Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #6

[Tugela]

Stowe strikes again. The guy is worthless, and I can't believe people can't see that. He has not done the work, and it's one excuse after another, trying to always blame it on others (such as the "good old boys" messed things up, I didn't know, we didn't have time, we didn't know that's what the judge wanted, it's the TBI's fault, it's not my job because I decided it should be handled by a "special prosecutor," and on and on it goes). This guy has been a disaster from the day he was elected - lots of talk, and no real work at doing the job. I suspect he's managed to alienate the few witnesses they had persuaded to talk, although that's just an impression that has yet to be played out. But the discovery has been ignored for months, and that's inexcusable.

I don't think its a question of him alienating them, its more likely that what they claimed either was not corroborated by physical evidence, or worse, was contradicted by physical evidence. That would make their testimony worthless, and if the case rests on their testimony then it is pretty obvious that it is not going to fly.

When he came into office all this was already set in stone and beyond his control to change direction, so what was he supposed to do about it? There is no silk purse from sow's ears, so the choices available to him likely were either to walk away or to dismiss, both of which will put him in a bad light politically. I suspect that walking away seems the least damaging option to him.

 

[SteveS]

I don't think its a question of him alienating them, its more likely that what they claimed either was not corroborated by physical evidence, or worse, was contradicted by physical evidence. That would make their testimony worthless, and if the case rests on their testimony then it is pretty obvious that it is not going to fly.

When he came into office all this was already set in stone and beyond his control to change direction, so what was he supposed to do about it? There is no silk purse from sow's ears, so the choices available to him likely were either to walk away or to dismiss, both of which will put him in a bad light politically. I suspect that walking away seems the least damaging option to him.

So the same guy who has repeatedly hinted at loads of evidence, calling it voluminous, now can't even come up with any that makes a case? The inability to formulate a bill of particulars is a bigger problem than simply an inability to perform, and creates questions of basic competence in the job imo.

I think there are evidence-handling, attention to detail, and priority-focus issues at play here. It's hard to believe that they found who they think is Holly more than 3 months ago, but still can't put together something to prove it's really her. And the only way he accomplished that coup of finding her (assuming it's her) is because it dropped into his lap one day.

 

[Dr. Know?]

^Bold added

If only it were that easy. But when you lock someone up for a crime, and then don't take the steps required by law to let it go to trial, the "depriving them of their liberty without proof" is a ticking time bomb. ZA was in jail anyhow, but not JA, so the chance is growing he will get his charges dismissed with prejudice (meaning they can't be refiled at a later date).

I've been ranting for quite some time about the awful performance by Stowe. In reply I kept hearing how wonderful he is, how he's there to get rid of the ineffectiveness, and so on. Lotta talk, campaign promises and the like, but ...

Now people are beginning to see the problems he's causing for the case vs these guys. Two weeks ago he was again in court with his pants down in a legal sense, was given a drop dead deadline of one week, said he now understood what the judge wanted and he'd be sure and get it done - and he once again did nothing. This is not a good DA who works to get the job done, and I feel sorry for the family of Holly. They may be tricked into buying his smooth talk, but he is not doing them any favors at all.

JA is in on federal charges. ZA is because of his other charges & DA, because now he's on suspicion of rape of Holly.

They can drop the charges and get themselves better grouped if need be. So far it's only reporters quessing what might be going on. jmo

I have no idea what transpired between Stowe & the TBI so I couldn't and won't back either one unless I see an obvious underdog. Group by numbers and power recognition doesn't faze me either. Name dropping actually makes me angry. jmo lol

It will be nice to see some positive news about Holly's case & for her family. Bring it on! Even if dropping charges leads to solid charges. jmo

 

[SteveS]

JA is in on federal charges. ZA is because of his other charges & DA, because now he's on suspicion of rape of Holly.

They can drop the charges and get themselves better grouped if need be. So far it's only reporters quessing what might be going on. jmo

I have no idea what transpired between Stowe & the TBI so I couldn't and won't back either one unless I see an obvious underdog. Group by numbers and power recognition doesn't faze me either. Name dropping actually makes me angry. jmo lol

It will be nice to see some positive news about Holly's case & for her family. Bring it on! Even if dropping charges leads to solid charges. jmo

1 "They can drop the charges and get themselves better grouped if need be"
Not necessarily so. There's real risk to the case here. Even if they voluntarily drop charges at this point, the defense is likely to push for a permanent dismissal. The motion to do so has already been filed with the court.

2 "So far it's only reporters guessing what might be going on"
There's no guessing. It's known what's going on (and it's a possibility that was very predictable two weeks ago when the judge set the deadline that was ignored).

What happened today is that the defense has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which would immediately end the case, and it's based on the state's failure to comply with their obligations in the case as required by law and previously ordered by the judge.

Two weeks ago, the state was accused of not disclosing evidence as required under the discovery rules, and not having provided evidence that could possibly prove the charges. The judge didn't like that, said he wouldn't tolerate "hiding evidence," and demanded that the state provide a "bill of particulars" within 7 days to the court to give to the defense. That would outline the evidence they have, show how they have provided it to the defense as required, and would give a general outline of how that evidence would be able to prove the charges.

Stowe said he would do so without fail, and the judge underscored that he wouldn't tolerate excuses.

At that time, 2 weeks ago, I noted here at WS the seriousness of that barely-noticed ruling and commitment and described it as a put-up-or-shut-up crossroads. I noted that I hoped and trusted that Stowe would comply, but I had huge concerns based on his track record.

And then, despite the urgency of the situation, Stowe didn't do anything.

The hole that Stowe has dug for the case, by his inaction, is incredibly deep at this point. Like it or not, these cases could very well get dismissed. For good. And at this point, it's in the judge's hands. The problem is not only that the state didn't meet THIS deadline, but that this deadline was offered to allow them to validate their case and disclosure that was being called into question two weeks ago.

On a bigger level, these events are creating even more hurdles. They're now opening the door to "due process" issues that could cause higher courts to pull the plug in advance, or reverse any possible later conviction, basically on the concept of a failure to provide a fair trial ...and the judge has to be sensitive to that, not wanting to waste time on a trial that won't stand up.

What's going on may seem like something minor to waltz past, but it's not. It's grown into a biggie.

 

[Tugela]

So the same guy who has repeatedly hinted at loads of evidence, calling it voluminous, now can't even come up with any that makes a case? The inability to formulate a bill of particulars is a bigger problem than simply an inability to perform, and creates questions of basic competence in the job imo.

I think there are evidence-handling, attention to detail, and priority-focus issues at play here. It's hard to believe that they found who they think is Holly more than 3 months ago, but still can't put together something to prove it's really her. And the only way he accomplished that coup of finding her (assuming it's her) is because it dropped into his lap one day.

You are ignoring the part where he just got the job (which he has just had for a few months). Remember, the primary job of a DA is as a manager, and a new manager fresh in from somewhere else almost never hits the road running, they always take time to get up to speed. Not sure why you think he would be any different.

In that sort of situation his staffers would have been taking care of the case while he would have acted as the PR person until he got up to speed (remember, there are 30 thousand pages of evidence, supposedly). That takes time. Then, when he realized exactly what sort of case he inherited the air of desperation crept in. The big clincher was the decision to charge SA - when that happened it was clear that they had big issues with the case. I have pointed this out before, and it was why I thought that they did not have a real case. It is fairly obvious, particularly in the light of events the last two weeks, that he has been looking for a way to get out of this mess.

 

[Tugela]

1 "They can drop the charges and get themselves better grouped if need be"
Not necessarily so. There's real risk to the case here. Even if they voluntarily drop charges at this point, the defense is likely to push for a permanent dismissal. The motion to do so has already been filed with the court.

2 "So far it's only reporters guessing what might be going on"
There's no guessing. It's known what's going on (and it's a possibility that was very predictable two weeks ago when the judge set the deadline that was ignored).

What happened today is that the defense has filed a Motion to Dismiss, which would immediately end the case, and it's based on the state's failure to comply with their obligations in the case as required by law and previously ordered by the judge.

Two weeks ago, the state was accused of not disclosing evidence as required under the discovery rules, and not having provided evidence that could possibly prove the charges. The judge didn't like that, said he wouldn't tolerate "hiding evidence," and demanded that the state provide a "bill of particulars" within 7 days to the court to give to the defense. That would outline the evidence they have, show how they have provided it to the defense as required, and would give a general outline of how that evidence would be able to prove the charges.

Stowe said he would do so without fail, and the judge underscored that he wouldn't tolerate excuses.

At that time, 2 weeks ago, I noted here at WS the seriousness of that barely-noticed ruling and commitment and described it as a put-up-or-shut-up crossroads. I noted that I hoped and trusted that Stowe would comply, but I had huge concerns based on his track record.

And then, despite the urgency of the situation, Stowe didn't do anything.

The hole that Stowe has dug for the case, by his inaction, is incredibly deep at this point. Like it or not, these cases could very well get dismissed. For good. And at this point, it's in the judge's hands. The problem is not only that the state didn't meet THIS deadline, but that this deadline was offered to allow them to validate their case and disclosure that was being called into question two weeks ago.

On a bigger level, these events are creating even more hurdles. They're now opening the door to "due process" issues that could cause higher courts to pull the plug in advance, or reverse any possible later conviction, basically on the concept of a failure to provide a fair trial ...and the judge has to be sensitive to that, not wanting to waste time on a trial that won't stand up.

What's going on may seem like something minor to waltz past, but it's not. It's grown into a biggie.

You make it sound like the mess is a result of his actions, when most likely the reverse is true - his actions are a result of the mess that already existed.

A judge will not care about that though, if the prosecutors office does not comply with the order then dismissal is certain. There can be no other outcome. The judge is not going to try the case for the prosecution or put it in limbo so they can come up with something (which is almost certainly unconstitutional anyway), that isn't his job. At the next hearing either the prosecution will hand over the evidence or the case will be dismissed IMO.

 

[shefner]

And how can TBI allow this to happen? This isn't some "johnny-come-lately" group. These are supposed to be the best investigators in the state! Don't you think it's their top guys and labs that have been working Holly's case? If this case is bungled, the whole lot of them needs to be dismissed to find other work. They are more pathetic than I thought....

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Stowe strikes again. The guy is worthless, and I can't believe people can't see that.

He has not done the work, and it's one excuse after another, trying to always blame it on others (such as the "good old boys" messed things up, I didn't know, we didn't have time, we didn't know that's what the judge wanted, it's the TBI's fault, it's not my job because I decided it should be handled by a "special prosecutor," and on and on it goes).

This guy has been a disaster from the day he was elected - lots of talk, and no real work at doing the job. I suspect he's managed to alienate the few witnesses they had persuaded to talk, although that's just an impression that has yet to be played out. But the discovery has been ignored for months, and that's inexcusable.

:seeya: Hi Steve,

RBBM: Respectfully disagree

Stowe inherited this "disaster" -- and Holly's case has been a disaster from Day 1 !

JMO but I believe he is truly sincere and wants justice for Holly.

Stowe has only been in office since September -- so he's only had appx. 3 1/2 months to work on this case, in addition to whatever else he has on his plate as the new D.A.

And on the other hand, the previous D.A. and the TBI have had 3+ years to work on this case.

JMO but for now, I will give Stowe the benefit of the doubt.

Now, I do agree that it is inexcusable to ignore the discovery and orders of the court, and whatever problems they had with discovery, etc., it should have been communicated between the parties and the judge as well.

But, on the other hand with respect to the discovery, is it possible that there is something the D.A. does NOT want to reveal at this point as the investigation is still ongoing, and "immunity deals" pending, and they don't want to "blow it" ?

Just taking a guess there ... NOT that that is an excuse ... but TBI director Gwynn has repeatedly stated more arrests are coming. And, there is that "immunity deal" that seems to be "up in the air" as to SA.

JMO, but something "stinks" about this case and has always "stunk" !

JMO and :moo:

 

[SteveS]

:seeya: Hi Steve,

RBBM: Respectfully disagree

Stowe inherited this "disaster" -- and Holly's case has been a disaster from Day 1 !

JMO but I believe he is truly sincere and wants justice for Holly.

Stowe has only been in office since September -- so he's only had appx. 3 1/2 months to work on this case, in addition to whatever else he has on his plate as the new D.A.

And on the other hand, the previous D.A. and the TBI have had 3+ years to work on this case.

JMO but for now, I will give Stowe the benefit of the doubt.

Now, I do agree that it is inexcusable to ignore the discovery and orders of the court, and whatever problems they had with discovery, etc., it should have been communicated between the parties and the judge as well.

But, on the other hand with respect to the discovery, is it possible that there is something the D.A. does NOT want to reveal at this point as the investigation is still ongoing, and "immunity deals" pending, and they don't want to "blow it" ?

Just taking a guess there ... NOT that that is an excuse ... but TBI director Gwynn has repeatedly stated more arrests are coming. And, there is that "immunity deal" that seems to be "up in the air" as to SA.

JMO, but something "stinks" about this case and has always "stunk" !

JMO and :moo:

While he may have inherited a messed up case, my complaint is that he still has an obligation to do the best he can with what he has been given. And instead, by ALL appearances he has made it worse, primarily by total inaction.

"Now, I do agree that it is inexcusable to ignore the discovery and orders of the court, and whatever problems they had with discovery, etc., it should have been communicated between the parties and the judge as well."

THAT ^ is the stuff I am talking about. Even if there were problems before he walked in the door, he has made it worse not better by failing to address and fix whatever wasn't being done. The inaction in relation to meeting legal deadlines under his watch is solely on him.

"But, on the other hand with respect to the discovery, is it possible that there is something the D.A. does NOT want to reveal at this point as the investigation is still ongoing, and "immunity deals" pending, and they don't want to "blow it" ?"

That has never been an option, legally. He's not allowed to hide evidence, and if he's doing so, that shows a basic incompetence in the ability to do the job. Since he took the job, he's been working under an ongoing mandate to share every piece of evidence he gets with the defense, and failure to do so jeopardizes the case itself.

Consider, he sits there hoarding evidence, so he'll surprise the defense, and then the case gets dismissed. That literally reduces that evidence to nothing. That's pure incompetence.

There is only one rational excuse for his inaction, which would be if he's decided ZA and JA are minor (or non) players in what happened to Holly, and he doesn't want to let that be known. So he sacrifices the cases against ZA and JA in order to secretly get someone else identified and convicted. Do I think this is what's going on? Nope. But even if it is, he's committing lots of legal no-no's in an "end-justifies the means" approach. By not dismissing the charges against them (if he knows they didn't do it), it's an abuse of power. By not disclosing his evidence (if he thinks they did something but aren't the main ones), it's a violation of due process.

 

[SteveS]

And how can TBI allow this to happen? This isn't some "johnny-come-lately" group. These are supposed to be the best investigators in the state! Don't you think it's their top guys and labs that have been working Holly's case? If this case is bungled, the whole lot of them needs to be dismissed to find other work. They are more pathetic than I thought....

IMO this is not a TBI issue. I am not from Tennessee, but if their system is parallel to where I live (Texas), then TBI's role is to assist in things like investigation and testing and so on. But the work of filing documents, meeting deadlines, building and prosecuting the case - - all of those are the job of the prosecutor, not TBI. And it's those areas - which are Stowe's responsibility - where the case is apparently being jeopardized.

 

[tlcya]

I agree, SteveS. IME investigators investigate. Prosecutors are responsible for discovery and the time constraints that process is bound by. Prosecutors decide who to charge and when, they are the ones charged with meeting and complying with legal and court deadlines. I don't really care whose fault it is. I am just heartbroken because of what these failures do to the family of Holly Bobo.

 

[pearl]

What could possibly have caused the problem that has occurred between DA Stowe and TBI Director Gwyn? In an attempt to help myself clarify the issues, I made the following timeline if anyone is interested in reading it. Info comes from the status hearing thread, media thread, and this thread. I haven't included anything prior to Dec 12. If you are interested in this post and find I have made mistakes, please correct me.

Dec 12
*DA Stowe and TBI Director Gwyn have a private meeting in which professional differences were discussed.

Dec 15
*Gwyn schedules a meeting with LE from 24th Judicial District (Stowe's district). DA Stowe is invited to attend.

Dec 16
*Gwyn (and possibly other TBI) met with LE agency heads from 24th District. Stowe did not attend.
*Gwyn formally communicates his intent to suspend TBI activity in 24th District until all involved can meet with Attorney General to resolve matters.
*Stowe communicates to Gwyn that he expects TBI and LE to work cooperatively.

Dec 17
*Status hearing was held for ZA, JA, and DA.
*ZA's attorney said she has not received evidence linking ZA to crime and no evidence about Holly's skull.
*DA Stowe said the prosecution is awaiting lab results from the evidence found at the scene where Holly's skull was found.
*Judge ordered Stowe to provide bill of particulars within 7 days (Dec 24).
*Gwyn suspended investigations in 24th District. He claimed Stowe alleged misconduct by TBI and other LE agencies.
*Stowe denied he requested TBI to suspend activities.
*DA Jennifer Nichols requested removal from the case.

Dec 18
*TBI resumed activities in 24th District.
*DA Stowe requested a special prosecutor for the Holly Bobo case.

My conclusions are whatever happened at the Dec 12 meeting between Stowe and Gwyn is the catalyst for this sad turn of events. The fact that two DAswant removal from the case leads me to think the problem is with TBI. Did Stowe really accuse the TBI and other LE of misconduct? If so, what kind of misconduct could it be--falsifying evidence, withholding evidence, failure to act on evidence that clearly points to some other person not yet indicted, or something else? At the status hearing, the defense attorneys claimed they haven't received the evidence needed to (basically) prepare their defenses. At the same hearing, Stowe states he is still awaiting lab results (presumably from TBI).

I am interested in hearing your ideas.

 

[tlcya]

The only reason I can see where this could conceivably be TBI's fault is outright manufacture of evidence. JMO. But Prosecutors are given the evidence and then determine if charges are warranted or supportable by that evidence.

I really want justice for Holly, but not at the expense of a rushed prosecution that does not hold up to regular scrutiny.

Hoping against hope that this mess can be salvaged somehow and evidence exists to successfully prosecute the guilty party(ies).

 

[SteveS]

Pearl, thanks for all that work. My personal impression has been that Stowe had a prima donna outburst at TBI, that led to the rest. And I really haven't seen anything that would contradict that, other than Stowe's claims he didn't have an outburst (and from what I saw, Stowe's denials were widely contradicted from just about everyone who would know). His claims he didn't do what everyone else says he did, adds to my impression that he's self-focused and more concerned about public image than about results.

I do have a different take on your conclusion about the other DA who quit the case. She was an asst DA from another jurisdiction, and she was there to help Stowe (if you'll recall, he made a big deal of the fact he was bringing in added help to do this case). My belief was that she got disgusted by his lack of productivity, followed by the prima donna actions blaming everyone else for what he hadn't done, and they (she and the DA from where she came) decided it was a waste of valuable time to try to work with him.

Oh, and I think Stowe's "stepping down" was a combination of (1) he backed himself into a corner by going postal on TBI and firing them, after which the only way he could get them to work on the case was to not be the one asking for help, and (2) a prima donna who has screwed up, doesn't want to do the work, and is looking to distance himself from his mess where he can blame someone else when it implodes from his lack of proper case management.

 

[pearl]

My impression is that there were prosecutorial issues with this case even before Stowe went into office. SA's immunity deal, the accused people not being brought to court when they were supposed to be there, and the Pearcy fiasco are just a few of those issues. Stowe entered the picture officially in September. He could have inherited a veritable mess. The case could be so unorganized that he is still familiarizing himself with the "voluminous" evidence. If so, IMO, he should have gone to the judge and defense attorneys with such a problem. The route taken should not have been to simply miss deadlines. I'm thinking that one of two things has happened.
One is what SteveS posted above. Stowe has bitten off more than he could chew, or he doesn't play well with others. The other thing is that there is a real problem with some of the evidence or lack thereof. It pains me to even type that there might be evidence problems because I am usually a strong supporter of LE. To me, there is just something odd about the whole thing from Holly's abduction through today. My mention of the two DAs exiting the case leads me to believe the problem may not be with the DAs office. If the case is so bungled, I would not want to be involved in it as a prosecutor. I have never hear of another case where the investigating agency and the prosecution would not or could not work together. The sad thing is that justice for Holly hangs in the balance. When will the dismissal issue or the naming of a special prosecutor happen?

 

[dog.gone.cute]

What could possibly have caused the problem that has occurred between DA Stowe and TBI Director Gwyn? In an attempt to help myself clarify the issues, I made the following timeline if anyone is interested in reading it. Info comes from the status hearing thread, media thread, and this thread. I haven't included anything prior to Dec 12. If you are interested in this post and find I have made mistakes, please correct me.

Dec 12
*DA Stowe and TBI Director Gwyn have a private meeting in which professional differences were discussed.

Dec 15
*Gwyn schedules a meeting with LE from 24th Judicial District (Stowe's district). DA Stowe is invited to attend.

Dec 16
*Gwyn (and possibly other TBI) met with LE agency heads from 24th District. Stowe did not attend.
*Gwyn formally communicates his intent to suspend TBI activity in 24th District until all involved can meet with Attorney General to resolve matters.
*Stowe communicates to Gwyn that he expects TBI and LE to work cooperatively.

Dec 17
*Status hearing was held for ZA, JA, and DA.
*ZA's attorney said she has not received evidence linking ZA to crime and no evidence about Holly's skull.
*DA Stowe said the prosecution is awaiting lab results from the evidence found at the scene where Holly's skull was found.
*Judge ordered Stowe to provide bill of particulars within 7 days (Dec 24).
*Gwyn suspended investigations in 24th District. He claimed Stowe alleged misconduct by TBI and other LE agencies.
*Stowe denied he requested TBI to suspend activities.
*DA Jennifer Nichols requested removal from the case.

Dec 18
*TBI resumed activities in 24th District.
*DA Stowe requested a special prosecutor for the Holly Bobo case.

My conclusions are whatever happened at the Dec 12 meeting between Stowe and Gwyn is the catalyst for this sad turn of events. The fact that two DAswant removal from the case leads me to think the problem is with TBI. Did Stowe really accuse the TBI and other LE of misconduct? If so, what kind of misconduct could it be--falsifying evidence, withholding evidence, failure to act on evidence that clearly points to some other person not yet indicted, or something else? At the status hearing, the defense attorneys claimed they haven't received the evidence needed to (basically) prepare their defenses. At the same hearing, Stowe states he is still awaiting lab results (presumably from TBI).

I am interested in hearing your ideas.

:seeya:

:tyou: pearl, for putting this timeline together ! Excellent !

So what really happened between Dec 12 and Dec 18 between D.A. Stowe and the TBI ?

Honestly, I doubt we will ever know the truth ... and sadly, sometimes I wonder IF there will ever be justice for Holly

That Dec 17 Hearing date had been on the court's Scheduling Order since April IIRC ... So obviously, Stowe and TBI were preparing for the hearing, but WTH went wrong :gaah:


Just a few thoughts I had after reading pearl's timeline here:

- There was supposed to be a hearing on SA's "immunity deal" on Dec 2, and "poof" -- no hearing, no news if it was postponed, nothing.

So what's going on with that ?

- The defense attorneys are claiming that they have not received the evidence about Holly's skull being found, which was found back in September, and was identified through dental records.

Remember when the ginseng hunters found the skull -- and one of them said the TBI told them NOT to say anything about what he found along with the skull and bucket ? Yes, I can understand where they did not want info as to what was found getting back to the perps in jail or not in jail as that could compromise the investigation.

So what's the holdup on turning over the info IF it's already been identified through dental records? I mean wouldn't you be willing to hand over that type of evidence ? SMDH !

- JMO but there is definitely something that stinks in this case ... and if I speculate and put out some of my thoughts, y'all might think you're reading over at that other place instead of WS ... lol !

:moo:

 

[SteveS]

My impression is that there were prosecutorial issues with this case even before Stowe went into office. SA's immunity deal, the accused people not being brought to court when they were supposed to be there...

To keep the record straight, wasn't the event of "the accused people not being brought to court when they were supposed to be there" a bungling by Stowe, not his predecessors? My recollection is that it was his first appearance in the HB case, and he bungled it, getting a stern admonition by the judge who laid it at his feet while he was trying to blame others for his failure to get the job done.


ETA, after further discussion below and in fairness - It was NOT Stowe's fault. Here's the link http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...ily-feels-neglected-knowing-hearing/14269357/

Stowe was elected Aug 7, and took office on Sep 1. The hearing in question (re MP) was on Aug 18.

 

[Bali]

I don't think its a question of him alienating them, its more likely that what they claimed either was not corroborated by physical evidence, or worse, was contradicted by physical evidence. That would make their testimony worthless, and if the case rests on their testimony then it is pretty obvious that it is not going to fly.

When he came into office all this was already set in stone and beyond his control to change direction, so what was he supposed to do about it? There is no silk purse from sow's ears, so the choices available to him likely were either to walk away or to dismiss, both of which will put him in a bad light politically. I suspect that walking away seems the least damaging option to him.

This is my assumption. They arrested these guys on false (or coerced) witness statements assuming what was being told to them was the truth. They assumed the evidence would be there if they just kept digging. That's why they've been stalling for so long. They thought if they could just keep at it, they would eventually strike gold. They've dug and dug and dug and there just isn't anything there. I'm not going to go as far as to say they're innocent, but whatever case they were trying to build was based on nothing solid. I'm confident in saying that. They do not have "voluminous evidence" they said they did. They were doing all this in the hopes that it would force them into taking a plea.

 

[Bali]

I wouldn't be surprised if the judge grants the motion to dismiss.

 

[pearl]

To keep the record straight, wasn't the event of "the accused people not being brought to court when they were supposed to be there" a bungling by Stowe, not his predecessors? My recollection is that it was his first appearance in the HB case, and he bungled it, getting a stern admonition by the judge who laid it at his feet while he was trying to blame others for his failure to get the job done.

I read over some older threads and found these articles about defendants not being in court.

http://www.waff.com/story/25200684/...-in-holly-bobo-case-set-for-wednesday-morning
April 9--ZA did not attend status hearing because a judge waived his right to appear.

http://www.wbbjtv.com/news/local/Mark-Pearcy-No-Show-in-Court-Hearing-Rescheduled-264327041.html
June 23--Mark Pearcy was a no-show in court but his attorney was there.

Pearcy's no show could have been due to LE.

There could be more. I ran out of time to search