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

[justwannahelp]

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

That is not a reason.

My original post follows as a reason to why it wasn't random. Someone said "she wasn't in the wrong place at the wrong time". they thought it had to have been planned but couldn't understand why ZA chose Holly if she didn't know him. I was giving them a reason of why I think holly was chosen- why it wasn't random --in my opinion. My reason as previously posted is this:

Originally Posted by justwannahelp
The coon hunt. One of these guys - I THINK the one that committed suicide was at the coon hunt and holly's friend said he was watching holly and the friend. Holly's friend said she and holly were creeped out.

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?

So that was my original post above. I'm saying that even though holly didn't really KNOW these monsters, they had taken notice of HER. It's a small town. She was the pretty daughter of a local school teacher that sang at local events. Maybe holly made him mad simply by not being interested in him. I'm saying that until you live in a small town, you don't realize how people know OF almost everyone though they don't really KNOW know each person in the town.
The population there is 2,350. That's nothing. So yes I think she was noticed. Were there other pretty girls in town that they could have targeted? Absolutely, but they targeted her. Maybe it's because they knew her home backed up to woods. Maybe the creepy guy at the coon hunt said "let's get this girl" maybe one held a grudge for getting a bad grade in elementary school. My point is that even though it was obviously planned, that doesn't mean Holly ever had words with ZA and his gang.

I grew up in a small Southern town of 30,000. People knew OF everyone in town, even though they might not personally know the family. If she sang at events, I promise you, most everyone in that town knew OF her.

 

[SteveS]

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.

And if they want to include as evidence DA's testimony of what someone else did in a trial of that someone else, they have choices:
1 they can get DA to testify, in court, under oath, and subject to cross examination
2 otherwise what DA thinks and says about the crime and defendants in question would be typically regarded as inadmissible hearsay and disallowed

 

[Tugela]

And if they want to include as evidence DA's testimony of what someone else did in a trial of that someone else, they have choices:
1 they can get DA to testify, in court, under oath, and subject to cross examination
2 otherwise what DA thinks and says about the crime and defendants in question would be typically regarded as inadmissible hearsay and disallowed

That is correct.

It would not be hearsay if DA testified in the trial of the other two. Statements he made to others however would be hearsay and could not be used in anyone's trial other than his own.

If the prosecution wanted to use those statements in trial, they would need to get DA to repeat them in open court. But since they have charged him with the same offences that isn't going to happen. Normally, the prosecution would offer immunity to someone like that in order to get that testimony, even if they were involved in some way. It would wrap up the case and make a conviction very likely. Prosecutors like that since it leaves nothing to chance. Since they have chosen not to offer immunity, and charged him instead, it is reasonable to presume that either he has refused to testify or his testimony is clearly open to impeachment (in which case it would be useless).

That being so, the prosecution can get the statements admitted into trial ONLY if DA is charged with the same offences and is tried with the other two. This is probably why the charges were upgraded, since those are effectively new charges and a new case, which provides a rationale why they should all be tried together. Then the statements he made can be admitted collectively against all three under the hearsay exemption. And since he would likely not testify (because he is facing the same charges, and it would amount to a confession in court if he did), the statements cannot be challenged under cross examination. The only cross that would be allowable would be to the agents recording the conversations as to whether he really said those things and under what circumstances. The statements themselves can't be challenged directly.

This is why I say it is a sneaky move on the prosecutions part. They likely know that they have a weak case that effectively rests on what DA claimed, but his claims are questionable and would probably collapse under cross examination. If he was a solid witness they would have taken good care of him. So they don't want cross examination. To get around that they basically threw DA to the wolves, because doing so would allow them a reasonable shot at getting a conviction of the other two even though the evidence is lacking. There were two options available to the prosecution: (A) have DA testify and probably destroy the case; or (B) make sure that DA doesn't testify, but in such a way that his statements can be admitted anyway. And they appear to have chosen path (B) since they want a conviction above all else - losing will probably cost senior people their jobs and would be embarrassing to the agencies involved. They REALLY want a conviction at this point. The possibility that DA might have made it all up from local rumors is a something they would rather not consider if that gets in the way of them winning.

 

[Tugela]

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

I was not discussing her looks, the quoted poster was, suggesting it was the reason for her abduction. I simply pointed out that the proposed reason did not stand up to objective scrutiny.

It is my opinion that her appearance is completely irrelevant to this case (and the same applies in almost every similar case). In the vast majority of cases like this people get abducted for two reasons: (A) who they are; and (B) opportunity. Looks don't enter into it.

 

[shefner]

What the heck? What are we arguing about? I must be an idiot cause I don't get it and I'm confident enough to say it. If Dylan Adams gave testimony to this crime, then you can bet it will be allowed in court. He not only witnessed it, he took part in it. And why would the DA charge their top witness? To show him they mean business and that the only hope he has is to hold forth with the truth.

I think there is substantial fear involved when dealing with Zach Adams and Jason Wayne Autry. I'm sure anyone who finally told the truth was terrified after the fact, even after ZA was arrested. Remember, ALL of these people knew the truth about Holly for years and yet remained silent.

One of the big shocks of this case is that a prime witness, Shayne Austin, committed suicide out of state .What was the DA thinking? They toyed with SA too much and he was definitely in a hard place. And they didn't keep a check on him to make sure he stayed close by? Not smart.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Tugela]

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.

An avid hunter would be able to provide an accurate estimate when that person is standing next to a known reference point, in this case HB, who the brother would have known extremely well. His estimate would have been based relative to her and it would have been very accurate since she was a known yardstick.

 

[Tugela]

What the heck? What are we arguing about? I must be an idiot cause I don't get it and I'm confident enough to say it. Why would we need the DA to testify to anything in this case? If Dylan Adams gave testimony to this crime, then you can bet it will be allowed in court. He not only witnessed it, he took part in it. And why would the DA charge their top witness? To show him they mean business and that the only hope he has is to hold forth with the truth.

I think there is substantial fear involved when dealing with Zach Adams and Jason Wayne Autry. I'm sure anyone who finally told the truth was terrified after the fact, even after ZA was arrested. Remember, ALL of these people knew the truth about Holly for years and yet remained silent.

One of the big shocks of this case is that a prime witness, Shayne Austin, committed suicide out of state .What was the DA thinking? They toyed with SA too much and he was definitely in a hard place. And they didn't keep a check on him to make sure he stayed close by? Not smart.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If they don't try him with the other two then they can't use his statements unless he testified in open court. It doesn't matter if he signed affidavits, was recorded or whatever. All of that is inadmissible as hearsay if the witness is available to say it in court and be subjected to cross examination. The only way it could be admitted in the absence of direct testimony from DA would be if DA was charged with the same offences as the other two and tried alongside them. Under those circumstances the hearsay exception applies.

That is IMO the reason why he was charged (and probably the only reason). To ensure that they could invoke the hearsay exception and not rely on him to testify. The prosecutor was not trying to show they meant business or anything like that. That was the only option left to them. If they didn't do it the case was lost.

If you look at how this case has progressed it is pretty obvious that LE and/or the prosecutors involved have been playing hard and fast with the rules. How else can you account for all the unreasonable delays, stalls and squabbles that have gone on? If this case was clear cut then none of that stuff would happen, they would simple do what was required and go to trial. IMO the decision to charge DA is just another example of dubious and incomprehensible decisions that have plagued and muddied this case from the beginning.

 

[SteveS]

If they don't try him with the other two then they can't use his statements unless he testified in open court. It doesn't matter if he signed affidavits, was recorded or whatever. All of that is inadmissible as hearsay if the witness is available to say it in court and be subjected to cross examination. The only way it could be admitted in the absence of direct testimony from DA would be if DA was charged with the same offences as the other two and tried alongside them. Under those circumstances the hearsay exception applies.

"Under those circumstances the hearsay exception applies."

Maybe. Maybe not. The court would decide, but it is NOT a given that the hearsay testimony against others would be allowed. The issue is that the portion against others is still hearsay, and still does not meet any of the exceptions, and the due process rights of the other defendants in a joint trial (specifically, the right to confront witnesses against them) are atill generally not allowed to be abridged by the fact they are being tried together.

I agree that if the trial was separate, it's more likely that the court would allow such testimony against others to be heard, because there are no others potentially in jeopardy in that sort of trial, and no due process rights of others to have to protect. But it's not a slam dunk, as then the hearsay portion against others might be objected and disallowed as to relevance, and as to a prejudicial nature, to the extent it is seen as not actually speaking to what DA is saying DA may have done.

 

[Dogface]

I've lost track of time, and I don't know enough about hearsay or anything to truly participate in that discussion lol, but when are the next court dates?

 

[Chainsaw385]

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/excited_utterance

This exemption to the hearsay laws has been used to admit statements or testimony that I never thought would be allowed to be heard by the jury.....in one case the person who made the statement had died and another person testified about the statement he heard the deceased say.

From what I understand someone from LE heard DA admit to raping Holly....so it would seem to me that this was not part of an interview that would have been audio or video taped......but I am 100% certain that whoever heard DA admit to rape is going to testify at his trial about what he heard.

Anything DA said about the other defendants that has been recorded by LE is coming into their trials weather DA takes the stand or not.....no if ands or buts about it.

With DA facing trial it would certainly be in his best interest not to take the stand in the trial of the others to avoid self-incrimination and it will be the defenses problem to figure out how to refute his statements if he doesn't take the stand for cross examination.

This may not be completely fair to the other defendants but this is the way it works.

 

[SteveS]

From what I understand someone from LE heard DA admit to raping Holly....so it would seem to me that this was not part of an interview that would have been audio or video taped......but I am 100% certain that whoever heard DA admit to rape is going to testify at his trial about what he heard.

Yep, most likely. It is hearsay, but probably falls within an allowable exception for such a use.

Anything DA said about the other defendants that has been recorded by LE is coming into their trials weather DA takes the stand or not.....no if ands or buts about it.

Again, almost certainly NOT. Unless DA testifies, his words about someone else won't be allowed in court, because those statements weren't cross-examined nor do they fit any allowable exception that would make such hearsay permissible.

The exception you linked does not apply here, as it applies to reactionary statements made when or shortly after the crime itself happened, under the excitement or shock of the crime, and what DA is purported to have said was said years after the crime he was said to be discussing.

 

[shefner]

So you are saying Dylan can't get on the stand and testify about what he saw concerning ZA, JA, and Holly Bobo? If he saw it and had any part in it, he's a witness.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Chainsaw385]

The exception you linked does not apply here, as it applies to reactionary statements made when or shortly after the crime itself happened, under the excitement or shock of the crime, and what DA is purported to have said was said years after the crime he was said to be discussing.

No ........... a statement made by a janitor almost 2 years after the event he witnessed was testified to in court by a 3rd party who heard this statement after the janitor who made the original statement had died before trial.....if that is not classified as hearsay ....WHAT IS? But this was the exemption that was argued and allowed and has stood up to multiple appeals.

This exemption is very loosely worded and I have never seen a time limit imposed to define when a stress related statement was made.........they will just argue DA was still feeling the stress of the event when he was being questioned.

Also this exemption comes up often in domestic cases when charges are filled and then later the victim decides not to cooperate with the prosecution.

I personally don't like this exemption because it is basically a "catch-all" for the prosecution.......and often leads to statements being allowed as evidence with no chance for the defense to refute them.

I stand by my words that anything DA said on video/audio tape is allowed

 

[Chainsaw385]

So you are saying Dylan can't get on the stand and testify about what he saw concerning ZA, JA, and Holly Bobo? If he saw it and had any part in it, he's a witness.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

No.......... our disagreement is only if DA does not testify.And more precisely about what DA may have said about the other defendants.

If he takes the stand anything he said will be allowed in.......I don't think any of us are disputing that.

IMO it should be noted that them charging DA with the same charges all but guaranteeing he will not testify speaks volumes about the strength of their case......but will concede it could also be a ploy to get him to cut a deal so he will testify without the fear of self incrimination.

 

[SteveS]

So you are saying Dylan can't get on the stand and testify about what he saw concerning ZA, JA, and Holly Bobo? If he saw it and had any part in it, he's a witness.

Oh, DA can certainly testify, if he is willing to do so. I was replying to the question of what can be used regarding his conversations away from court, if he is unwilling to testify in court where statements can be cross-examined.

 

[SteveS]

a statement made by a janitor almost 2 years after the event he witnessed was testified to in court by a 3rd party who heard this statement after the janitor who made the original statement had died before trial....

I would suspect that something within that situation fell under the hearsay exceptions as typically codified. You have loosely described the testimony, but how about a case reference name-number-etc.

I stand by my words that anything DA said on video/audio tape is allowed

We have no indication that DA's words have been recorded, so this probably is not relevant to be demonstrated in this case.

But there is no "because we have it recorded" exception. That's just the way it is. So absent DA taking the stand, such a statement should have to meet one of the generally recognized exceptions regarding hearsay, in order to be admissible.

 

[Hatfield]

This hearsay discussion is interesting so I appreciate everyone trying to hash it out since I think DA will not testify and if he does not then this issue is going to be critical about what is admissible or not.

The thing I am wondering about with DA is how did the LE discussion go down. Was it LE in a room grilling him and saying you did it didn't you? Or was it DA really admitting everything willingly to get a deal?

I hope LE has recordings of it but if they don't then this topic will become really important about what is admissible and what is not.

 

[Hatfield]

If they don't try him with the other two then they can't use his statements unless he testified in open court. It doesn't matter if he signed affidavits, was recorded or whatever. All of that is inadmissible as hearsay if the witness is available to say it in court and be subjected to cross examination. The only way it could be admitted in the absence of direct testimony from DA would be if DA was charged with the same offences as the other two and tried alongside them. Under those circumstances the hearsay exception applies.

That is IMO the reason why he was charged (and probably the only reason). To ensure that they could invoke the hearsay exception and not rely on him to testify. The prosecutor was not trying to show they meant business or anything like that. That was the only option left to them. If they didn't do it the case was lost.

If you look at how this case has progressed it is pretty obvious that LE and/or the prosecutors involved have been playing hard and fast with the rules. How else can you account for all the unreasonable delays, stalls and squabbles that have gone on? If this case was clear cut then none of that stuff would happen, they would simple do what was required and go to trial. IMO the decision to charge DA is just another example of dubious and incomprehensible decisions that have plagued and muddied this case from the beginning.

JMO

I think you may have hit the nail on the head as to why DA got charged along with the others.

Before DA was charged and when we heard about ZA threatening him then it seemed to me that LE was trying to line up DA to be their star witness against the others.

I am not sure if that was what was going on but it seemed that way to me.

I am not sure what happened but as soon as DA was charged with the new charges then everything seemed to change. I am pretty sure DA would not want to cooperate with testifying once those charges were filed unless it somehow benefits him.

So it makes sense if this was related to the heresay rules and maybe LE is relying on all the defendents to be tried at once.

It will be interesting to see if the defendents are tried separately or together. If DA refuses to testify and doesn't have a plea deal then I can only bet that the defense attorneys are trying to keep the trials separate.

If they end up being tried separately, and DA refuses to testify in other trials by taking the 5th then the heresay rules will become very important.

Some important decisions need to be made in this case and those decisions will have a huge impact on this case.

 

[shefner]

Could it be that between the time that Zach was charged and when Dylan was charged, the much discussed video was discovered....and Dylan was verified as a perpetrator himself?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

As far as we know, to this day (!) no video has ever been found. And I think it's safe to say that if the prosecution had found one, they would have made a huge public spectacle about it.