Emi
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2012
- Messages
- 10,616
- Reaction score
- 48,820
https://docs.google.com/document/d/15ss8brprmsSM--sLqw3ZZVPxsMw_pZ2jz9-rXb52Gtc/edit#
so far I have these down
so far I have these down
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!
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.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...
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...
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
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!
Yes half day tomorrow.Just to confirm, is there trial scheduled for the weekend?
Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
Great post and clarity on keeping an open mind on how this horrendous crime could have unfolded.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
[video=twitter;908789560099971073]https://twitter.com/FOX13Memphis/status/908789560099971073[/video]Just to confirm, is there trial scheduled for the weekend?
Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk
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
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.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!