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

[Bali]

Not exactly new news, but Nick Beres just reported that Herbison (Autry's atty) has subpoenaed DA Matt Stowe and Mark Gwyn (TBI director) to answer questions at the June 3rd hearing. Should be very interesting if that goes through. I've never heard of a DA being questioned on the stand by a defense attorney.

 

[Steleheart]

God, I sure hope they've got evidence they're not showing us. Although, it takes next to nothing to get an indictment, so don't go by that. Ever heard the "ham sandwich" saying? It's true. You can indict just about anyone. There isn't necessarily more than the almost nothing that we've seen. They may have just shown the grand jury the confession by Dylan and the untested dusty blonde hair and that's it. At this point I don't even care if they're guilty. The prosecution is violating their rights in such a massive way. You can't hold someone in prison for a year without producing any evidence. You can't play a round robin game of dropping charges right before hearing so you don't have to ante up, then recharging with something else to keep them locked up. There's a reason we have these rights and prosecutors don't have the right to manipulate the situation to avoid giving defendants these rights. Prosecutorial misconduct does not sit well with me, regardless of whether they're guilty or not.

I have to hope along with you because in every case I have ever followed, when I think they have nothing I have to remember that discovery is when actual evidence is revealed and often not to the general public. The only time we hear of evidence is when the prosecution is making a public case. It is then that I worry.

There is no reason for the prosecution to show their hand before all the bets are in; i.e. at trial.

But about the Grand Jury, I have to say that I have known people who performed that duty and who have selflessly interrupted their personal lives to do it. I personally don't feel that the ham sandwich metaphor is fair. It's a long time defense excuse to try and vilify the justice system which goes to great lengths to protect the rights of the accused. While true that the evidence presented is not subject to the same scrutiny and procedure as a jury trial, it's only purpose is to ascertain if the charges are warranted enough to go to trial.

These are just my opinions, which are seldom popular.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I have to hope along with you because in every case I have ever followed, when I think they have nothing I have to remember that discovery is when actual evidence is revealed and often not to the general public. The only time we hear of evidence is when the prosecution is making a public case. It is then that I worry.

There is no reason for the prosecution to show their hand before all the bets are in; i.e. at trial.

But about the Grand Jury, I have to say that I have known people who performed that duty and who have selflessly interrupted their personal lives to do it. I personally don't feel that the ham sandwich metaphor is fair. It's a long time defense excuse to try and vilify the justice system which goes to great lengths to protect the rights of the accused. While true that the evidence presented is not subject to the same scrutiny and procedure as a jury trial, it's only purpose is to ascertain if the charges are warranted enough to go to trial.

These are just my opinions, which are seldom popular.

Thank you. As a prior Grand Juror myself and my hubby has also served on a GJ we took our oaths very seriously. I believe that all GJs do also.

It is easy to say a GJ will indict a ham sandwich but its just not reality. Over 90%+ of cases end up with a guilty verdict or a plea deal. So it shows the GJ is far more right than it is ever wrong and the duty of the GJ is not to find innocence or guilt anyway but to weigh the evidence presented and whether there is enough probable cause established for the cases to go forward. Usually you will see that the GJ will true bill some cases and will not true bill others.

I believe the GJ did their duty and returned well deserved indictments against these defendants.

I am elated to see that Dylan will now be on trial for his part in this horrific crime. The TBI has told the public from the start that this is an ongoing investigation and they are true to their word since Dylan is now included and its the infamous three now instead of two.

JMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Not exactly new news, but Nick Beres just reported that Herbison (Autry's atty) has subpoenaed DA Matt Stowe and Mark Gwyn (TBI director) to answer questions at the June 3rd hearing. Should be very interesting if that goes through. I've never heard of a DA being questioned on the stand by a defense attorney.

I cant remember the cases right now by name but I have seen defense attorneys try to get the Prosecutor on the stand in a couple of cases I have watched. In those cases the Judge did not allow it.

We will see if this one does.

IMO

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

SteveS said: "It being a very small town, they definitely knew each other to some degree, but no evidence they ever ran in the same circles or spent any real time together. I think one theory (and perhaps the one being used by the prosecution) to explain how/why these three defendants might have done all of this (assuming they did) goes something like this:

- she was the pretty girl around town,
- they didn't particularly know her,
- they thought (real or imagined) she felt like she was out of their league, so to speak,
- so they grabbed her to prove they could have her (perhaps one or a combination of anger, desire for power, lust, drug-fueled aggressiveness, narcissism), and
- the murder simply was the ultimate end game, to discard her and cover up."

I agree completely; IF the currently-charged men are the correct suspects, what you say has to be true. There is no other rational list of motives for men so far-removed from Holly Bobo's circle.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

Respectfully snipped:



Interesting point. Flies in the face of the "rule-of-three" I go on about whereby:
1) The victim is abducted from one location.
2) Victim's belonging (other evidence too) left (tossed out) at second location, often not far from abduction site.
3) Finally, victim left at third location, place perp feels comfortable/familiar with. Also this place is an opposite - meaning if belonging are tossed on land, body is left in water, and vice versa; or if belongings left outside, body is left inside somewhere...

Saw this take place a few cases, notable:
Mickey Shunick:
Abducted on land, knocked off her bicycle, and both her and bike were taken. Bike was dumped in water a distance away.
She was then buried in a grave yard.
Where she was buried was familiar to the ****, as he had gotten in trouble when young for digging up graveyard remains!

My opinions only, no facts here:

In my originally-drafted super-long version of Part III, The Gooch Road Evidence, I discussed the subject you brought up here. This portion was removed to make my recent post smaller (it is still quite huge I know).

Let’s assume that the authorities have the correct guys in custody. We know the location of the house where the two main suspect brothers live. Here is the rub: Why place the remains in an out-of-the-way location (very clever) but dump the Gooch Road Evidence almost mid-way between Holly’s home and the main suspects’ home on the shortest back-road route between the two locations? Very stupid. Are the suspects stupid and clever at the same time?

Think about this in real-life terms. You have a living kidnap victim in your vehicle and her lunch purse, etc. You have pulled off a successful abduction and are speeding towards your home. Suddenly you decide to stop and draw attention to yourself, pull off the road into an area where you could encounter a witness and toss evidence that could easily be burned in a stove at your house.

If the Gooch Road evidence exists as generally reported, I believe something is amiss.

 

[Tugela]

I have to hope along with you because in every case I have ever followed, when I think they have nothing I have to remember that discovery is when actual evidence is revealed and often not to the general public. The only time we hear of evidence is when the prosecution is making a public case. It is then that I worry.

There is no reason for the prosecution to show their hand before all the bets are in; i.e. at trial.

But about the Grand Jury, I have to say that I have known people who performed that duty and who have selflessly interrupted their personal lives to do it. I personally don't feel that the ham sandwich metaphor is fair. It's a long time defense excuse to try and vilify the justice system which goes to great lengths to protect the rights of the accused. While true that the evidence presented is not subject to the same scrutiny and procedure as a jury trial, it's only purpose is to ascertain if the charges are warranted enough to go to trial.

These are just my opinions, which are seldom popular.

The evidentiary bar for an indictment is much lower than an actual conviction. A grand jury finds probable cause, not necessarily guilt. All they are saying is that the prosecutor has some evidence, not that the evidence is sufficient or solid. That is why the "ham sandwich" saying arose.

In this case it the indictment probably is primarily what DA claimed (and likely SA as well). The prosecutor would not require much more than that to get an indictment. To get a conviction however they will need corroboration and they will need their witnesses to be credible under cross examination (which they are not subjected to in a grand jury hearing).

 

[Tugela]

I cant remember the cases right now by name but I have seen defense attorneys try to get the Prosecutor on the stand in a couple of cases I have watched. In those cases the Judge did not allow it.

We will see if this one does.

IMO

Stowe is not the prosecutor anymore however, but he was part of the investigation and that means he is subject to examination if there is reason to believe that he is in possession of, or has knowledge of relevant information. And after the ruckus with the TBI earlier there is no question of that. So I think that in this case there is a good chance that he will be examined at the hearing. Whether he will be useful or not is debatable however, he doesn't have to volunteer information, just answer the questions. So if the defense doesn't know what the fight was about specifically, they might not get the answers they are looking for.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

The evidentiary bar for an indictment is much lower than an actual conviction. A grand jury finds probable cause, not necessarily guilt. All they are saying is that the prosecutor has some evidence, not that the evidence is sufficient or solid. That is why the "ham sandwich" saying arose.

In this case it the indictment probably is primarily what DA claimed (and likely SA as well). The prosecutor would not require much more than that to get an indictment. To get a conviction however they will need corroboration and they will need their witnesses to be credible under cross examination (which they are not subjected to in a grand jury hearing).

My opinions only, no facts here:

Thank you for this post. It is concise and relevant. In a Child's fantasy-world a Grand Jury indictment is the equivalent to a playground taunt- it may be true or it may be false, yet costs you nothing more than temporary psychological pain. But in the real adult world such an indictment commonly means bankruptcy of the accused for legal defense costs. It does not matter if you are innocent or guilty. You are broken, just the same. Worse, even if you are found innocent in a Court of Law, your name is forever tainted and relegated to future internet gossip sites and tabloid rags.

When THEY decide to come after you, it becomes your puny assets against an entire State or the Nation (in a Federal case). For the average American, it means you are finished. Guilt or innocence become irrelevant, because you are now rendered broke. Prison becomes a godsend, because at least all of your costs are fully-covered forever. You will still be able to eat and sleep, unfortunately in some of the most brutal prisons ever on the planet Earth.

 

[Tugela]

My opinions only, no facts here:

SteveS said: "It being a very small town, they definitely knew each other to some degree, but no evidence they ever ran in the same circles or spent any real time together. I think one theory (and perhaps the one being used by the prosecution) to explain how/why these three defendants might have done all of this (assuming they did) goes something like this:

- she was the pretty girl around town,
- they didn't particularly know her,
- they thought (real or imagined) she felt like she was out of their league, so to speak,
- so they grabbed her to prove they could have her (perhaps one or a combination of anger, desire for power, lust, drug-fueled aggressiveness, narcissism), and
- the murder simply was the ultimate end game, to discard her and cover up."

I agree completely; IF the currently-charged men are the correct suspects, what you say has to be true. There is no other rational list of motives for men so far-removed from Holly Bobo's circle.

There are other more obvious and more likely motives. The prime one of course is that she was taken as a bargaining chip in some dispute with someone close to her, or as an attempt to intimidate someone close to her.

I think the idea that she was targeted for abduction out of some unrequited lust is very improbable given that there are supposedly a whole bunch of people involved and it would have to have been organized and planned in advance if the claims regarding the actual circumstances of the abduction are accurate. These guys are not rocket scientists, if they actually had done it, and did it in the way that has been claimed, then I would have expected there to be considerably more evidence at the scene. People would have seen them around, there would be cell phone traces, all those sorts of things. What about the probability that someone else would have been at the house and come to her assistance? Abducting her there in broad daylight would have been incredibly risky. She was supposedly led into the woods. Well, what is in the woods then? Wouldn't it have been easier and safer for the abductors to simply drive up to the house? There are so many things that don't make a whole lot of sense about the scenario that has been presented to the public so far.

It is possible that these guys are the ones responsible, but if they are then I think that the motives are a whole lot more complex than most people seem to think, and it would not have gone down in the way described by the accounts we have been given.

 

[Tugela]

My opinions only, no facts here:

Thank you for this post. It is concise and relevant. In a fantasy-world a Grand Jury indictment is the equivalent to a playground taunt- it may be true or it may be false, yet costs you nothing more than temporary psychological pain. But in the real world such an indictment commonly means bankruptcy of the accused for legal defense costs. It does not matter if you are innocent or guilty. You are broke, just the same. Worse, even if you are found innocent in a Court of Law, your name is forever tainted and relegated to future internet gossip sites and tabloid rags.

When THEY decide to come after you, it becomes your puny assets against an entire State. For the average American, it means you are finished. Guilt or innocence become irrelevant, because you are now broke. Prison becomes a godsend, because at least all of your costs are fully-covered forever.

It is worse than that. After an indictment most people (and juries) assume that the person must be guilty, not understanding the difference between the levels of evidence presented. So, once you are indicted, conviction becomes almost a foregone conclusion and the trial a formality.

A grand jury is a tool that is used to railroad a conviction and stacks the odds heavily in favor of the prosecutor. Once you are in that process you are in serious trouble because the way it works has you going one way most of the time, guilty or innocent. If you are poor and can't afford decent lawyers to get you out of that process your choices are either to go to trial and probably get convicted with a heavy sentence, or plea bargain for a lighter sentence. Prosecutors like the latter because it avoids a trial that might reduce their conviction rate, while a poor defendant usually can't take the risk of a trial so they will plea down even if they are innocent.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

It is worse than that. After an indictment most people (and juries) assume that the person must be guilty, not understanding the difference between the levels of evidence presented. So, once you are indicted, conviction becomes almost a foregone conclusion and the trial a formality.

A grand jury is a tool that is used to railroad a conviction and stacks the odds heavily in favor of the prosecutor. Once you are in that process you are in serious trouble because the way it works has you going one way most of the time, guilty or innocent. If you are poor and can't afford decent lawyers to get you out of that process your choices are either to go to trial and probably get convicted with a heavy sentence, or plea bargain for a lighter sentence. Prosecutors like the latter because it avoids a trial that might reduce their conviction rate, while a poor defendant usually can't take the risk of a trial so they will plea down even if they are innocent.

My opinions only, no facts here:

Tugela! I have been reading all of your posts with interest for SOME time. Like myself, you seem to have some serious and accurate inklings about what is going on here. I am impressed. Your posts are invariably useful to the Holly Bobo case, logical, and immediately comprehensible to me because of your no-nonsense approach.

Let us go the distance in this case my friend.

 

[Foxfire]

My opinions only, no facts here:

In my originally-drafted super-long version of Part III, The Gooch Road Evidence, I discussed the subject you brought up here. This portion was removed to make my recent post smaller (it is still quite huge I know).

Let’s assume that the authorities have the correct guys in custody. We know the location of the house where the two main suspect brothers live. Here is the rub: Why place the remains in an out-of-the-way location (very clever) but dump the Gooch Road Evidence almost mid-way between Holly’s home and the main suspects’ home on the shortest back-road route between the two locations? Very stupid. Are the suspects stupid and clever at the same time?

Think about this in real-life terms. You have a living kidnap victim in your vehicle and her lunch purse, etc. You have pulled off a successful abduction and are speeding towards your home. Suddenly you decide to stop and draw attention to yourself, pull off the road into an area where you could encounter a witness and toss evidence that could easily be burned in a stove at your house.

If the Gooch Road evidence exists as generally reported, I believe something is amiss.

Found this reply from a year ago, Mr. Noatak:

Foxfire says: <05-08-2014>

Mr. Noatak, I honor and respect your opinion/s, and appreciate your tireless efforts, but disagree that the evidence located during the searches were planted. Although in the Jessica Ridgeway, and other abductions, the planting of evidence was used by the perp to deflect or confuse investigators.

Imo, it is the norm for the perp to discard items of the victim in route to their safe havens. It is also the norm in many abductions for the victim to discard or plant evidence in a hansel & gretel type trail to enhance the chances for a rescue, or enable authorities to identify the perp/s due to possible forensics contamination. jmo..

Mr Noatak, I also feel that the perp/s temporarily hid out in the woods where the lunch bag was located Gooch Rd/5 Forks area. Imo, this was due to the unexpected 911 calls due to Holly's screams and the influx of LEOs/cruisers/sirens of the many 1st Responders from multiple jurisdictions. There is a logging road that leads to the densely wooded area near the creek where the lunch bag was located.

Imo, HB was allowed to take her personal items, only to buy time for the perp. It would have been obvious that she had been assaulted/abducted if these items were later discovered in the carport by family members.
Mr. Noatak, imo, some of the evidence/items located in the initial searches were left as a trail by HB, and some; cell phone/SIM card, were likely discarded by the perp/s for misdirection/deflection..

Mr, Noatak, I am a firm believer that there is a spiritual connection/parallel in most, if not all abduction/murders of innocent victims. Imo, many times the innocent victims act as invisible searchers and will guide those seeking to find them.

What is the probability of locating an item as small as a SIM card in very high grass, quite a distance from where the cell phone was located?

Sometime before lunch on the Easter 2011 volunteer search, the cell phone was located by an aware searcher. Due to this significant find, all searchers were dispatched and transported back to the incident command center on Hwy 69 in Parsons, TN.

The very persistent and optimistic searchers were then transported to new critical areas of concern and the focus was on locating the missing SIM card. This is why the Easter afternoon volunteer searchers were seen on their hands and knees sifting through the high grass of areas that had been previously searched.

A young, soon to be mother, had traveled from the Memphis area to lend a hand in the Easter search for Holly.. While searching through the grass, she had stirred up a sudden cloud of pollen. Highly allergic, her eyes began watering, nose running, and she couldn't stop sneezing. Each search team was accompanied/followed by a Safety Officer/Squad Leader in a vehicle which carried bottled water, first aid supplies, etc.

While walking back to the Safety Officers truck to get tissues, through an area that had just been searched, the searcher stepped on the missing SIM card...

Photo Slideshow of Easter 2011 afternoon search - Jackson Sun
http://www.jacksonsun.com/apps/pbcs...OTOGALLERIES01&Lopenr=104240801&Ref=PH&Item=0

 

[Bali]

There are other more obvious and more likely motives. The prime one of course is that she was taken as a bargaining chip in some dispute with someone close to her, or as an attempt to intimidate someone close to her.

I think the idea that she was targeted for abduction out of some unrequited lust is very improbable given that there are supposedly a whole bunch of people involved and it would have to have been organized and planned in advance if the claims regarding the actual circumstances of the abduction are accurate. These guys are not rocket scientists, if they actually had done it, and did it in the way that has been claimed, then I would have expected there to be considerably more evidence at the scene. People would have seen them around, there would be cell phone traces, all those sorts of things. What about the probability that someone else would have been at the house and come to her assistance? Abducting her there in broad daylight would have been incredibly risky. She was supposedly led into the woods. Well, what is in the woods then? Wouldn't it have been easier and safer for the abductors to simply drive up to the house? There are so many things that don't make a whole lot of sense about the scenario that has been presented to the public so far.

It is possible that these guys are the ones responsible, but if they are then I think that the motives are a whole lot more complex than most people seem to think, and it would not have gone down in the way described by the accounts we have been given.

It should come as no surprise that this is my theory as well. I have serious doubts that this band of drug addicted low lives and half a dozen of their friends (which the prosecution has alleged are involved) would be able to keep this murder plot a secret for three years. And it's pretty unlikely that a big band of guys would hatch a rape and murder plot for sexual motives. Super weird.

I too believe she was a bargaining chip. I don't believe it was a sexual motive. I think they were looking for someone and hoping Holly could bring them to that person.

 

[Foxfire]

There are other more obvious and more likely motives. The prime one of course is that she was taken as a bargaining chip in some dispute with someone close to her, or as an attempt to intimidate someone close to her.

I think the idea that she was targeted for abduction out of some unrequited lust is very improbable given that there are supposedly a whole bunch of people involved and it would have to have been organized and planned in advance if the claims regarding the actual circumstances of the abduction are accurate. These guys are not rocket scientists, if they actually had done it, and did it in the way that has been claimed, then I would have expected there to be considerably more evidence at the scene. People would have seen them around, there would be cell phone traces, all those sorts of things. What about the probability that someone else would have been at the house and come to her assistance? Abducting her there in broad daylight would have been incredibly risky. She was supposedly led into the woods. Well, what is in the woods then? Wouldn't it have been easier and safer for the abductors to simply drive up to the house? There are so many things that don't make a whole lot of sense about the scenario that has been presented to the public so far.

It is possible that these guys are the ones responsible, but if they are then I think that the motives are a whole lot more complex than most people seem to think, and it would not have gone down in the way described by the accounts we have been given.

RE: Obvious

Tugela, I learned along time ago to never misunderestimate a psychopath.. Although many, if not most are very intelligent, they make up for any deficiencies with other abilities. They are very creative, calculating, deflective, and manipulative.. They are chameleonlike, and time and time again, will fool even the most experienced homicide investigators..
It was very obvious from the tragic events and indicators on the morning of 04/13/2011, that Holly Bobo was abducted by an experienced and brazened organized stranger/slight acquaintance sadistic psychopathic sexual predator/s, who was forensically and investigative aware, and no stranger/s to the game; hunter/s..

Likely directly or indirectly meth related..
Not only does long term abuse of meth create psychopathic personalities, imo, but also causes the sexual predator/s to be very brazen but also enhances their labido.. Although obvious from the grand jury indictments, imo, the primary motive for HB's abduction was sexual in nature. Other secondary motivations that were present were anger, thrill, and extreme violent control; the control over the life or death of another.

I have been researching slight acquaintance/stranger sexual predator abduction investigations for over seven years. Since the days of the speed freak killers-CA - 1980s) meth has been a common denominator in a very high majority of horrific heinous violent crimes across the USA.. Holly Bobo's tragic abduction, rape, torture, and murder is no different, imo..

The A team were experienced and avid hunters, analogous to a pack of wolves, imo. Holly Bobo was simply their "ideal" prey/victim on their 04/13/2011 morning hunt...

 

[OldSteve]

My opinions only, no facts here:

In my originally-drafted super-long version of Part III, The Gooch Road Evidence, I discussed the subject you brought up here. This portion was removed to make my recent post smaller (it is still quite huge I know).

Let’s assume that the authorities have the correct guys in custody. We know the location of the house where the two main suspect brothers live. Here is the rub: Why place the remains in an out-of-the-way location (very clever) but dump the Gooch Road Evidence almost mid-way between Holly’s home and the main suspects’ home on the shortest back-road route between the two locations? Very stupid. Are the suspects stupid and clever at the same time?

Think about this in real-life terms. You have a living kidnap victim in your vehicle and her lunch purse, etc. You have pulled off a successful abduction and are speeding towards your home. Suddenly you decide to stop and draw attention to yourself, pull off the road into an area where you could encounter a witness and toss evidence that could easily be burned in a stove at your house.

If the Gooch Road evidence exists as generally reported, I believe something is amiss.

Regarding what I've respectfully highlighted - Was it possible that the items mentioned were simply thrown out of the moving vehicle, rather than actually making a stop to get out and leave them? It's been my thought that the perp(s) while speeding away, realize she has her lunch box (purse) with her and it dawns on him she might have a phone, tablet, etc. inside. Fearing the device could have GPS or a location app turned on, he wants to get rid of it like a live grenade.

 

[Dogface]

I have mulled every theory I could come up with in my head, and I have quite the imagination, and the only thing I can concede to is that there must be something significant that we don't know. Because for me, what we do know does not equate for me, it is a reach on the motive part for me. It's not a reach for me to think that these people are capable, however, I think there is a bigger driving force than Holly was beautiful and they couldn't have her.

Also, I have been thinking about the federal involvement/TBI...not sure how to word this exactly, but, if the suspects were on their radar for some time, as it's been indicated, I'm not sure why, if it's all local people, they have had such involvement. Nothing here past the initial searches required a huge amount of resources.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I believe the motive is supported by the charges filed against the three defendants and are self explanatory as to what the intended motive was.

Kidnapped to be raped by multiple offenders, and murdered.

 

[TedMac]

There are other more obvious and more likely motives. The prime one of course is that she was taken as a bargaining chip in some dispute with someone close to her, or as an attempt to intimidate someone close to her.

I think the idea that she was targeted for abduction out of some unrequited lust is very improbable given that there are supposedly a whole bunch of people involved and it would have to have been organized and planned in advance if the claims regarding the actual circumstances of the abduction are accurate. These guys are not rocket scientists, if they actually had done it, and did it in the way that has been claimed, then I would have expected there to be considerably more evidence at the scene. People would have seen them around, there would be cell phone traces, all those sorts of things. What about the probability that someone else would have been at the house and come to her assistance? Abducting her there in broad daylight would have been incredibly risky. She was supposedly led into the woods. Well, what is in the woods then? Wouldn't it have been easier and safer for the abductors to simply drive up to the house? There are so many things that don't make a whole lot of sense about the scenario that has been presented to the public so far.

It is possible that these guys are the ones responsible, but if they are then I think that the motives are a whole lot more complex than most people seem to think, and it would not have gone down in the way described by the accounts we have been given.

BBM Perhaps they didn't want to risk having their vehicle seen at the home of a person that was abducted? There are neighbors on her road that could have seen a strange car in the driveway or driven by and seen their car parked there or maybe even seen the abductor's face.

The getaway car was probably parked in a secluded area and the woods was a shortcut to it, plus once they got to the woods, then no one would see them with the victim.

 

[TedMac]

It is worse than that. After an indictment most people (and juries) assume that the person must be guilty, not understanding the difference between the levels of evidence presented. So, once you are indicted, conviction becomes almost a foregone conclusion and the trial a formality.

A grand jury is a tool that is used to railroad a conviction and stacks the odds heavily in favor of the prosecutor. Once you are in that process you are in serious trouble because the way it works has you going one way most of the time, guilty or innocent. If you are poor and can't afford decent lawyers to get you out of that process your choices are either to go to trial and probably get convicted with a heavy sentence, or plea bargain for a lighter sentence. Prosecutors like the latter because it avoids a trial that might reduce their conviction rate, while a poor defendant usually can't take the risk of a trial so they will plea down even if they are innocent.

BBM As someone who worked in the Court system for 37 years, I must respectively disagree. The Grand Jury is not a tool to "railroad a conviction..." It is part of our judicial process. Most defendant that are indicted have already had a preliminary hearing that is overseen by a judge who decides if there is probable cause to bind the case over to the grand jury. I am aware that some defendants are directly indicted by the grand jury at the discretion of the prosecutor thus by-passing the preliminary hearing which is usually held in the lower court. This is popular in drug cases when an undercover officer has purchased drugs from numerous defendants. It is also done in rape cases to avoid the victim from having to testify twice about the traumatic event that has occurred. Some defense attorneys actually waive the preliminary hearing for different reasons.

Poor defendants often are represented by Court-appointed counsel, which can be a private attorney or a public defender. I know it is common practice for people to ridicule and even discredit public defenders as being weak and/or timid. While that is certain the case with some of them, it isn't always the case. In fact,most of the time it is not the case. The majority of them are very experienced and knowledgeable of criminal law. Most of them don't practice any type of law except criminal law. Most defense attorneys, except for the public defenders usually practice different types of law (civil, real estate, divorce, etc) because it is financially more lucrative. Also, most attorneys that practice criminal law-even those who have the reputation of being the top criminal lawyers will take a number of court-appointed cases.

We all can cite an exception and yes, some innocent people have been convicted of crimes they didn't commit, but most defendants that are found guilty in court are convicted because they are in fact guilty and the prosecution enough evidence to convict them whether they have bench (judge) or jury trial and not because they had inadequate legal representation.

Plea agreements occur at all levels-whether the defendant is rich and has retained his/her own counsel or whether the public defender is involved.