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

[Chainsaw385]

^^^^^ Good Post

I also think there is a lot of strong evidence that has not been released to the public yet.

My post was more geared for the naysayers that still claim there is no evidence and tying to show what best case scenario is for suspects.That shoeprint being left in the case file that was presented to the GJ is going to be a huge problem for the defense.

Getting an indictment from a GJ is a very one sided affair and they would not have left that shoe print in there without being able to tie it too the suspects......I read a very weak explanation somewhere it was needed to be shown to the GJ because of the search warrant.....this is plainly laughable.GJ's often hear or see evidence that will never be allowed to enter a jury trial,this is one of the reasons for GJ secrecy.

Sadly GJ's are getting away from their true roots of protecting innocent people from being charged and turning into more of a rubber stamp for the prosecution.....I DO NOT think this is a case of innocent people being wrongly indicted but the reason many states no longer use a GJ.

 

[SteveS]

I read a very weak explanation somewhere it was needed to be shown to the GJ because of the search warrant.....

Wait, what? Do we even KNOW that the shoe or shoeprint or any other specific piece of rumored "evidence" was part of what the GJ saw? I don't think we do. AFAIK all that has actually been revealed is that the GJ indicted, based on some undisclosed pieces of evidence.

In the video that was posted recently, they didn't actually name anything that was presented to the GJ or that persuaded them at all. It was all a bunch of maybe some of this, maybe some of that, maybe something similar to this or that, maybe they had this tested, maybe this led to something, but not a single concrete item at all. They didn't know.

 

[shefner]

In the earliest days of this case, we each one tried to share our profile of the abductor in this case.

The first attribute I listed was arrogant and cocky. I really think ZA fits that bill...and he has had every reason to be cocky. He had shot his own mom, been involved of all kinds of crimes, threatened people with gutting them with a knife, was a heavy user of drugs....and he was out free walking around. No matter what he did, his family defended him..just like they have done in this case! His own grandfather was terrified of him, but would sell all he had if he thought ZA would walk away free.

That type of enabling behavior creates the monster we are looking at in ZA. He is the perfect type to carry out the crime that was perpetrated against Holly...

 

[SteveS]

That type of enabling behavior creates the monster we are looking in ZA. He is the perfect type to carry out the crime that was perpetrated against Holly...

No question that someone LIKE ZA would be a good suspect in this case. As for whether this specific coddled criminal was the one that did THIS crime, we'll have to see how the evidence plays out in order to confirm that. To me so far it looks like a case based on the accusations hurled by DA, but it remains to be seen whether they have actually obtained any corroborating evidence or not.

 

[Chainsaw385]

No question that someone LIKE ZA would be a good suspect in this case. As for whether this specific coddled criminal was the one that did THIS crime, we'll have to see how the evidence plays out in order to confirm that. To me so far it looks like a case based on the accusations hurled by DA, but it remains to be seen whether they have actually obtained any corroborating evidence or not.

This would carry much more weight had chargers not been filled on the time line that they were..........they were not charged until 3 days after the execution of a search warrant.

The 3 days is the perfect fit for the time it would take forensics to confirm non DNA evidence....such as a shoeprint.

Sure it would be possible they didn't find anything and charged them anyhow.......or if the shoeprint was not a match but they still filled charges.
BUT that shoeprint would be omitted from the case file when going to the GJ.Plain simply this is how it works.The DA picks and chooses what gets presented and they leave out anything that brings questions to their case.The GJ can ask to see more evidence and this is why they omit anything that causes doubt.

The video clip that has been recently posted here is not something new ......I saw it a long time ago.And at that point there were a number of articles non-video around that time that clearly stated the shoeprint photo was part of the case file that was presented to the GJ.

The days of being able to say this case is only being based on some statements from one of the defendants is quickly coming to an end.Notice the silence from the defense after they got the evidence....oh yea a long time ago a judge warned the defense that they may get more evidence then they bargained for right in open court.

There was no rush to judgment in this case......I'm sure Clint was their first suspect.Then there was a fugitive sex offender that was questioned and cleared.Something led them to these guys and it was quite some time before they were charged....even after gaining the statements from DA.

Clues about the evidence in this case are everywhere you just have to take time to look for them .....which is much more time consuming then saying there is nothing more then what has been released to the public so far.

 

[Mercurydime]

I just wonder what got Matt Stowe so heated up that he refused to prosecute the case, may have jeopardized the case, and could even be called by the defense as a witness to misconduct by LE for making it publicly known that he didn't approve of how the state had handled things.

I remember Holly's mom stating that she wanted to "destroy him".

Then, there was that thing with the cell phone video that never went anywhere.

The way the state has allowed the case to be presented (or not presented) to the public sure makes it look peculiar. I just hope that when the trial comes around, they have some strong evidence up their sleeves.

Looking back, I remember that when these arrests were initially made, it was upcoming election time for the DA, and many of us surmised that the arrests may have been nothing more than a political move.

 

[SteveS]

Chainsaw, you said "BUT that shoeprint would be omitted from the case file when going to the GJ" - and the fact is, maybe it was!

My point is that the video did NOT claim any item of evidence having been presented, or being worthy of being presented.

That's not a claim that "no evidence was presented to the GJ" - because clearly some was, and enough that was sufficient to get the indictments. But it's not stated that it included the shoeprint matched to anything, or the blond hair tested to match, or ____ (on and on we go) because all they did was quote some claims allegedly made by DA and then threw out a bunch of "what if's" in the video with no answers for us of what the GJ actually heard. They ended up referring to DA's words cited elsewhere, then showing the TV audience a pic of SOMEONE's footprint and some Holly blood droplets that occurred SOMETIME and a hair of SOMEONE, and then saying the GJ's evidence might have included items like this, or maybe not.

For all we know, it's possible that all or most of what they presented was DA's words. And if taken at face value (which is the GJ standard) they are certainly damning and could be cause for indictment.

Of course it's possible they presented a ton of evidence to corroborate DAs words. Or none. But we just don't know. And whatever they presented was taken at face value, because there's no cross-examination, no counter-evidence, and no adversarial arguments for the GJ to weigh when considering the evidence it is provided.

"there were a number of articles non-video around that time that clearly stated the shoeprint photo was part of the case file that was presented to the GJ" ...I don't believe that to be the case, anymore than it was the case in this video that tried to infer it was telling what went to the GJ, but actually did no such thing when you watched it. GJ evidence is not open to the public or media. But if such a revelation actually occurred in an article, such an article would have to have been relatively recent in this case rather than buried years ago, since the indictments only came a few months ago. So if you have such an article that actually says _________ and _________ and _________ were evidence which the GJ saw and led to an indictment, I'd encourage you to share it here where we can all consider its revelations together.

 

[SteveS]

I just wonder what got Matt Stowe so heated up that he refused to prosecute the case, may have jeopardized the case, and could even be called by the defense as a witness to misconduct by LE for making it publicly known that he didn't approve of how the state had handled things.

I remember Holly's mom stating that she wanted to "destroy him".

Then, there was that thing with the cell phone video that never went anywhere.

The way the state has allowed the case to be presented (or not presented) to the public sure makes it look peculiar. I just hope that when the trial comes around, they have some strong evidence up their sleeves.

Looking back, I remember that when these arrests were initially made, it was upcoming election time for the DA, and many of us surmised that the arrests may have been nothing more than a political move.

I think Stowe was incompetent and/or a really bad guy, either unable or unwilling to do the job that had to be done as a DA in a high-stakes case (his background was that of a defense atty, rather than in providing the due process required for a trial to stand up legally) ...and that the blow-up with the TBI was his way of creating smoke as a cover for his failure to perform, and ultimately quitting the case serving the same end.

Don't forget that his histrionics at the TBI came at a time when he had just been called out days earlier by the judge for a failure to provide legally-required discovery to the defendants, at which time the court ordered (and he swore to the court that he would get it done, no prob) that he provide a bill of particulars to the court in a week. When that week ended, he did NOT comply, but instead created the TBI-drama and then quit on the case, that inserted a delay so the judge couldn't rule on his ongoing failure to disclose.

 

[Mercurydime]

I think Stowe was incompetent and/or a really bad guy, either unable or unwilling to do the job that had to be done as a DA in a high-stakes case (his background was that of a defense atty, rather than in providing the due process required for a trial to stand up legally) ...and that the blow-up with the TBI was his way of creating smoke as a cover for his failure to perform, and ultimately quitting the case serving the same end.

Don't forget that his histrionics at the TBI came at a time when he had just been called out days earlier by the judge for a failure to provide legally-required discovery to the defendants, at which time the court ordered (and he swore to the court that he would get it done, no prob) that he provide a bill of particulars to the court in a week. When that week ended, he did NOT comply, but instead created the TBI-drama and then quit on the case, that inserted a delay so the judge couldn't rule on his ongoing failure to disclose.

That's a possibility. I'm on the fence with what I believe about the strength or weakness of the case. I sometimes find it difficult to NOT assume that Stowe, a Harvard Law grad and experienced attorney, didn't walk into a case that was impossible to prosecute - a case lacking in evidence which had been handed down to him by the former DA, who was grabbing at straws in his struggle for reelection.

Sure, Stowe was a defense attorney, but for what it's worth he was said to be at the top of his Harvard class, and he's what 45-46 years old? He was also able to win the trust of the majority of the community.

 

[SteveS]

That's a possibility. I'm on the fence with what I believe about the strength or weakness of the case. I sometimes find it difficult to NOT assume that Stowe, a Harvard Law grad and experienced attorney, didn't walk into a case that was impossible to prosecute - a case lacking in evidence which had been handed down to him by the former DA, who was grabbing at straws in his struggle for reelection.

Sure, Stowe was a defense attorney, but for what it's worth he was said to be at the top of his Harvard class, and he's what 45-46 years old? He was also able to win the trust of the majority of the community.

I'm just guessing, of course. But my conclusions about Stowe are based on a repeated pattern of his work, as displayed in this case, and that fit some question marks we'd have for the ability of any newly-elected first-time DA...
a - there's a huge diff between winning a popularity popularity contest (esp a setting in which "I went to Harvard" looks impressive) and actually doing the hard work of being a small-town DA tasked with ensuring administrative details in the due process chain are covered
b - going to Harvard means he's proven to be book smart, but it doesn't mean he wants to work hard after he gets the degree
(and to be frank, he certainly was horrendous in finding the answer to performing THIS case, so what does that say about his theoretical "smarts")
c - being a DA is not a situation where a def atty simply is going to switch hats and argue the other side, like switching sides in mock court...it is a MUCH different job
d - a def atty can do the job as a lone wolf, in control, making his case follow his own dictates for the most part ...whereas as a DA, it has the admin BS and the necessity to "work well with others" all up and down the bureaucratic chain, each of whom has their own domain that does NOT cater to your whims ...iow, a good def atty is not necessarily the makings for a good DA
e - I'm not saying he couldn't handle the tasks of a DA if he wanted to, but while we've seen lots of hot air and promises, imo we've seen no evidence of hard work, attention to detail, eagerness to ensure due process, or willingness to work within the system as needed, that are mandatory for a good performance as a small-town DA - and that are doubly necessary for such a high-profile case

As for the side issue of whether he was simply saddled with a poor case, we can only guess, but I don't think that's overriding here. There are right (efficient, productive) ways to handle bad cases, and lousy ones, and he's been an abomination here. Let me make it clear that I'm not saying "he's a big problem and otherwise the case would have been great," because who knows ... but I am saying he was a problem in and of himself, and if he was smart enough and diligent enough then the strength or weakness of the case would have been handle-able for him. But he was inept and it was so bad under his command that he quit. Bottom line.

 

[shefner]

I disagree that Stowe was inept...or that going being a Harvard graduate meant he was lazy.

I think that when he got in there, he was as stunned and disappointed in both local authorities, with their good "ol'" boy system, and the TBI, as we were. Most here have been very surprised at how this case was handled from the start.
I think Stowe went to far in his criticism of them and didn't play "politics as usual" with the crowd in question.

I only hope that the ones that remain will somehow prove their case against ZA and the others.

 

[SteveS]

I disagree that Stowe was inept...or that going being a Harvard graduate meant he was lazy.

No one has said "being a Harvard graduate meant he was lazy" so I'm not sure who you think you're disagreeing with.

Simply put, "quitting on a tough job" is the lazy man's way out.

For whatever reason anyone wants to imagine, there is no disputing that (a) this case was not able to be handled by him in a manner that took it through the process properly, and (b) he quit. Sure, maybe this case was super hard (or maybe it really wasn't, if handled by someone sharp and diligent, who knows!), but dealing with tough circumstances and bureaucratic / LE jerks are potentially a part of any and every case. He asked for the case, he got it, he took it where he chose to take it, and then he bailed when he didn't like where he had taken it, which to me speaks to Stowe more than to the evidence, to the mythical good ole boys, to the TBI, or to anything else, and pretty much defines who he is. Sad to say.

It's probably a positive for justice for Holly, to get him out of the way here. But it's unfortunate for the locals who have to be saddled with such job performance (or lack of same).

 

[shefner]

No one has said "being a Harvard graduate meant he was lazy" so I'm not sure who you think you're disagreeing with.

Simply put, "quitting on a tough job" is the lazy man's way out.

For whatever reason anyone wants to imagine, there is no disputing that (a) this case was not able to be handled by him in a manner that took it through the process properly, and (b) he quit. Sure, maybe this case was super hard (or maybe it really wasn't, if handled by someone sharp and diligent, who knows!), but dealing with tough circumstances and bureaucratic / LE jerks are potentially a part of any and every case. He asked for the case, he got it, he took it where he chose to take it, and then he bailed when he didn't like where he had taken it, which to me speaks to Stowe more than to the evidence, to the mythical good ole boys, to the TBI, or to anything else, and pretty much defines who he is. Sad to say.

It's probably a positive for justice for Holly, to get him out of the way here. But it's unfortunate for the locals who have to be saddled with such job performance (or lack of same).

So you ARE accusing Stowe of taking a "lazy man's way out." I think that's an unfair assessment, so we must agree to disagree.

Stowe recused himself under pressure to do so. The TBI hurt Holly's case with their inabilities. When he called them on it, they bowed up. So much water under the bridge....Stowe stepped down so the case could continue. And look at how it has continued....at a snail's pace, which was part of what Stowe was torn up about.

From the earliest days, TBI has made a huge mess out of Holly's case. I hate to push down on one agency because I am very pro-Law Enforcement. But if you take a look at their track record in missing persons cases, its not pretty.

I find Stowe to be a smart cookie. And the fact he took issue with the TBI in this case makes me cringe. I fear that TBI compromised the case so that it could not be successfully prosecuted, and questions about the prosecution's ability to gain a conviction has been the centerpiece of many recent discussions here on this very thread.

I will link here an article where, towards the last couple of paragraphs, Stowe's involvement is discussed.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-holly-bobo-key-figure-dead-20150223-story.html

 

[Mercurydime]

So you ARE accusing Stowe of taking a "lazy man's way out." I think that's an unfair assessment, so we must agree to disagree.

Stowe recused himself under pressure to do so. The TBI hurt Holly's case with their inabilities. When he called them on it, they bowed up. So much water under the bridge....Stowe stepped down so the case could continue. And look at how it has continued....at a snail's pace, which was part of what Stowe was torn up about.

From the earliest days, TBI has made a huge mess out of Holly's case. I hate to push down on one agency because I am very pro-Law Enforcement. But if you take a look at their track record in missing persons cases, its not pretty.

I find Stowe to be a smart cookie. And the fact he took issue with the TBI in this case makes me cringe. I fear that TBI compromised the case so that it could not be successfully prosecuted, and questions about the prosecution's ability to gain a conviction has been the centerpiece of many recent discussions here on this very thread.

I will link here an article where, towards the last couple of paragraphs, Stowe's involvement is discussed.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-holly-bobo-key-figure-dead-20150223-story.html

...and he could be called as a witness for the defense. How crazy is that?

 

[Chainsaw385]

This is what it now takes to believe that the only evidence in this case is statements made by DA

..... That out of 460 pieces of physical evidence examined by the TBI nothing ties the suspects to the case.But yet the case proceeds

...... 33K pages of documents turned over in discovery and the only thing the prosecution has to help their case is the pages that pertain to statements made by DA.

.......Multiple sources.(NOT VIDEO RELATED)......have stated blood,hair and shoeprint evidence was presented to the GJ.These are all completely false and all they used to get the indictments are statements from DA.

...... A judge warned the defense in open court and on the record they might end up getting more evidence then they bargained for

........DA claimed a video was made then later an independent witness stated she saw a portion of this video.....The Pearcy's were charged and investigated and then later the charges were dropped.It appears there was not enough evidence for those charges to stick.......BUT their whole case is based on ONLY what DA says and this time they also have another witness that confirms what he has said.So one could assume they actually have more evidence against the Pearcy's but yet they dropped charges against these guys and keep seeking murder 1 and death against the others with even less evidence.

.....Here is the big one.They were trying to revoke SA's immunity deal so they could charge him with crimes against Holly.To do this they had to prove he was either lying or involved in her murder and/or rape.All they have is statements from DA in which to do this.??????? This does not make even a tiny bit of sense.If all they had for evidence is statements from DA even if 99.99% of what SA told them was totally worthless that .01% would be very important to their case and they would not try and revoke his immunity.They would need him to testify not charge him and more then likely make certain he does not take the stand.

You could make a stronger case that Santa Clause actually exists then the only evidence against the suspects are statements from DA at this point.

 

[shefner]

...and he could be called as a witness for the defense. How crazy is that?

Insane! I hate this whole mess!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

.......Multiple sources.(NOT VIDEO RELATED)......have stated blood,hair and shoeprint evidence was presented to the GJ.

Link, please. You keep making this claim, but have yet to share these mythical sources. I continue to ask because it's easy to be snookered by slickly done media reports that the GJ "could have" considered ___, ____, ____, and ____ (which would only be speculation), in an attempt to make it sound like they had actually sniffed out the confidential contents of the GJ proceeding itself without ever saying (or doing) so.

....Here is the big one.They were trying to revoke SA's immunity deal so they could charge him with crimes against Holly.To do this they had to prove he was either lying or involved in her murder and/or rape. All they have is statements from DA in which to do this.???????.

Actually they apparently didn't even have that. By their actions, they had NOTHING to charge him with as to any involvement in her murder and/or rape.

To be honest, the actions re SA would more support the idea that the case is just bluster. They made a big deal of publicly dropping his immunity and threatening him with arrest any day now for supposedly not telling the truth (a claim for which they never provided any specifics or proof), yet "any day now" never arrived. And he had never requested (nor was ever promised) immunity for Holly's kidnapping or murder. So the idea they have all this evidence against him for those specific crimes is absurd, and probably for any other crimes as well, as they had nothing stopping them from arresting him yet he was never arrested up to the day he died.

 

[Mightymight]

To be honest, the actions re SA would more support the idea that the case is just bluster. They made a big deal of publicly dropping his immunity and threatening him with arrest any day now for supposedly not telling the truth (a claim for which they never provided any specifics or proof), yet "any day now" never arrived. And he had never requested (nor was ever promised) immunity for Holly's kidnapping or murder. So the idea they have all this evidence against him for those specific crimes is absurd, and probably for any other crimes as well, as they had nothing stopping them from arresting him yet he was never arrested up to the day he died.

This was not done publicly. This was done in a letter from the DA to SA's attorney. SA's attorney then publicized the letter. Just because WE,the public, do not have the specific proof, does not mean proof does not exist and/or was offered to SA or his attorney.

 

[jggordo]

When is the next court hearing? Not a conference call, but an actual hearing. IMO this case has more to with the Judge not enforcing his rulings than anything else.

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

This was not done publicly. This was done in a letter from the DA to SA's attorney. SA's attorney then publicized the letter. Just because WE, the public, do not have the specific proof, does not mean proof does not exist and/or was offered to SA or his attorney.

While we can't know what they have squirreled away in secret, we can logically deduce with close to certainty that any such proof - if it existed - was never provided to SA or his attorney.
1 If they had proof and provided such proof, SA would not have taken them to court to demand such proof be provided.
2 If they had proof and provided such proof, the court would not have had to tell SA that he would only find out what if anything they were claiming he lied about, if and after LE arrested him and he challenged the arrest. (And he was never arrested, so that need never came to be.)
3 If they had proof and provided such proof, his atty would not have claimed at his death that LE's claims he lied were bogus, never specified, and only a hazy claim LE created in order to threaten him and that made him a pariah.
4 We also have evidence of LE's willingness to play with the truth in this circumstance, as they clearly threatened him with imminent arrest due to his "lying" - yet no arrest happened, ever. It was clearly BS ...and the obvious indication is that LE was full of hot air in this whole scheme.