Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo- Sept 15 & 16, 2017

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
About the Clint deal and Autry saying that Zach told him he was going to the Bobo's to show Clint how to make meth...

While Autry seemed believable, and we may not doubt that is what Zach told him (albeit still heresay, Autry was pretty believable)....Zach of course could have lied to Autry.

And that's what people protective of Clint may be thinking.

I want to think Clint is just a quiet country boy, that had nothing to do with any type of drug, and just had a slightly slowed response time due to sleeping, morning wake up, disorientation truly thinking it was Drew etc...and just not realizing it until it was too late.

But it is still info on the case that doesn't go with the narrative that has been given to us thus far.

And the most reliable witness thus far that has taken the stand is Autry, who communicated this info.

So even if it is Zach lying...I'm wondering what is Zach's motivation to lie about it to Autry at that point in the game? He could have lied for a myriad of reasons, he is a psychopath no doubt. This fact is not lost on me.

But when I question this, or any of us question this, please don't take it as "we are out to get the Bobos or Clint". Nothing could be further than the truth.

But we are here, collectively, to find the truth. And if there is any ounce of truth to Clint having any expectation that someone was coming over, even if it was drug-related but not "making meth" related, it does bear to be discussed.

Regardless, Clint didn't ask for this...he may have been lured into thinking Zach might stop by sometime for a drug deal, even if it wasn't "making meth".....just as a part of Zach's twisted ways to get to Holly.

I don't believe for a second that Clint meant for this to happen to his sister. No matter how you shake it, I feel for his guilt being the last person to see her and wishing he had done more.

Understanding this disturbing info would just bring us closer to the truth, that's all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
And can anyone tell me WHY those pink panties were introduced as evidence when they did NOT belong to Holly?!?!?!?! I think most people realize potential evidence is collected during an investigation that later are determined NOT to be part of the crime, but those pieces aren't usually in the trial!
 
2Hope4 said:
And can anyone tell me WHY those pink panties were introduced as evidence when they did NOT belong to Holly?!?!?!?! I think most people realize potential evidence is collected during an investigation that later are determined NOT to be part of the crime, but those pieces aren't usually in the trial!
Click to expand...

Very strange. Like a crazy plot twist you did not see coming. They made such a big deal of them at the beginning.

But knowing there are 200 more pieces of evidence and weeks to go in this trial, it makes me think that the DNA found on those panties must be tied to some witness that will take the stand in the future? Otherwise, the prosecution wouldn't have brought them in, right?

Or maybe since the same guy who found them also found the piece of paper with her name and address on it, maybe he just had to tell his whole story about what and how he found it and where. And that piece of paper and Shayne Autry's house location is a pretty big deal to the story regardless of the panties. That's all I can think of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
When I was reading prior threads yesterday, I noticed there was media reports that the neighbor and his mother were living there, and the mother came to the Bobo house, but that's not what I heard in trial. I thought the neighbor siad his mother wasn't living there then...
 
Just to confirm, is there trial scheduled for the weekend?

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
 
katydid23 said:
Some of the tweets are unnecessarily critical. One said ' so the gun had no blood or prints and 2 bullets gone, and the victim only shot once?'

The gun was found years later, buried in a muddy swamp---how is there going to be blood evidence? And why wouldn't to have been shot after the murder? 2 bullets missing mean nothing...
Click to expand...
There was blood, size of orange, already on Holly, according to JA. Then he testified that ZA shot her. IMO that could mean ZA maybe shot her earlier and thought she was dead.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
 
I am wondering if the state wanted to just put it out there that there were pink panties, found and tested, and not having Holly's DNA---because the defense was going to ask about those anyway.

So now they can say they didn't hide the fact, they already admitted to it?
 
I'm trying to follow along....even going back and rewatching testimony

... NOT THE MAPS!... but I feel so lost, I can't imagine how the jury is feeling.

Yesterday I saw a media report in the earlier threads that the attorney was being private paid, but had told the courts he couldn't pay anymore. So I don't know if public or private pay now.
 
katydid23 said:
Some of the tweets are unnecessarily critical. One said ' so the gun had no blood or prints and 2 bullets gone, and the victim only shot once?'

The gun was found years later, buried in a muddy swamp---how is there going to be blood evidence? And why wouldn't to have been shot after the murder? 2 bullets missing mean nothing...
Click to expand...

Agree completely. Irrelevant! ZA could have done another shot in the air randomly at another time. Or Shayne could have after the fact. Who knows. Who cares.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
lonetraveler said:
There was blood, size of orange, already on Holly, according to JA. Then he testified that ZA shot her. IMO that could mean ZA maybe shot her earlier and thought she was dead.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

There were no reports of gunshots, although some did hear screaming.
 
2Hope4 said:
And can anyone tell me WHY those pink panties were introduced as evidence when they did NOT belong to Holly?!?!?!?! I think most people realize potential evidence is collected during an investigation that later are determined NOT to be part of the crime, but those pieces aren't usually in the trial!
Click to expand...

Sometimes items taken or found during the course of an investigation are shown in court. I've seen it in a few cases I've followed. It shows the jury that items of potential evidence were collected and tested. It demonstrates they were collecting everything they found. It demonstrates that if someone in the community found a potential item of evidence, police took it seriously, collected it and sent it to the lab for testing. Without testing no one could know whether the item was ultimately tied to a victim or not.

In one spousal murder case in my area, the state brought in item after item collected from the couple's home. None of those items ended up having any connection or evidence on them from the murder, but they marched in those items nonetheless, and entered them into evidence. (throw rugs, lamps, other items). Sometimes this is done to thwart any defense attempt to suggest to the jury that items weren't collected and tested or police ignored things they shouldn't have ignored. This cuts that argument off at the knees.
 
In and out for most of the day. Can anyone yell what hollys mom lied about and why she lied. Thanks

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 
Ellej said:
About the Clint deal and Autry saying that Zach told him he was going to the Bobo's to show Clint how to make meth...

While Autry seemed believable, and we may not doubt that is what Zach told him (albeit still heresay, Autry was pretty believable)....Zach of course could have lied to Autry.

And that's what people protective of Clint may be thinking.

I want to think Clint is just a quiet country boy, that had nothing to do with any type of drug, and just had a slightly slowed response time due to sleeping, morning wake up, disorientation truly thinking it was Drew etc...and just not realizing it until it was too late.

But it is still info on the case that doesn't go with the narrative that has been given to us thus far.

And the most reliable witness thus far that has taken the stand is Autry, who communicated this info.

So even if it is Zach lying...I'm wondering what is Zach's motivation to lie about it to Autry at that point in the game? He could have lied for a myriad of reasons, he is a psychopath no doubt. This fact is not lost on me.

But when I question this, or any of us question this, please don't take it as "we are out to get the Bobos or Clint". Nothing could be further than the truth.

But we are here, collectively, to find the truth. And if there is any ounce of truth to Clint having any expectation that someone was coming over, even if it was drug-related but not "making meth" related, it does bear to be discussed.

Regardless, Clint didn't ask for this...he may have been lured into thinking Zach might stop by sometime for a drug deal, even if it wasn't "making meth".....just as a part of Zach's twisted ways to get to Holly.

I don't believe for a second that Clint meant for this to happen to his sister. No matter how you shake it, I feel for his guilt being the last person to see her and wishing he had done more.

Understanding this disturbing info would just bring us closer to the truth, that's all.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Great post and clarity on keeping an open mind on how this horrendous crime could have unfolded.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
 
Ellej said:
Very strange. Like a crazy plot twist you did not see coming. They made such a big deal of them at the beginning.

But knowing there are 200 more pieces of evidence and weeks to go in this trial, it makes me think that the DNA found on those panties must be tied to some witness that will take the stand in the future? Otherwise, the prosecution wouldn't have brought them in, right?

Or maybe since the same guy who found them also found the piece of paper with her name and address on it, maybe he just had to tell his whole story about what and how he found it and where. And that piece of paper and Shayne Autry's house location is a pretty big deal to the story regardless of the panties. That's all I can think of.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

The panties must be connected to another witness it seems but who?
 
2Hope4 said:
And can anyone tell me WHY those pink panties were introduced as evidence when they did NOT belong to Holly?!?!?!?! I think most people realize potential evidence is collected during an investigation that later are determined NOT to be part of the crime, but those pieces aren't usually in the trial!
Click to expand...
Just speculation on my part here but maybe the DNA was a match to someone connected to the men charged with the crime or maybe there was DNA on the panties matching one of the suspects.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
 
Holly's age when disappeared
 
[video=twitter;908801280478519298]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/908801280478519298[/video]
[video=twitter;908791744262787073]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/908791744262787073[/video]
[video=twitter;908801776165453824]https://twitter.com/LeahBethFOX13/status/908801776165453824[/video]

PS: Just a few more tweets.... apologies if they've already been posted!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 151 more.
Total: 2,532 (members: 152, guests: 2,380)

Online statistics

Members online
152
Guests online
2,380
Total visitors
2,532
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,778
Messages
18,162,977
Members
231,860
Latest member
CamSoup
Back
Top