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

[Tugela]

The coon hunt. One of these guys - I THINK the one that committed suicide was at the coon hunt and hollies friend said he was watching holly and the friend.

Holly did not sing at the coon hunt but she sang at other local events. Her mother taught one of the brothers in elementary school. These are small country towns, right? Pretty blonds get noticed. I don't think people in some parts of the country realize how small small towns are. I have not followed the case very closely, so maybe I'm wrong about it being a small town?

She is pretty average looking, there are tons of girls her age who look like her.

That is not a reason.

 

[Tugela]

Justwannahelp, I bumped the post;
> above that includes timelines, maps, case files etc., for folks wanting to refresh their memories or those new to the thread.
> http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-found-deceased-discussion-thread-*Arrests*-7

It has been a very long 4+ years since Holly Bobo's abduction on 04/13/2011 for those of us who have been here since day one. The many, many Holly Bobo threads have been analogous to a never ending roller coaster ride with many twists, turns, ups, downs, and even a derail or two along the way..
:rollercoaster:

The question you asked about someone kneeling in the garage/carport was/is very controversial and could take several pages or more in an attempt to explain. Imo, It turns out that Holly and the abductor; likely ZA, were the ones kneeling immediately after the initial violent attack to gain her full compliance.. Gaining immediate and full compliance of the unsuspecting innocent victim is the 1st rule of a sexual predator and or serial murderer..

Hollye's case map (thank you Hollye)

Amandareckonwith's case file (thank you Amanda)

Justice For Holly Bobo Amandareckonwith's case file (thank you again Amanda)

ZA doesn't match the description.

 

[Tugela]

By the way, what are the odds that Dylan Adams mentioned a video of Holly's assault during interviews with LE (information that was NOT released to the public until much later)...and then a woman in the community coming forward reports she has seen a copy of such a video, which was in the hands of a man she knew? Very ironic if the video does not exist. I believe there was indeed a video.

Not odd at all. The local rumor mill had been going overtime from day one. Both of them made their allegations years later, so they both had plenty of time to hear the same rumors. In both cases they were trying to get something from LE, so likely both of them told LE "common knowledge" that LE wanted to hear.

On the face of it, it might seem that the two stories corroborate each other, but you have to stop and consider what was going on in the community at the time. When you take that into account, the first thought a rational objective person should have is that the information is contaminated. It might still be true, but, because of the circumstances, it is essential to provide irrefutable corroboration. And in this instance the only thing that would satisfy that requirement would be the alleged video itself. Since that has not materialized we have to assume the claims of these two individuals are suspect.

 

[Tugela]

I think for me, the questioning of Clint was not long standing. It was just a brief time when I felt something didn't seem right with him. This case has been so troublesome from the very first moment....after all, how many headlines scream, "Home Invasion!"
Lo and behold, there was no home invasion. So much of what we had to go on were just rumors and bits and pieces of misreporting. And I questioned how much of what we were hearing from Clint was misinformation and how much was true.

Over the course of the first 6 months, I questioned everyone and anyone. Desperation at work....

He obviously has nothing to do with her abduction since he would have been there when LE showed up, there is no time for him to be involved. But that doesn't mean that what he is saying is accurate. If it is not accurate, and/or details are being left out/embellished, then we may very well be going down the wrong path when it comes to what happened and why. Therein lies the problem. The account as reported stretches credibility and that is why questions come up. Until such time as a reasonable time line, or at least a motive, comes up, those questions will remain.

Things might be clearer if we knew what LE knows (if they know anything, lol). With all the shenanigans that went on with discovery I am inclined to think they don't know much at all.

 

[Tugela]

I wonder why, now that discovery has been turned over to the defense, that the defense has said nothing about it either.

They found Holly's remains, or her skull at least, or so we've heard.

It seems like the defense would be coming out swinging - telling the media that there is no tangible evidence, if that was in fact the case.

JMO

They would be under confidentiality restrictions I expect. They would be in big trouble if they started releasing evidence provided under discovery outside of the courtroom, that would be extremely unprofessional and I imagine it would land them in a jail cell for contempt.

The appropriate time for them would be to file a motion for dismissal due to lack of evidence during the trial after the crown has presented their case. Basically they would be asking the judge for an acquittal as a point of law before the jury is asked to consider the evidence. At that point the judge would either grant or deny the motion. If the motion was denied then they would proceed to present the defense case in the second part of the trial.

Filing a motion for dismissal before that in the absence of compelling evidence would not work and may be prejudicial further down the road if the motion is refused. I imagine that most lawyers would want to keep that ace up their sleeve until the most strategic point, which would be when the prosecution rests their case. The reason for that is that double jeopardy protections usually are only activated for dismissals after a jury has been enpaneled. Getting the client out of jail is good if there is real doubt, but there is always the risk that the prosecutor could refile the charges a week later with "new" evidence if the dismissal happened at the wrong time. A lawyer would want to get a dismissal under conditions where it is legally considered a final judgement on the matter.

 

[Suthrnqt]

She is pretty average looking, there are tons of girls her age who look like her.

That is not a reason.

IIRC, the mods have asked us not to discuss Holly's looks. Just a heads up.

 

[Foxfire]

ZA doesn't match the description.

Tugela, I am an avid hunter and it is very difficult to estimate a person's height & weight from a distance when dressed in full camo, walking away from you towards a treeline. Especially if a cap is worn and the camo is worn over other clothing..by a person/witness/CB, that was suddenly awakened from a deep sleep, by a dog's barking.

 

[jggordo]

With all the "hurry up and wait" with this case, I have lost track of when the next Court appearance or hearing is? I believe Zach Adams' attorney knows a video was taken at the time. Whether it still exists or not is still in question, IMO. Could be why she hasn't been squawking at "lack of evidence".

JMO'S

 

[Chainsaw385]

during the trial after the crown has presented their case.

I do expect a change of venue........but don't expect it being sent "across the pond"

This does explain a lot about your posts though
Those 2 justice systems are similar but do contain a lot of differences

 

[Mercurydime]

I just LOVE how this article says he was an attorney for, "one of the Memphis men connected with Holly Bobo." Holly's case is one of the biggest ones that has ever been in Tennessee...and they don't even give the defendant's name.

None of the defendants are from Memphis either.

Weird.

 

[shefner]

None of the defendants are from Memphis either.

Weird.

I know! Just goes to show how the media can get it wrong .....


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Chainsaw385]

With all the "hurry up and wait" with this case, I have lost track of when the next Court appearance or hearing is? I believe Zach Adams' attorney knows a video was taken at the time. Whether it still exists or not is still in question, IMO. Could be why she hasn't been squawking at "lack of evidence".

JMO'S

The charges against the Pearcy's being dropped muddy this up for me....or could they have been given immunity?...and if the video was explicit and showed the crimes actually happening would they dare to even offer immunity to the Pearcy's anyhow?

My personal thoughts are there was a video but they don't have it......but I certainly won't argue my point.Following the trial and see what evidence they have as it comes out will be very interesting.

That shoe print could be huge ....if it matches a shoe owned by ZA it is case closed.....ZA's arrest was made about 3 days (I don't remember the exact dates) after the search warrant was executed...... about the time it would take for forensics to make a positive match for a shoe print.

 

[Mercurydime]

The charges against the Pearcy's being dropped muddy this up for me....or could they have been given immunity?...and if the video was explicit and showed the crimes actually happening would they dare to even offer immunity to the Pearcy's anyhow?

My personal thoughts are there was a video but they don't have it......but I certainly won't argue my point.Following the trial and see what evidence they have as it comes out will be very interesting.

That shoe print could be huge ....if it matches a shoe owned by ZA it is case closed.....ZA's arrest was made about 3 days (I don't remember the exact dates) after the search warrant was executed...... about the time it would take for forensics to make a positive match for a shoe print.

Just a note about the video. I think most of us originally were misinformed that Sandra King, who claimed to have been shown the video by one of the Pearcy brothers, was the reason LE was looking for the video in the first place, but it was later disclosed that Dylan Adams actually stated to the TBI, in his initial interviews, that Zach Adams TOLD him that he had raped Holly and videotaped it. Dylan said that Zach told him this at the time that Dylan saw Holly with ZA and JA at Zach's residence - after the abduction.

Dylan of course has now been charged with raping HB as well, so he apparently can't be trusted.

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...o-Murder-Suspects-To-The-Crime-304166301.html

 

[Tugela]

Just a note about the video. I think most of us originally were misinformed that Sandra King, who claimed to have been shown the video by one of the Pearcy brothers, was the reason LE was looking for the video in the first place, but it was later disclosed that Dylan Adams actually stated to the TBI, in his initial interviews, that Zach Adams TOLD him that he had raped Holly and videotaped it. Dylan said that Zach told him this at the time that Dylan saw Holly with ZA and JA at Zach's residence - after the abduction.

Dylan of course has now been charged with raping HB as well, so he apparently can't be trusted.

http://www.scrippsmedia.com/newscha...o-Murder-Suspects-To-The-Crime-304166301.html

More likely whatever he told them could not be corroborated and was contradicted by other evidence. If he was there at the time HB was supposedly being held, and he helped them in any way, he would legally be equally liable in any other crime they committed in the process. Normally his testimony would have been useless in the trial itself, but by charging him as complicit in the rape on the basis of what he claimed, they can use the hearsay exception to admit the statements he made initially without having to use his testimony in court (along with the inevitable cross-examination that would rip it to shreds).

Basically it is a sneaky legal maneuver to get around an otherwise awkward situation that would threaten the prosecutions case. In order for the ploy to work they have to get DA charged on the same charges as the other two, and have all three of them tried together. If he gets tried separately then it won't work as his original claims would not be inadmissible without him testifying. If all three are tried together, then the prosecution can admit his original statements into evidence without it being subjected to cross examination. DA is basically being sacrificed in order to save their case.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

More likely whatever he told them could not be corroborated and was contradicted by other evidence. If he was there at the time HB was supposedly being held, and he helped them in any way, he would legally be equally liable in any other crime they committed in the process. Normally his testimony would have been useless in the trial itself, but by charging him as complicit in the rape on the basis of what he claimed, they can use the hearsay exception to admit the statements he made initially without having to use his testimony in court (along with the inevitable cross-examination that would rip it to shreds).

Basically it is a sneaky legal maneuver to get around an otherwise awkward situation that would threaten the prosecutions case. In order for the ploy to work they have to get DA charged on the same charges as the other two, and have all three of them tried together. If he gets tried separately then it won't work as his original claims would not be inadmissible without him testifying. If all three are tried together, then the prosecution can admit his original statements into evidence without it being subjected to cross examination. DA is basically being sacrificed in order to save their case.

May I ask where you read that the DA plans to try them all at one time?

I remember in the Christian-Newsome case in TN (another gruesome horrific case like Holly's) they tried the defendants all separately. None were tried together unless I am remembering it incorrectly. It was the biggest high profile case out of TN before Holly's murder overtook it.

Are you saying if they are tried separately the Judge will not allow in any confession Dylan may have made.

Your post remark concerning the video Dylan and Sandra King both told LE they had seen...you say this (Quote) 'and was contradicted by other evidence.' What other evidence would that be?

Why wouldn't his original claims not come into trial? In most cases the defendant does not testify but if they were interviewed by LE and given their Miranda Rights and decided to talk to them anyway then those statements do come in more often than not especially if the defendant confesses to guilt. The officer/s who interviewed the defendant/s usually testify and validates the LE interview video which is admitted.

I don't think there was anytime where the TBI ever said they would make a deal with DA if he would spill the beans about what happened. There has never been any mention/hint...not even by his attorney whatsoever about Dylan Adams even being offered any kind of deal.

Of course any defendant in his/her case doesn't have to take the stand in their own defense but I cant even count the taped confessions I have seen by defendants on trial. And I bet at the time when he was telling them about the video that was made he willingly talked with them and was read his rights beforehand.

I haven't seen anything that leads me to believe they will try all three of these defendants together. I don't think I have ever seen that happen when the DA is going for the death penalty on all three defendants. That would just be opening up problems for an appeal should they all be convicted and sentenced to death.

I think the trial of Zach Adams will go first or perhaps Autry's.

Just curious. What if all three are tried separately. What will be your theory then?

IMO

 

[SteveS]

May I ask where you read that the DA plans to try them all at one time?

Has been implied, but it's a pointless argument for our forum as to what the DA is wanting, because it's a decision for the court. And the court has not yet been asked to rule.

Are you saying if they are tried separately the Judge will not allow in any confession Dylan may have made.

....

Why wouldn't his original claims not come into trial? In most cases the defendant does not testify but if they were interviewed by LE and given their Miranda Rights and decided to talk to them anyway then those statements do come in more often than not especially if the defendant confesses to guilt. The officer/s who interviewed the defendant/s usually testify and validates the LE interview video which is admitted.

The assertion being made, and correctly so, is that if tried separately, the content of DA's (supposed) confession as testified to by a supposed hearer of it, can no longer be admitted under a "confession" exception, in the trial of another.

I don't think there was anytime where the TBI ever said they would make a deal with DA if he would spill the beans about what happened. There has never been any mention/hint...not even by his attorney whatsoever about Dylan Adams even being offered any kind of deal.

DA's family has spoken all along of a deal being part of the framework for DA. Whether one was ever offered, whether one was promised and then violated, or what the deal truly is or was, we don't know ...but we can't say it hasn't been something we have been led to believe existed, for quite some time, because it has.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Has been implied, but it's a pointless argument for our forum as to what the DA is wanting, because it's a decision for the court. And the court has not yet been asked to rule.

The assertion being made, and correctly so, is that if tried separately, the content of DA's (supposed) confession as testified to by a supposed hearer of it, can no longer be admitted under a "confession" exception, in the trial of another.

DA's family has spoken all along of a deal being part of the framework for DA. Whether one was ever offered, whether one was promised and then violated, or what the deal truly is or was, we don't know ...but we can't say it hasn't been something we have been led to believe existed, for quite some time, because it has.

So you are saying it wasn't Dylan himself who admitted to the TBI that he raped Holly too? Thank you, I didn't realize that. I thought he confessed to the TBI. My bad. Who told the TBI about Dylan raping Holly? tia

But if he did say anything to them that points to guilt during an interview or shows he lied to them that can come in, right?

Sorry, I don't put any stock in what any family member of any of these defendant may have to say. Imo, they have a vested interest to lie. I am going by the words of the DAs which have been involved in the case or the TBI agent and I haven't seen a plea deal even mentioned much less really considered.

I think they knew all along Dylan was up to his eyeballs in this as much as the other two. Imo, they knew it was just a matter of time the same charges would be lobbed against him as well. I don't think anyone was really surprised when it happened.

IMO

 

[SteveS]

So you are saying it wasn't Dylan himself who admitted to the TBI that he raped Holly too? Who told the TBI about Dylan raping Holly?

But if he did say anything to them that points to guilt during an interview or shows he lied to them that can come in, right?

<mod snip> Yes there were claims that DA said such and such (and it's unclear exactly what he supposedly said). But regardless, what he is said to have said isn't the issue being discussed at the moment. It's about admissibility.

Without a signed written statement (and we've seen no claim that such a written statement exists), just saying "I heard him say ____" gets tricky in court. Because what Dylan is claimed to have said (by a supposed listener, jailhouse snitch, a Fed who talked to him, or whoever) would be classed as hearsay. So the bottom line comes down to the admissibility of that hearsay.

Some hearsay is admissible, and some is not. A statement "against my own best interest" usually gets allowed as ADMISSIBLE (although sometimes not). But what Dylan is alleged to have said about anyone else is not against his own interest and therefore would typically be considered INADMISSIBLE.

So if someone wants to testify they heard Dylan admitting to doing ____, in a trial against DA, it probably gets heard by a jury. But if someone wants to testify that they heard Dylan accusing someone else of doing ___, the court won't let it be heard unless DA wants to take the stand and testify that assertion. Even in a joint trial, it's questionable if the hearsay against others would be permitted to be aired.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

<modsnip> Yes there were claims that DA said such and such (and it's unclear exactly what he supposedly said). But regardless, what he is said to have said isn't the issue being discussed at the moment. It's about admissibility.

Without a signed written statement (and we've seen no claim that such a written statement exists), just saying "I heard him say ____" gets tricky in court. Because what Dylan is claimed to have said (by a supposed listener, jailhouse snitch, a Fed who talked to him, or whoever) would be classed as hearsay. So the bottom line comes down to the admissibility of that hearsay.

Some hearsay is admissible, and some is not. A statement "against my own best interest" usually gets allowed as ADMISSIBLE (although sometimes not). But what Dylan is alleged to have said about anyone else is not against his own interest and therefore would typically be considered INADMISSIBLE.

So if someone wants to testify they heard Dylan admitting to doing ____, in a trial against DA, it probably gets heard by a jury. But if someone wants to testify that they heard Dylan accusing someone else of doing ___, the court won't let it be heard unless DA wants to take the stand and testify that assertion. Even in a joint trial, it's questionable if the hearsay against others would be permitted to be aired.

<modsnip>

Again, in my question I said nothing about someone else overhearing him saying anything.

My question remains the same.

If Dylan was in the interview room and had been read his Miranda Warnings and still wanted to talk freely and during that time he confessed to one of the TBI agents he had raped Holly twice would that video interview be admissible? That's all I wanted to know.

If he was video taped and the video ruled valid then how is that hearsay when the jury would hear/see the confession coming from his own mouth? Not many interviews/interrogations are just hand written signature statements anymore. Now they have both and even have transcripts of the video interview of the defendant for the jury to follow along.

Even in 2006 when Mary Winkler murdered her husband in TN her video statements to LE came in. In fact there was more than one since she went on the lam to Orange Beach, Florida and that police agency also interviewed her as well as the TBI when she was brought back to TN.

Although I already do believe it will be admissible based on countless other cases I have seen or read about. There are many exceptions to the hearsay rule.

I wasn't speculating about a hearsay witness, who heard such and such etc since I have not heard of such a hearsay witness nor have I seen that being said by anyone in any of the media. There certainly could be one or more but at the time that isn't an issue I was even considering. I was much more interested about DA making a confession to one or more TBI agents and the legal issues surrounding that possibility

Should there be any hearsay witnesses of course it will the Judge who will decide whether it comes in or not. I am very well aware of that.

In fact, I can look up TN law, and find the information I was enquiring about. I should have done that first anyway. So there will be no need for you to take up your time and effort giving me your answer.

IMO

 

[justwannahelp]

Justwannahelp, I bumped the post;
> above that includes timelines, maps, case files etc., for folks wanting to refresh their memories or those new to the thread.
> http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-found-deceased-discussion-thread-*Arrests*-7

It has been a very long 4+ years since Holly Bobo's abduction on 04/13/2011 for those of us who have been here since day one. The many, many Holly Bobo threads have been analogous to a never ending roller coaster ride with many twists, turns, ups, downs, and even a derail or two along the way..
:rollercoaster:

The question you asked about someone kneeling in the garage/carport was/is very controversial and could take several pages or more in an attempt to explain. Imo, It turns out that Holly and the abductor; likely ZA, were the ones kneeling immediately after the initial violent attack to gain her full compliance.. Gaining immediate and full compliance of the unsuspecting innocent victim is the 1st rule of a sexual predator and or serial murderer..

Hollye's case map (thank you Hollye)

Amandareckonwith's case file (thank you Amanda)

Justice For Holly Bobo Amandareckonwith's case file (thank you again Amanda)

Thank you foxfire. I can't go back and read everything. So I'll go with your opinion- an attack in the carport.