@ shefner- I agree that of the three defendants, JA comes off as the most believable to me, and the most likely to be innocent of the charges he's facing. That being said, won't be surprised if he's involved in this somehow, and if he is, IMO it's most likely after the fact. I think we can all agree that at the very least, JA was definitely not involved in the act of kidnapping Holly from her home- he wasn't the guy Clint saw. That doesn't give him a free pass on murder or rape, or knowledge of the planned kidnapping, but it does give him the argument that 1 person was involved in this crime, Clint saw 1 person take Holly away from her home, and that person was not JA. Now, the State could definitely have evidence linking him to Holly's remains, or that was present during her rape/murder, which they aren't releasing, in which case it doesn't matter that he wasn't the kidnapper- there's evidence linking him to the murder, and that's all they really need for the death penalty. JMO, since I have no idea what if any evidence the State has linking JA to this.
Steve, your post above was a great and I agree w. every point except #9. You're right in that withholding evidence favorable to the defense (such as any sort of immunity agreement), or even worse deliberately hiding it, is prosecutorial misconduct and should result in the attorney being disbarred, but it often doesn't. John Thompson, who spent over a decade on death row in LA, is one of the best examples of how prosecutors can knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence (in his case the blood of the real perpetrator on the victim's pants, which didn't match Thompson's type and was never given to the defense) and never face any consequences. Thompson was prosecuted by Harry Connick's Sr's office, which had a pattern of withholding exculpatory evidence in order to get death sentences, and not only have they faced no consequences, the Supreme Court decision of Connick v. Thompson that came as a result of this case not only took away the $14 million Thompson had been awarded for his wrongful conviction, it made it very difficult to hold prosecutor's accountable for their acts of misconduct. I realize this is definitely off topic, but I immediately thought of this case when I read your post..prosecutors built Thompson's case around eyewitness testimony of people who were getting plea bargains or reward money in exchange for their testimony, which they never told the jury. They likely paid out a $10,000 reward to the real killer, whose testimony sealed Thompson's fate. The purpose for mentioning this case is that because of the Supreme Court decision, it's much easier for prosecutor's to claim that their misconduct wasn't intentional, and just a mistake, and unless a pattern of misconduct can be shown, they are liable for nothing.
In no way am I accusing the State in Holly's case of committing ethics violations like the prosecutors in the Thompson case did, just pointing out prosecutors have done it and faced no consequences, and got successful death row convictions. Personally, I think that it would be impossible for them to carry out the scenario Tugela laid out- especially the part where they would hypothetically "quietly drop the charges against DA once he testifies and they get successful convictions against ZA and JA" because I find it hard to believe this would go unnoticed, not only by the attorneys handling JA and ZA's appeals but the public, who has been following this case pretty closely since the beginning.
As I've said from the beginning, I continue to hope that the State is simply keeping their case quiet so they can get a successful conviction and justice for Holly, although I have my doubts. The most important thing, and the reason we are all here, is to find Holly's killer and bring them to justice. The State gets one chance to try ZA, JA, and DA. What is often forgotten in the Thompson case I mentioned above is that the real perpetrator of the Liuzza murder Thompson was tried for has never been found. Not only did an innocent man spend more than a decade for a crime he didn't commit, but the family of Ray Liuzza has never seen his actual killer brought to justice. I pray this isn't the case for Holly's family.
Steve, your post above was a great and I agree w. every point except #9. You're right in that withholding evidence favorable to the defense (such as any sort of immunity agreement), or even worse deliberately hiding it, is prosecutorial misconduct and should result in the attorney being disbarred, but it often doesn't. John Thompson, who spent over a decade on death row in LA, is one of the best examples of how prosecutors can knowingly withhold exculpatory evidence (in his case the blood of the real perpetrator on the victim's pants, which didn't match Thompson's type and was never given to the defense) and never face any consequences. Thompson was prosecuted by Harry Connick's Sr's office, which had a pattern of withholding exculpatory evidence in order to get death sentences, and not only have they faced no consequences, the Supreme Court decision of Connick v. Thompson that came as a result of this case not only took away the $14 million Thompson had been awarded for his wrongful conviction, it made it very difficult to hold prosecutor's accountable for their acts of misconduct. I realize this is definitely off topic, but I immediately thought of this case when I read your post..prosecutors built Thompson's case around eyewitness testimony of people who were getting plea bargains or reward money in exchange for their testimony, which they never told the jury. They likely paid out a $10,000 reward to the real killer, whose testimony sealed Thompson's fate. The purpose for mentioning this case is that because of the Supreme Court decision, it's much easier for prosecutor's to claim that their misconduct wasn't intentional, and just a mistake, and unless a pattern of misconduct can be shown, they are liable for nothing.
In no way am I accusing the State in Holly's case of committing ethics violations like the prosecutors in the Thompson case did, just pointing out prosecutors have done it and faced no consequences, and got successful death row convictions. Personally, I think that it would be impossible for them to carry out the scenario Tugela laid out- especially the part where they would hypothetically "quietly drop the charges against DA once he testifies and they get successful convictions against ZA and JA" because I find it hard to believe this would go unnoticed, not only by the attorneys handling JA and ZA's appeals but the public, who has been following this case pretty closely since the beginning.
As I've said from the beginning, I continue to hope that the State is simply keeping their case quiet so they can get a successful conviction and justice for Holly, although I have my doubts. The most important thing, and the reason we are all here, is to find Holly's killer and bring them to justice. The State gets one chance to try ZA, JA, and DA. What is often forgotten in the Thompson case I mentioned above is that the real perpetrator of the Liuzza murder Thompson was tried for has never been found. Not only did an innocent man spend more than a decade for a crime he didn't commit, but the family of Ray Liuzza has never seen his actual killer brought to justice. I pray this isn't the case for Holly's family.
