Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #7

[Mercurydime]

• Who had a prior history with Holly that would create an emotional motive, an emotional/historical motive so strong that he spent 10-15 minutes pleading and arguing with her before he decided to commit a felonious abduction?
• Who possessed the means and opportunity to know the layout of the property and the daily habits and potential dangers of its occupants (and dog)?

I appreciate your contributions, but with all due respect, I don't believe either of these are at all necessarily characteristics of the perp(s) in this case. I don't see the time in the garage as necessarily telling us there was any actual prior history with Holly at all, nor do I see any demonstration of any specialized knowledge of the Bobo family habits.

So imo you are just as likely as not to be theorizing we look for the wrong person(s).

Possibly, but whenever I force myself to look at what I KNOW is evidence in this case, and cast aside all the suppositions made by the attorneys, media, sleuthers, and so on, I do have trouble imagining that garage scenerio. What would the 10-15 minute conversation have been? "You're coming with me" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" "No I'm not"?

Remember that Clint said he thought Holly was breaking up with her boyfriend. What made him think that? IIRC the only intelligable part of the conversation that he heard was Holly saying "no why?".

If I saw two people talking, and I heard one of them say "no why?" would I automatically assume that they are boyfriend and girlfriend ending thier relationship? Of course not. I wonder what tone of voice, aspect, or gesture made him think that Holly and her boyfriend were in the garage breaking up.

I remember last year when one of Holly's Ex-boyfriends was arrested on an "unrelated" kidnapping and assult. I remember that it was one of the strongest emotional perturbations that I have experienced in following this case. I immediately realized the enormous implications of the arrest.

The defense should have a field day with it in court. You can repeat as loudly as you wish that it was "unrelated", but the fact remains that Holly's ex boyfriend was arrested for KIDNAPPING and ASSAULT.

Link to article on Barnett arrest:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/25647237/bobos-ex-boyfriend-faces-kidnapping-assault-charges

 

[TedMac]

Possibly, but whenever I force myself to look at what I KNOW is evidence in this case, and cast aside all the suppositions made by the attorneys, media, sleuthers, and so on, I do have trouble imagining that garage scenerio. What would the 10-15 minute conversation have been? "You're coming with me" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" "No I'm not"?

Remember that Clint said he thought Holly was breaking up with her boyfriend. What made him think that? IIRC the only intelligable part of the conversation that he heard was Holly saying "no why?".

If I saw two people talking, and I heard one of them say "no why?" would I automatically assume that they are boyfriend and girlfriend ending thier relationship? Of course not. I wonder what tone of voice, aspect, or gesture made him think that Holly and her boyfriend were in the garage breaking up.

I remember last year when one of Holly's Ex-boyfriends was arrested on an "unrelated" kidnapping and assult. I remember that it was one of the strongest emotional perturbations that I have experienced in following this case. I immediately realized the enormous implications of the arrest.

The defense should have a field day with it in court. You can repeat as loudly as you wish that it was "unrelated", but the fact remains that Holly's ex boyfriend was arrested for KIDNAPPING and ASSAULT.

Link to article on Barnett arrest:


http://www.wsmv.com/story/25647237/bobos-ex-boyfriend-faces-kidnapping-assault-charges

Was the victim a girlfriend or ex girlfriend and what was the final outcome of the case? The article indicated it was domestic, but gave no details or disposition of the charges.

 

[Mercurydime]

Was the victim a girlfriend or ex girlfriend and what was the final outcome of the case? The article indicated it was domestic, but gave no details or disposition of the charges.

I don't know the outcome. I think the victim was his uncle.

 

[SteveS]

"I wonder what tone of voice, aspect, or gesture made him think that Holly and her boyfriend were in the garage breaking up."

This, I think, is part of where I disconnect from such ideas. The brother did NOT listen to a long conversation. He heard a snippet, one small phrase, made a quick assumption, and decided he had no reason to stay. Bam, he's in and out. So imo it's totally "reading into" a complete lack of knowledge. to make the leap that all that lack of knowledge is meaningful at all.

 

[TedMac]

"I wonder what tone of voice, aspect, or gesture made him think that Holly and her boyfriend were in the garage breaking up."

This, I think, is part of where I disconnect from such ideas. The brother did NOT listen to a long conversation. He heard a snippet, one small phrase, made a quick assumption, and decided he had no reason to stay. Bam, he's in and out. So imo it's totally "reading into" a complete lack of knowledge. to make the leap that all that lack of knowledge is meaningful at all.

I've always thought he heard some angry words or perhaps an elevated voice probably on Hollie's part. If he had heard an "I love you" or something along that line, he probably would not have thought break up. MOO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I've always thought he heard some angry words or perhaps an elevated voice probably on Hollie's part. If he had heard an "I love you" or something along that line, he probably would not have thought break up. MOO

We. as human beings, tend to rationalize events, and that is why Clint assumed it was Holly and her boyfriend having a lover's spat.

I do respect others who are determined to believe there was a familiar link between Holly and her kidnapper but it has been shown in other cases there doesn't have to be a link between the victim and the kidnapper for them to pull off the kidnapping.

We could believe that about every case committed by someone who had no familiar linkage to the victim because it is often said 'Why did the kidnapper/murderer select her/them?' 'How were they able to kidnap someone they didn't know that lived in a remote area?' We do see that often discussed but in the end it really doesn't matter how they were able to do it. When the trials comes to pass all we know is the DA had evidence it was done and done by XXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX.

For example: When Jessica Lunsford was kidnapped from the inside of her home LE had tunnel vision and were sure at the time she had to know her kidnapper for him to come inside of her home and take her without the grandparents hearing anything. That is why they wasted precious time honing in on Mark and his parents. Meanwhile the stranger pedophile had Jessica right across the street for three days raping her and finally murdering her.

Another example: LE believe the Greone murders and kidnapping of Shasta and Dylan had to be someone they all knew. LE was firmly convinced for weeks that the killer was someone with a familiar link to the family. I could understand their tunnel vision in some ways since the Greone home sat in a very rural remote area off the main highway. Even though it was in the country there were other homes spread out along the road and no one heard or saw anything. The Greone family also had two large pit bulls inside of the home at the time. But yet in the end, the murderer/pedophile did not have any link to any of the family yet he was able to go inside of the home undetected until it was too late for the victims once they knew he was inside.

It is great to be analytical but sometimes being overly analytical is not the way to look at a case.IMO Most cases aren't complex. And we certainly know this is not the first case where a lone female has been kidnapped by someone they never associated with when either walking to her vehicle or kidnapped from inside of her home or even on a street in broad daylight. It would be logical since this was a small community where everyone hunted and the Adams' would know where the Bobo property was located. It wasn't some big secret nor was it a secret that Holly went to college. Most everyone in a community knows who owns land and where.

The 'five minutes early' is irrelevant to me. I am sure ZA had been waiting in the wooded area and had been there even before daybreak. He would wait and then seize the right opportunity to take her and that is what he did.

As far as the 10 minutes talking with Holly he was probably very well aware that sounds are heard much better and further in wide open spaces and it was better if he could try to persuade her to go with him so she wouldn't scream and alert the neighbors. Imo, it did not work, and that is when he had to use a weapon to force her to go with him injuring Holly in the carport.

There is simply no evidence that Holly associated nor had any familiar link with her kidnappers/murderers. In fact the injury she sustained in the carport of her home shows she did not want to go with the kidnapper that took her to his home where she was beaten, gang raped, and murdered.

IMO

 

[OldSteve]

Agree 100% with you Ocean - well stated!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Possibly, but whenever I force myself to look at what I KNOW is evidence in this case, and cast aside all the suppositions made by the attorneys, media, sleuthers, and so on, I do have trouble imagining that garage scenerio. What would the 10-15 minute conversation have been? "You're coming with me" "No I'm not" "Yes you are" "No I'm not"?

Remember that Clint said he thought Holly was breaking up with her boyfriend. What made him think that? IIRC the only intelligable part of the conversation that he heard was Holly saying "no why?".

If I saw two people talking, and I heard one of them say "no why?" would I automatically assume that they are boyfriend and girlfriend ending thier relationship? Of course not. I wonder what tone of voice, aspect, or gesture made him think that Holly and her boyfriend were in the garage breaking up.

I remember last year when one of Holly's Ex-boyfriends was arrested on an "unrelated" kidnapping and assult. I remember that it was one of the strongest emotional perturbations that I have experienced in following this case. I immediately realized the enormous implications of the arrest.

The defense should have a field day with it in court. You can repeat as loudly as you wish that it was "unrelated", but the fact remains that Holly's ex boyfriend was arrested for KIDNAPPING and ASSAULT.

Link to article on Barnett arrest:

http://www.wsmv.com/story/25647237/bobos-ex-boyfriend-faces-kidnapping-assault-charges

His arrest wasn't even involving a female so I don't see anything where they would be able to bring his arrest up at trial.

He wasn't even there when it happened. And I do believe the TBI has evidence that Zach Adams was. I have no doubt all cell phones have thoroughly been investigated/searched by TBI specialists showing where everyone was at the time Holly was being kidnapped from the property.

So I don't see why his testimony would even be needed. He really wouldn't have any circumstantial evidence to add.

The defense cant just bring something up out of the blue that has nothing to do with this case. They must convince the Judge that it is somehow connected to this case. What he did years later concerning his Uncle has no similarities to what happened to Holly. The ex-boyfriend is not going to be on trial here.

Respectfully Mercurydime, I do believe it is totally unrelated, and I do believe the Presiding Judge will also rule it irrelevant. It isn't even similar acts, and didn't even involve a young woman.

This was some kind of confrontation between HBs ex and his own Uncle. How would that be relevant to these three cases?

Are you saying that you believe the three charged are innocent and it was all done by Holly's ex-boyfriend?

I don't think the defense is going to have a field day with this. In fact, I cant even imagine why it would be allowed into a kidnapping, rape, and murder case. The DT must prove there is a connection. What is the connection?

IMO

 

[Mightymight]

I have no doubt all cell phones have thoroughly been investigated/searched by TBI specialists showing where everyone was at the time Holly was being kidnapped from the property.

A quick point of clarification about what the TBI can and cannot do with/without court orders with the geolocation of cell phones.

If I open up google maps on my phone, I can see where I am on a map ± a few feet. However, if the TBI gets a court order for the geolocation of a cell phone, the carrier (AT&T, Verizon, etc) will tell the TBI that the cell phone is pinging a certain tower and the cell phone is within 1000ish feet of the tower. By a court order, the TBI cannot get the precise location of a cell phone. By law the carriers are not required to provide precise location.

However, the TBI (without a court order) can run a tower dump that will show all cell phones (regardless of carrier) that are pinging the tower in a given time frame. So if the TBI ran a tower dump for the data during the time of kidnap, they can see all cellphones that were pinging the closest tower(s) to Holly's house. Keep in mind this could be hundreds/thousands of phones. Please also keep in mind that the location of a person's cell phone does not necessarily give the location of the person.

Now back to Oceanblueeyes quote above...Yes, I am sure the TBI knows which phones were in range of the closest towers to Holly's house. However, using phone data alone, they do not know the exact locations of suspects phones or the suspects during the time of the kidnapping.

 

[Tugela]

A quick point of clarification about what the TBI can and cannot do with/without court orders with the geolocation of cell phones.

If I open up google maps on my phone, I can see where I am on a map ± a few feet. However, if the TBI gets a court order for the geolocation of a cell phone, the carrier (AT&T, Verizon, etc) will tell the TBI that the cell phone is pinging a certain tower and the cell phone is within 1000ish feet of the tower. By a court order, the TBI cannot get the precise location of a cell phone. By law the carriers are not required to provide precise location.

However, the TBI (without a court order) can run a tower dump that will show all cell phones (regardless of carrier) that are pinging the tower in a given time frame. So if the TBI ran a tower dump for the data during the time of kidnap, they can see all cellphones that were pinging the closest tower(s) to Holly's house. Keep in mind this could be hundreds/thousands of phones. Please also keep in mind that the location of a person's cell phone does not necessarily give the location of the person.

Now back to Oceanblueeyes quote above...Yes, I am sure the TBI knows which phones were in range of the closest towers to Holly's house. However, using phone data alone, they do not know the exact locations of suspects phones or the suspects during the time of the kidnapping.

I don't believe that the phone companies even have that sort of information. When your phone determines your position on the map, it triangulates based on the tower signals it can receive and the strength. It doesn't need to communicate with the tower at all to do that. It doesn't determine the direction from the signal itself, but rather the GPS coordinates of the towers are known. Then, from the signal strength, it can determine approximately where you are provided that it is receiving signal from at least 2 towers. If there are signals from 3 towers the position can be pretty accurate. The more towers it can receive a signal from, the more accurate the position estimate will be.

However, it is your phone that is doing all this, not the towers. The phone company doesn't care where you are, determining that information is of no use to them. The phone will ping to the tower with the strongest signal, but not the others. So unless the phone returns its position to the phone company, the tower data will only provide very vague information. So you might be able to determine that someone was in the general area, but not specifically where they were.

What police (or you, if you have had your phone stolen) CAN do is to get the phone company to actively try to contact the phone from as many towers as possible. If they do that they can use the same information that your phone normally would use to triangulate the position and find you. But that has to be done actively, it can't be done after the fact.

 

[Orgona]

I don't believe that the phone companies even have that sort of information. When your phone determines your position on the map, it triangulates based on the tower signals it can receive and the strength. It doesn't need to communicate with the tower at all to do that. It doesn't determine the direction from the signal itself, but rather the GPS coordinates of the towers are known. Then, from the signal strength, it can determine approximately where you are provided that it is receiving signal from at least 2 towers. If there are signals from 3 towers the position can be pretty accurate. The more towers it can receive a signal from, the more accurate the position estimate will be.

However, it is your phone that is doing all this, not the towers. The phone company doesn't care where you are, determining that information is of no use to them. The phone will ping to the tower with the strongest signal, but not the others. So unless the phone returns its position to the phone company, the tower data will only provide very vague information. So you might be able to determine that someone was in the general area, but not specifically where they were.

What police (or you, if you have had your phone stolen) CAN do is to get the phone company to actively try to contact the phone from as many towers as possible. If they do that they can use the same information that your phone normally would use to triangulate the position and find you. But that has to be done actively, it can't be done after the fact.

BBM
Do you mean the tower dump? Because that is existing technology and I heard it used in many cases before. Although for the life of me I can't remember where I heard it used the last time. Maybe in the Mickey Shunick case?
Here is some info about it:

THE FOURTH AMENDMENT IMPLICATIONS OF THE GOVERNMENT’S USE OF CELL TOWER DUMPS IN ITS ELECTRONIC SURVEILLANCE

Recently, the American Civil Liberties Union brought to light the popular use of government surveillance of cell phones, including the gathering of all cell phone numbers utilizing a specific cell site location.2 Known as a “cell tower dump,” such procedures essentially obtain all of the telephone number records from a particular cell site tower for a given time period: “A tower dump allows police to request the phone numbers of all phones that connected to a specific tower within a given period of time.”3 State and federal courts have barely addressed cell tower dumps.4 However, the actions by most of the largest cell phone providers, as well as personal experience and conversations with other magistrate judges, strongly suggest “that it has become a relatively routine investigative technique” for law enforcement officials.

My excuses if you meant something else.

 

[Tugela]

All the tower records is that it received a signal. There might be some vague direction depending on how the receivers are set up. Actual communication is logged, but ping records are generally overwritten pretty quickly since there is no reason for the phone company to store info like that for any length of time. Records from actual communications are stored longer because they are needed for billing purposes.

They wouldn't be able to tell much more than that you were in range of the tower when you made your call or sent a text.

 

[Orgona]

All the tower records is that it received a signal. There might be some vague direction depending on how the receivers are set up. Actual communication is logged, but ping records are generally overwritten pretty quickly since there is no reason for the phone company to store info like that for any length of time. Records from actual communications are stored longer because they are needed for billing purposes.

They wouldn't be able to tell much more than that you were in range of the tower when you made your call or sent a text.

Indeed the purpose of a tower dump record is to show who all were in the range of some specific towers at a specific time. It's not used to proof exactly where XY was. It only helps LE to see if there was anybody known to them around a specific location at the time of the crime.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:seeya: Morning, Y'all !

While checking for updates on Holly's case, I found the following:


Sentencing rescheduled in Mark Pearcy case

Pearcy, charged with unlawful possession of a firearm and ammunition by a convicted felon, was scheduled for sentencing in his federal court case Monday, but will have to reappear later this month due to a U.S. Supreme Court decision.

Mark Pearcy was previously charged in Decatur County with accessory after the fact and tampering with evidence in the 2011 kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo.

Both Mark Pearcy and his half-brother Jeffrey Pearcy were charged in the Bobo case but those charges were dismissed last fall.


http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...encing-rescheduled-mark-pearcy-case/29782731/


BBM: It will be interesting to see IF the prosecutor will reinstate these charges that were dismissed, as well as it will be interesting to see IF that "video," or portions of that video, have surfaced.

 

[Tugela]

Indeed the purpose of a tower dump record is to show who all were in the range of some specific towers at a specific time. It's not used to proof exactly where XY was. It only helps LE to see if there was anybody known to them around a specific location at the time of the crime.

Phone companies keep those records when actual communication is made, but the ping data isn't kept since it is a vast amount of information. Unless a phone was used to make a call, those records would probably not be there long. If you read this document (the first few pages), it lists the sort of information that is retained by various carriers and for how long. Tower data for calls made and texts sent are retained, but pings are not mentioned.

In any event, if most of the principals lived in the same area, it would not be surprising to see them communicating through the local tower.

 

[Orgona]

Phone companies keep those records when actual communication is made, but the ping data isn't kept since it is a vast amount of information. Unless a phone was used to make a call, those records would probably not be there long. If you read this document (the first few pages), it lists the sort of information that is retained by various carriers and for how long. Tower data for calls made and texts sent are retained, but pings are not mentioned.

In any event, if most of the principals lived in the same area, it would not be surprising to see them communicating through the local tower.

Yes, I do know all of this.
LE uses tower dump request as one of their extra investigative tools to help to see if they see something unusual or to see if someone who they are suspecting was around. For example let say by child abduction LE request it to see if any known pedophile was somewhere around who wasn't living there, or maybe even if he was living in the area. Then they have a reason to question him. Nothing less, nothing more. They request it to have a starting point or to strenghten their theory. The key is indeed the time of their request and what exact data they are requesting the cell company to preserve. But LE knows this as I have seen this requests in several cases here before. In Europe is used too.
It's not a proof of anything, not a solution. It is a helping tool, a filter. Sometimes it can help, sometimes not, as some perps are smart enough to know not to bring their phone to the scene of a crime, or yes, in case they live somewhere there they can say yes, I was home.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

:drumroll::drumroll::drumroll: FINALLY !!!


Defense Attorneys Receive Full Access To Evidence In Holly Bobo Case

By Nick Beres:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - All of the evidence in the Holly Bobo murder case is finally on the table. Defense attorneys now have full access to the criminal file completing a big step toward setting a trial date.


Link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newschannel5/news/FULL-DISCOVERY--READY-IN-BOBO-CASE-314684031.html

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Snippets from News Channel 5 article:


Defense Attorneys Receive Full Access To Evidence In Holly Bobo Case

There is said to be an entire room at Tennessee Bureau of Investigation headquarters dedicated to evidence collected in the Bobo case over the past four years.

The evidence is the heart of the capital cases now pending against three murder suspects.

Sources tell Newschannel 5 all the discovery, not just a portion, has been made available to defense attorneys.


More at Link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newschannel5/news/FULL-DISCOVERY--READY-IN-BOBO-CASE-314684031.html


BBM: Wow ... an entire room !

:seeya:

 

[OldSteve]

Thanks dog.gone.cute :seeya: I read in the link you posted ^^

it's expected defense attorneys will ask for at least four months to review the discovery with an eye toward a possible December trial.

But things can always change.

 

[Orgona]

The

Snippets from News Channel 5 article:


Defense Attorneys Receive Full Access To Evidence In Holly Bobo Case

There is said to be an entire room at Tennessee Bureau of Investigation headquarters dedicated to evidence collected in the Bobo case over the past four years.

The evidence is the heart of the capital cases now pending against three murder suspects.

Sources tell Newschannel 5 all the discovery, not just a portion, has been made available to defense attorneys.


More at Link: http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newschannel5/news/FULL-DISCOVERY--READY-IN-BOBO-CASE-314684031.html


BBM: Wow ... an entire room !

:seeya:

Wow, indeed. Can't wait to hear more at trial.