Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo Sept 20 & 21, 2017

[Mightymight]

Looking at the timeline there was not enough time that day for the men to dismember her. The prosecutor has vaguely alluded several times that she was abducted at 7:45am when his cell phone expert pointed out in court that at 7:53am and 8:09am Holly's phone connects to towers close to home. (time stamp 35m40s on video part 1- queued in the link)

https://youtu.be/gDykth_8QDc?t=35m43s

Her phone is traveling and moving at 8:17am and is pinging off a tower in the area where Zach lived at 8:17am. Autry arrives at 8:55am. Records show that they departed for the Birdsong area shortly thereafter. There was not enough time that day for a gang rape and dismemberment. I suppose the men could have returned on a different day. However, the state mentioned that Holly was drugged then did not provide proof. I think had there been a dismemberment it would have been asserted by the state when presenting the information about the skeletal remains. Instead they presented information about the wolf dens.

I don’t believe the State has shown she was dismembered that morning. I believe in closing they will say she was kidnapped, raped, and killed in the first couple hours. Later (that night through the next couple days) she was dismembered and disposed.

Also something to remember, there is much more evidence that what is allowed to be presented at trial due to various evidentiary rules. I think they have presented enough to get a guilty verdict. I hope Dylan goes to trial so they can get his statements in where they won’t be hearsay. He has told LE a ton of stuff that has been validated. I think what comes out at Dylan’s trial will be eye opening for many.

I’m still convinced there is a video that is disallowed in this trial due to hearsay rules. All it takes is for Dylan to be talking on the video and Dylan taking the 5th. If it exists it will come in at Dylan’s trial. I believe the video exists for various reasons. One of them was the FL cell mate that said there was a video right under LE’s nose and they couldn’t find it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Henry2326]

Exactly, the timeline is already tight so when did they dismember her and then drive around leaving in body parts all around Tennessee? On the other hand, the young man who said Zak told him they chopped her up was one of the more believable witnesses for the prosecution. Did he lie about Zak saying she was dismembered? Or did Zak lie when he told the witness that she was dismembered? Why would they lie about th at? If that part of the story is a lie, which other parts are lies? And should ZA be convicted on the basis of testimony that is full of lies?

The consistent theme that Zach told was "I did it". Frankly, With that comment I don't have to split hairs as to specifics. He laid the full burden on himself to multiple people. The totality of the evidence, and the number of people he talked to (who did not know each other) leads me to believe that he thought he got away with it and was bragging.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[Gardenista]

i am sure this happens but you don't have to be a troll on this one to see some doubt...all a question of whether it raises to reasonable...hopefully for the jurors it will not. Not having know one thing until last week about this case I have now learned how this whole case has almost a "cult " following with views all over the place. Love to sit in a cafe in the middle of Parsons or at a truck stop on the interstate near there and hear what they are saying!!

Haha, I knew a bit more than you--I'd knew her name, but knew nothing about the case until I binge watched it this week. I generally don't watch opening or closing statements, so I'm done which is good because I could not listen to one more minute of his attorney's screeching voice. Had to be a huge turn-off for the jury to be subjected to that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the doubt part.

 

[SteveS]

Why would you think he made it up? He reported what Zach told him. Nothing more.
Now, whether Zach was speaking truths is a whole nother
matter....

And that's the problem with the extensive "Zach said" testimony that this case rests on. There's really nothing else. And the fact that in places we can see it isn't reliable cuts both ways, because we can't cherry-pick the contradictions out and only accept what we like. And there are LOTS of contradictions (although whether the defense atty made that clear to the jury, to notice and remember, it's hard to say).

Without any primary evidence (DNA, fingerprints, clothing, hard objects, objective items and evidence to prove with some certainty he was here or there doing ANY OF this or that to tie him to any of it), then it's all a case of he-said she-said, which can be layered with untruths on TWO levels (ie, the witness be lying about ZA saying or doing such-and-such, or ZA could have been lying when claiming this or that happened ...or both). Just because ZA claimed he "did it" to HB, or claimed that he was the tough guy that was responsible for HB and you better fear him, doesn't mean he was telling the truth about any of it. He may have been playing off his reputation and using it to intimidate, knowing that no one would dare question him.

 

[Henry2326]

And that's the problem with the extensive "Zach said" testimony that this case rests on. There's really nothing else. And the fact that in places we can see it isn't reliable cuts both ways, because we can't cherry-pick the contradictions out and only accept what we like. Without any primary evidence (DNA, fingerprints, clothing, hard objects, objective items and evidence to prove with some certainty he was here or there doing ANY OF this or that to tie him to any of it), then it's all a case of he-said she-said, which can be layered with untruths on TWO levels (ie, the witness be lying about ZA saying or doing such-and-such, or ZA could have been lying when claiming this or that happened ...or both).

Do you believe he had nothing to do with this?

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[zencompass]

Good morning everyone,

Just want to say that I join others in greatly appreciating the compassion and generosity of time which Emi and other wonderful people contribute by posting the trial tweets.

Thank you so much!

 

[kodi]

Good morning, everyone. ☀️☕️⚖️

 

[maskedwoman]

I thought he was extremely professional. He tried to explain why the details weren't included in his report, but Nichols wouldn't hear it. Also, he was not investigating Terry Dicus. Terry Dicus was not under investigation.

I also think Terry Dicus was doing his job. There was extreme pressure on TBI to bring indictments. I think that Dicus's supv (can't remember his name) sacrificed Dicus rather than himself. Heads were going to roll and it was just a matter of whose. I was not impressed with his supervisor in the least. And just look how long it took to "solve" after Dicus was let go. Hmmmm...Oh yeah....it was even longer. Just my opinion.

I think Dicus was doing his job too. Just badly. And I thought his demeanor on the stand was appalling. Britt was an excellent suspect who clearly needed to be investigated, and they did that. The TBI admits they took his life apart and found nothing, but Dicus continued. He had been told to leave Britt alone, because there was not any evidence against him. Whether his alibi is "garbage" or not, is legally meaningless. Alibis, or lack there of are not an indicator of guilt. You still have to have evidence. Britt's been to prison several times and is apparently about to go back again so, clearly, he is no master criminal. But we do have quite a bit of evidence against the A-train. It's not great evidence, because of how the investigation was run, but it's evidence.

And I also was unhappy when I learned that the Marshall waited years to present his report on the visit to Britt. No wonder it was only 20 lines long. I think he just threw it together because he had to. And the excuse that he wasn't there to get testimonial evidence is bull hockey. So, he was there to induce him to talk or take a deal, but didn't expect testimonial evidence? Bull hockey again.

JMO
Jeanne

 

[Mightymight]

Can some of the reasonable doubters explain this one to me?

Cell mate said Zach said “they got no body, they got no gun.” This was said prior to the skull being found. Then when the skull was found, it had a bullet hole in it. If Zach was lying, how did he know the weapon was a gun?

Another person testified he said “I can’t clear my name, I’m too involved”

Another person testified he said “I was there for the worst of it.”

I can completely understand how a person in jail will say untrue stuff, but here we have multiple witnesses saying Zach provided details. He wasn’t just saying “it’s me.” He had specific details that were not publicly available at that time. How did he have those details if he didn’t do it or wasn’t there?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[maskedwoman]

I realize that this is a very unpopular opinion here, but I own it. I was convinced that Zack was guilty until Thompson started calling witnesses. I rather quickly became one with reasonable doubt. I'm not sure anyone on the jury would have reasonable doubt, especially seeing all of the opinions here, but I definitely have my doubts.

I say that's why there are 12 jurors instead of just one. Vigorous debate and juries protect us from becoming lynch mobs. I myself have some doubts about Autry's testimony, as I think it's very likely that he shot Holly himself. He clearly has NO respect for human life and no conscience either. The depravity in this group shocks me to my bones.

 

[Harmony 2]

above comment is referring to Cory Rivers who many of us find credible but apparently he talked about the dismemberment.

Thanks for the clarification. Cory Rivers reported what Zach stated to him. Zach could have been posturing to make an impression on Cory.

 

[2Hope4]

Good morning!! Think we'll have a verdict by the weekend? I mean look at how much time we've spent discussing this trial. I wonder if the jury will spend as much time?

 

[Niner]

Hey!

I don't know about a trial date but I was wondering if Dylan's and Jason Autry's trials would be live streamed too - I hope to watch those too

I've been keeping an eye out for Dylan's court date, but nothing has been announced yet. I'm going to assume they will let us know after this one is done; same with JA's trial.

snipped by me....
(I must admit, this never occurred to me until I read purely heresay that she was dismembered. Then I went back to look at the bones found. To me, this actually seems the only plausible thing. But no, not one person, unless it was today as I haven't seen it all yet, mentioned dismemberment in the trial.)

Well - when it was said that ZA said - paraphrasing - he particpated in the "worst part of it", but didn't kill her.... that's what I was thinking.... dismemberment???

Yes - that too Raymonde - what Corey Rivers said on the stand too!

n support of this theory, the skull and a small amount of bones were found beneath a bucket. And yes, no bones from the waist down. If animals didn't cover the skull with the bucket I really don't see any other way to interpret the reported testified to facts of skull beneath the bucket with no associated limbs

I believe you have that wrong - he testified that he saw a white bucket and went over to it - and then had an "eerie" feeling to turn around, and he did and saw the skull. I'm pretty sure that was he said - not that the skull was IN the bucket.
Someone can correct if I'm wrong....

K - I'm ready.... Does this start at 8:30am or 9am - thought I saw something saying it was changed from 8:30 to 9???

JUSTICE for HOLLY! :rose:


:judge:

 

[popsicle]

Haha, I knew a bit more than you--I'd knew her name, but knew nothing about the case until I binge watched it this week. I generally don't watch opening or closing statements, so I'm done which is good because I could not listen to one more minute of his attorney's screeching voice. Had to be a huge turn-off for the jury to be subjected to that.

We'll have to agree to disagree on the doubt part.

Opening is good to watch to see what they are going to prove during their CIC. Also fun to watch after all the evidence is in, to see where they failed.

Closing is a must because it sews together all the pieces of evidence presented during the trial. Closing tells the story with the evidence.

jmo

 

[Terrib11]

I read that the skull was under the bucket also. Can't remember where, but I'm lucky I know my own name half the time!

 

[Ellej]

Looking at the timeline there was not enough time that day for the men to dismember her. The prosecutor has vaguely alluded several times that she was abducted at 7:45am when his cell phone expert pointed out in court that at 7:53am and 8:09am Holly's phone connects to towers close to home. (time stamp 35m40s on video part 1- queued in the link)

https://youtu.be/gDykth_8QDc?t=35m43s

Her phone is traveling and moving at 8:17am and is pinging off a tower in the area where Zach lived at 8:17am. Autry arrives at 8:55am. Records show that they departed for the Birdsong area shortly thereafter. There was not enough time that day for a gang rape and dismemberment. I suppose the men could have returned on a different day. However, the state mentioned that Holly was drugged then did not provide proof. I think had there been a dismemberment it would have been asserted by the state when presenting the information about the skeletal remains. Instead they presented information about the wolf dens.

I think they returned then to dismember her. I do believe this happened.

I am not buying that animals hauled off her fingers, toes, ankle bone, kneecap, every single joint. Does not make sense.

The reason they didn't present dismemberment is it is more noise. Noise that can't be proved.

No tools found, who admitted to this? Probably none of them.

Prosecution is not going to chase something with no more physical evidence or witnesses to prove it.

They had to narrow the info to something that had enough witnesses to testify.

I will not be convinced that animals could be so meticulously "careful".




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[minor4th]

I was just listening to a local reporter on Lawnewz - and he said people in the community think Clint knows more than he has said. Not that he was involved, but he knows more. He said even the investigators and prosecutors believe that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

 

[Ellej]

Why would you think he made it up? He reported what Zach told him. Nothing more.
Now, whether Zach was speaking truths is a whole nother
matter....

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

Ah. I did not see all of Cory's testimony.

He brought it up. Ok this is news to me. I was bringing it up due to bones missing.

This actually makes even more sense.

So Cory said it in the trial.

And then this line in testimony that Zach said was, "I didn't kill her, but I did the worst of it."

Maybe the worst of it was exactly this.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Emi]

[video=twitter;910855920439250947]https://twitter.com/NC5_ChrisConte/status/910855920439250947[/video]

 

[maskedwoman]

Looking at the timeline there was not enough time that day for the men to dismember her. The prosecutor has vaguely alluded several times that she was abducted at 7:45am when his cell phone expert pointed out in court that at 7:53am and 8:09am Holly's phone connects to towers close to home. (time stamp 35m40s on video part 1- queued in the link)

https://youtu.be/gDykth_8QDc?t=35m43s

Her phone is traveling and moving at 8:17am and is pinging off a tower in the area where Zach lived at 8:17am. Autry arrives at 8:55am. Records show that they departed for the Birdsong area shortly thereafter. There was not enough time that day for a gang rape and dismemberment. I suppose the men could have returned on a different day. However, the state mentioned that Holly was drugged then did not provide proof. I think had there been a dismemberment it would have been asserted by the state when presenting the information about the skeletal remains. Instead they presented information about the wolf dens.

I agree there was not enough time that morning to dismember and get rid of her body. Per Autry, they didn't succeed in dumping her body at the river that morning, and he left Zach to clean up his own mess. Based on the lack of testimony on that point, Prosecution doesn't know exactly when she was dumped. Only that she was dumped by the time Autry and Zack met and Autry agreed to kill Dylan.

The Prosecution's theory of the drugging, as well as the bones being scattered by animals puzzles me because they don't have evidence of either one. And we have testimony from Corey Rivers that they chopped her up. I really don't see why they didn't consider that being a possibility.

I had been wondering why Zack was freaking out that night and wanting a gun. The fact that, a few days later, he said that Dylan wasn't sleeping and was talking too much makes me wonder if Zack made Dylan help him dispose of her and it freaked Dylan out. Dylan had probably already been exposed to alot of violence courtesy of his brother, but being there for what he thought was a murder and (forgive me) the gore or helping clean up the mess would certainly have a profound impact on him.