some random thoughts on the coke can.