Zach Adams on trial -kidnapping/murder Holly Bobo 9/20-22, 2017 GUILTY

[Gooddeeds]

I don't know if zach found Jesus in jail, but he obviously found the buffet table.

Hilarious! He's all-in for free food! Probably makes him feel superior about his accusers having to pay for his room and board.

 

[Rayemonde]

"No body, no gun". Four months before her skull was found with a bullet hole in it. That's THE statement that I took away from the entire trial. If that stood out to the jury as well, game. Set. Match.

We only have the word of one person that he said that, and that person only came forward *after* Holly's body was discovered.

 

[maskedwoman]

We only have the word of one person that he said that, and that person only came forward *after* Holly's body was discovered.

I can imagine that lots of people might not have believed him until her body was found. I'm sure that people in jail hear lots of crazy crap, and learn pretty quickly to ignore most of it.

 

[Rayemonde]

Why did Justin confess to all of these horrid crimes on national tv, in front of a judge, if all of them are totally innocent?

The state probably told him they would pin the whole thing on him and see him get the death penalty if he didn't. Saving your own skin is pretty good motivation. He might have also got privileges in jail for his cooperation.

People keep asking why would he lie, but why would he tell the truth?? Because he is full of remorse for his involvement in Holly's murder and wants to do the right thing? :lol: I think that his story on the stand had nothing to do with remorse and everything to do with self-interest.

 

[Fence Sitter]

However, if there are 8 witnesses who get up and LIE about his involvement, and he is totally innocent, then why wouldn't he want to get on the stand and testify to his innocence?

His best friend sits up there and totally lies, making up a story about a rape and murder, they both committed, and he doesn't want to call him a liar?

Zach could have taken the witness stand and said everything is true, except Jason autry pulled the trigger under the bridge, not me. There would have been reasonable doubt right there. But he didn't take the stand.

I wrote a post about this yesterday. He didn't get up and say JA is a liar and things didn't happen as he told it because that would only prove his participation in it all. He has pleaded not guilty to all charges. Getting on the stand and trying to shift the blame onto the co accused would only confirm he knew what happened that day albeit a different version of events and book his ticket straight to death row.

This trial is for Zach and Zach alone. Trying to nut out Jasons actual involvement (or Dylan and Shanes for that matter) is a waste of time regardless of whether we think he is sugar coating his own involvement of not. His time in court may or may not come but until then ZA really had no choice but to sit back, let it play out and hope that the jury finds reasonable doubt from what all of these witnesses have testified to and the seemingly limited physical evidence placed before them.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[JenaTaoson]

I'm facing death. And I'm innocent? I'm not leaving that whole situation to a third party to botch. I will absolutely testify.

I just believe his own testimony must be truly worse than what they are saying because otherwise he would be up there.

It bothers me that it was in their opening statement that he had "never laid eyes on her". It's such a bold face lie that it makes me have no sympathy whatsoever for him.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is a da**ed if you do,da**ed if you don't situation. If someone gets on the stand anything they testify to is open for cross. So you testify to your innocence and the state catches one thing and they can tear the whole case apart. On the other hand if you don't testify you look guilty for not defending yourself.
I try not to look to much into whether someone gets on the stand to defend themselves. It depends on intelligence and critical thinking...things I don't think Zach has.

Sent from my SM-J727V using Tapatalk

 

[terpstra1]

I thought the prosecution's rebuttal closing was amazing. I was brought to tears. I admit I was a bit worried after yesterday's testimony. But JN hit a home run. I think she's going to get her guilty verdict that she's worked so hard for.
If anyone thinks you can't get a death penalty on a circumstantial case just remember Scott Peterson.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

If someone gets on the stand anything they testify to is open for cross. S

I try not to look to much into whether someone gets on the stand to defend themselves. It depends on intelligence and critical thinking...things I don't think Zach has.

Those are great points about the brilliance of the closing argument here.
- ZA can't testify without cross-examination ....but his attorney can speak at great length, without cross-examination.
- ZA may not be an analytical or critical thinker - but his atty can be, in speaking for him.
- If ZA wants to point out this, or that, or show things he knows are contradictions, or highlight lies, his atty is a great one to do that for him, with the only limitation being that the atty just has to use details already testified somewhere in the case already.
- As a witness, ZA has to respond to what he's asked ...but his atty, on close, can go almost whatever she wants and tie together whatever she feels needs o be linked.
- The only limitation in the close is the inability to introduce NEW evidence - but, as long as those facts he wants to tell the jury were already elicited somewhere during the trial, which of course they already had the ability to ensure via questioning others, then no problem.

 

[Harmony 2]

[video=youtube;8EDQv5cGtG8]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8EDQv5cGtG8&sns=tw[/video] -
a song by Holly's cousin and is with clips of her and images as well

It made me cry

 

[DeepCover]

I thought the prosecution's rebuttal closing was amazing. I was brought to tears. I admit I was a bit worried after yesterday's testimony. But JN hit a home run. I think she's going to get her guilty verdict that she's worked so hard for.
If anyone thinks you can't get a death penalty on a circumstantial case just remember Scott Peterson.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

Not sure if this case can be classified as circumstantial when the crutch of the state's case is a witness testifying they saw parts of the crime, which is technically direct evidence. The two cases aren't really comparable IMO.

 

[katydid23]

Voting not guilty does not mean you think they are innocent.

If you do not think they are innocent , then voting Not Guilty allows them to walk free, and continue raping and killing.

 

[DeepCover]

If you do not think they are innocent , then voting Not Guilty allows them to walk free, and continue raping and killing.

Voting not guilty means you believe the state didn't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a juror, whether you personally believe they committed the crime or not is irrelevant outside of what was presented at trial.

 

[mountainguy777]

I'd be good with all of them spending the rest of their lives prison.

 

[katydid23]

Were they? They claimed they would charge him, and claimed they would void his immunity deal, but never did either. Actions speak louder than words. At the time it felt like they were trying to pressure him with idle threats, and had no REAL intent of either, but who can say.

Are you sure they never voided his immunity deal? I had looked at that issue previously and it seems like the state did make motions in court to try to void the immunity provision:
May 27th 2014
No immunity agreement ruling made for Shayne Austin

Austin was given immunity in exchange for cooperation and information in the investigation into Bobo's disappearance and murder. In April, the state revoked that deal saying he had not been totally truthful.

Austin's attorney, Luke Evans, filed a multi-count lawsuit against the State of Tennessee regarding the state's decision to revoke his immunity deal.

n the courtroom, prosecutors argued the attorney general has the right to void Austin's immunity agreement due to an ongoing criminal investigation. They say Austin voided the agreement because he wasn't completely truthful.

"The relief the plaintiff sees is to stop prosecution of a criminal case. The court, under laws that have been cited, doesn't have the ability to do that," continued prosecutor Scott Sutherland.

http://www.waff.com/story/25616241/holly-bobo-murder-case-returns-to-court

I see action and intent on the part of the state.
It was the court that stalled everything out as it pondered it's legal ruling in the matter.

 

[katydid23]

Voting not guilty means you believe the state didn't make their case beyond a reasonable doubt. As a juror, whether you personally believe they committed the crime or not is irrelevant outside of what was presented at trial.

Well, there is a pretty fine line then if you say, on one hand, you don't believe the defendant is innocent, but on the other, don't believe the state made it's case. If you believe the suspect is 'not innocent', there must be reasons for believing so.

If I believe a defendant is 'not innocent' of an abduction, gang rape that ends in murder, I am voting GUILTY. I am not wanting someone dangerous walking free and continuing their rampage.


I just cannot accept that it is 'irrelevant' that a juror believes a defendant did in fact commit the violent crime.

 

[Harmony 2]

I've refreshed and rebooted and Nada lol.. I've got Twitter open now so hopefully I won't miss anything.

Another reason for not being able to see embedded tweets is due to having java script turned off.

 

[DeepCover]

Well, there is a pretty fine line then if you say, on one hand, you don't believe the defendant is innocent, but on the other, don't believe the state made it's case. If you believe the suspect is 'not innocent', there must be reasons for believing so.

If I believe a defendant is 'not innocent' of an abduction, gang rape that ends in murder, I am voting GUILTY. I am not wanting someone dangerous walking free and continuing their rampage.

So you're saying you would vote guilty even if the state didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

 

[katydid23]

The state probably told him they would pin the whole thing on him and see him get the death penalty if he didn't. Saving your own skin is pretty good motivation. He might have also got privileges in jail for his cooperation.

People keep asking why would he lie, but why would he tell the truth?? Because he is full of remorse for his involvement in Holly's murder and wants to do the right thing? :lol: I think that his story on the stand had nothing to do with remorse and everything to do with self-interest.

I don't believe that is the case here. If he absolutely knew that Zach and crew had no involvement, and he had no involvement, then he'd have no reason to come out with that huge detailed scenario he laid out so convincingly.

And he was not the first one to confess. Apparently Shayne began cooperating from the very start, putting it all on the Adams bros. And I do think Shayne was remorseful and did tell them the truth out of regret and guilt.

 

[katydid23]

So you're saying you would vote guilty even if the state didn't prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt?

I am saying that IF I felt the defendant was not innocent, then there would have to be a reason for me to believe that.

It would be hard for me to say that the state didn't prove their case, if in fact, I believed the defendant to be guilty.

 

[SteveS]

Are you sure they never voided his immunity deal? I had looked at that issue previously and it seems like the state did make motions in court to try to void the immunity provision:
May 27th 2014
No immunity agreement ruling made for Shayne Austin

Austin was given immunity in exchange for cooperation and information in the investigation into Bobo's disappearance and murder. In April, the state revoked that deal saying he had not been totally truthful.

Austin's attorney, Luke Evans, filed a multi-count lawsuit against the State of Tennessee regarding the state's decision to revoke his immunity deal.

In the courtroom, prosecutors argued the attorney general has the right to void Austin's immunity agreement due to an ongoing criminal investigation. They say Austin voided the agreement because he wasn't completely truthful.
"The relief the plaintiff sees is to stop prosecution of a criminal case. The court, under laws that have been cited, doesn't have the ability to do that," continued prosecutor Scott Sutherland.

I see action and intent on the part of the state.
It was the court that stalled everything out as it pondered it's legal ruling in the matter.

"Are you sure they never voided his immunity deal?" ...Yes I'm sure.

As the article you cited states, the state unilaterally declared that the signed agreement was not vaild any longer, and it was SA who went to court (not the state), but it centered on what the state CAN do, if they wish. And the court bailed. The court gave the instruction that they couldn't say, and the state could charge him with whatever crime and then they could all argue/adjudicate in that context whether there was a valid immunity agreement or not. And the state said they would do that, and it was about to happen right now, in a few, imminent, and so on - except they did nothing whatsoever.

It's all moot anyhow, but the point remains that SA never confessed to having been a part of any kidnapping, rape, murder, etc of HB, and he was never charged with any of it either (while, in contrast, the others at the time had been charged and locked up already).