Holly Bobo found deceased, discussion thread *Arrests* #8

[dog.gone.cute]

From Chris Conte Twitter @ News Channel 5:

Link: https://twitter.com/chrisconte



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 47m47 minutes ago

Today's #HollyBobo hearing is about to get underway. We're expecting some possible major developments



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 39m39 minutes ago

#BREAKING - Judge will grant a continuance in the #HollyBobo case



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 38m38 minutes ago

Judge "My goal is to try this case once and to try it right" #HollyBobo



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 37m37 minutes ago

#BREAKING - The #HollyBobo case has been delayed until July 10th. Judge citing reasons including anniversary of Holly's death in April @NC5



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 36m36 minutes ago

550 people have been summoned for the jury selection in #HollyBobo



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 33m33 minutes ago

Jury selection in #HollyBobo trial will still take place during the first week in April. Jury will be "extremely sequestered"



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 32m32 minutes ago

MORE: #HollyBobo trial is officially being moved to Hardin County from this date forward.



Chris Conte‏Verified account @chrisconte · 20m20 minutes ago

Here's what's new. #HollyBobo trial will be delayed until July 10th. Jury selection begins on April 3rd. 550 people jurors being summoned

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From WSMV:


Holly Bobo murder trial date postponed from April to July

During a hearing on Wednesday, the judge granted a motion to continue the case. The motion is being kept under seal.

The judge said he decided to postpone from the original April trial date because it fell on Easter and the anniversary of Bobo's abduction.


More at Link: http://www.wsmv.com/story/34636693/holly-bobo-murder-trial-date-postponed-from-april-to-july

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Jury selection will start first week of April. Trial is delayed until July.

:gaah: :gaah: :gaah: JMO but not surprised this trial is delayed !

:wave:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From News Channel 5:

Link: http://www.newschannel5.com/news/local-news/holly-bobo-case-delayed-set-for-july-10


Holly Bobo Case Delayed, Set For July 10


The judge in the Holly Bobo murder case has granted a continuance, delaying the case until July 10.

During a hearing Wednesday morning the judge cited reasons including the anniversary of Holly’s death in April.

"My goal is to try this case once and to try it right,” the judge stated.

The trial has also officially been moved to Hardin County from this date forward.

 

[Dogface]

Gosh...I mean I get the whole anniversary, Easter thing, but schedule it to start in May!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dredre]

:gaah: :gaah: :gaah: JMO but not surprised this trial is delayed !

:wave:

Seriously. Enough already!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

Gosh...I mean I get the whole anniversary, Easter thing, but schedule it to start in May!

It's not as simple as just picking a date. Judge and attorneys have commitments, as does the court itself (having an available courtroom, jurors, bailiff, court reporter, etc is something that has to be planned for). Other cases are likely to have been scheduled and already on the docket for May, June, etc. We tend to think of there being nothing else going on, for any of these people and for the venue, and nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From WKRN:

Zach Adams trial pushed back in Holly Bobo case; Autry may not have one

WKRN web staff
Published: March 1, 2017, 11:17 am | Updated: March 1, 2017, 10:33 pm


News 2 also learned Jason Autry, who faces the same charges, will probably not go to trial.

During court Wednesday, the judge didn’t elaborate on why. However, News 2 obtained a new motion filed by Zach Adams’ attorney that lays out the details.

According to the filing, Autry confessed on Jan. 20 this year to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo. Autry reportedly gave a statement to the state of Tennessee detailing his involvement.

As Zach Adams’ attorney points out, the confession came after years of Autry claiming to be innocent.


More at Link: http://wkrn.com/2017/03/01/holly-bobo-trial-now-to-begin-in-july/


RBM: Whoa !

 

[liltexans]

From WKRN:

Zach Adams trial pushed back in Holly Bobo case; Autry may not have one

WKRN web staff
Published: March 1, 2017, 11:17 am | Updated: March 1, 2017, 10:33 pm


News 2 also learned Jason Autry, who faces the same charges, will probably not go to trial.

During court Wednesday, the judge didn’t elaborate on why. However, News 2 obtained a new motion filed by Zach Adams’ attorney that lays out the details.

According to the filing, Autry confessed on Jan. 20 this year to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo. Autry reportedly gave a statement to the state of Tennessee detailing his involvement.

As Zach Adams’ attorney points out, the confession came after years of Autry claiming to be innocent.


More at Link: http://wkrn.com/2017/03/01/holly-bobo-trial-now-to-begin-in-july/


RBM: Whoa !

Sounds like Autry is getting a plea deal for finally confessing. Well, that's one less costly trial for the state and one less emotional trial for Holly's family, I guess.

 

[Dogface]

It's not as simple as just picking a date. Judge and attorneys have commitments, as does the court itself (having an available courtroom, jurors, bailiff, court reporter, etc is something that has to be planned for). Other cases are likely to have been scheduled and already on the docket for May, June, etc. We tend to think of there being nothing else going on, for any of these people and for the venue, and nothing could be further from the truth.

But surely all those trials haven't been pushed back for so long as this one, give them a turn at the wait game.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Steleheart]

Sounds like Autry is getting a plea deal for finally confessing. Well, that's one less costly trial for the state and one less emotional trial for Holly's family, I guess.

I wonder if his confession included having a video

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I wonder if his confession included having a video

:wave: I was wondering the same thing -- that alleged "video" that was on someone's phone, and that someone shared that video with half the county :gaah: !

JMO but I do hope ZA goes to trial. I want to hear ALL the evidence. Also, while I understand the prosecutor does NOT have to prove motive, I still want to know WHAT their motive was.

:moo: :moo: :moo:

 

[Indy Anna]

:wave: I was wondering the same thing -- that alleged "video" that was on someone's phone, and that someone shared that video with half the county :gaah: !

JMO but I do hope ZA goes to trial. I want to hear ALL the evidence. Also, while I understand the prosecutor does NOT have to prove motive, I still want to know WHAT their motive was.

:moo: :moo: :moo:

No matter what, I hope the whole truth comes out--whether at trial or in an interview. Not to drag Holly's family through the sordid details, but to absolve Holly's good name ... that she did not go voluntarily to ZA's house.

I'm thinking that the unvarnished truth will come out only at trial, because I doubt JA suddenly decided to confess after all of these years of denying his involvement, just to clear his conscience. He realizes there's something in it for him. JMO

 

[Chainsaw385]

No matter what, I hope the whole truth comes out--whether at trial or in an interview. Not to drag Holly's family through the sordid details, but to absolve Holly's good name ... that she did not go voluntarily to ZA's house.

I'm thinking that the unvarnished truth will come out only at trial, because I doubt JA suddenly decided to confess after all of these years of denying his involvement, just to clear his conscience. He realizes there's something in it for him. JMO

JA didn't want to sit on death row.

He had no intention of confessing but once he saw the evidence against him.Things started to change including his story.
You see this all the time.A suspect claims they didn't know or ever saw a victim.Then once the evidence proves otherwise they change their story.

Ala Holly was at ZA's house a couple days before her abduction.
The problem here is people will remember their final days with Holly and the prosecution may be able to prove where she was at all times the couple days leading up to her abduction.

If he had said a couple weeks or months before her abduction it would have been much harder if not impossible to prove otherwise.But you still have the problem of him not stating this before he saw the evidence.

JA will get life/without if he admitted to kidnapping,rape and murder.....if he took it to trial he might have been sentenced to death.
That is what was in it for him and he decided to not risk getting the DP.

Since TBI released very few details it will be easy to confirm his confession and anything that matches the evidence.That is 100% why they have kept a lid on everything.

ZA may not have a plea option.If it is a solid case and it is getting harder and harder for people to argue otherwise.The prosecution may let the Bobo's make the decision weather to accept a plea or not.

That would be a hard decision that I hope I never have to make.Listen to horrible details in trial or let them live out the rest of their lives without fear of an execution date.I don't envy the Bobo's at all.

One of the most interesting things for me is SA and his involvement.It seems TBI was trying to avoid another Karla Homolka.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

:wave: I was wondering the same thing -- that alleged "video" that was on someone's phone, and that someone shared that video with half the county :gaah: !

JMO but I do hope ZA goes to trial. I want to hear ALL the evidence. Also, while I understand the prosecutor does NOT have to prove motive, I still want to know WHAT their motive was.

My opinion about motive has not changed during all of this time.

ZA came to her home and kidnapped Holly because he wanted her to be under his sick twisted perverted total control, so that he, and his gang could do whatever they wanted to do to her for as long as they wanted. This was a young pretty woman who would never give him, JA, DA, or SA the time of day if she had had a choice............which she didn't.

Remember when Foxfire (RIP :heart put up links to how viscous and rabid meth heads can be to their victims and how their sexual appetite is extremely heightened?

Imo, so they (ZA&JA) got together and decided to kidnap a pretty young woman..they all knew would never go with any of them anywhere willingly............ and they did so to satisfy their deviant sadistic desires of being able to torture/beat repeatedly and rape her repeatedly for as long as they wanted..

They all knew they could carryout all of their sick sexual fantasies on Holly and she was defenseless to fight back. They also knew they could carryout their sadistic traits by beating her brutally over and over again. They enjoyed they were so powerful knowing that Holly was at their mercy. This is a part of who they are.....................these horrific acts fed the beasts like it was a drug itself. Psychopaths love to inflict agonizing prolonged pain and suffering on their victims. They like the fear they see in the victims they snare and prey upon.

Imo, the motive in this case is just like 99.9% of all cases where a young woman was kidnapped and later on murdered. All of this was sexually motivated. The only difference is there were a gang of them although other young women have been kidnapped and gang raped by multiple offenders before.

Imo, ZA and JA setup the kidnapping of Holly and then told all of their lowlife buddies they could also come over and do whatever they wanted to Holly, and I wouldn't be surprised if she was gang raped by more than one at a time.

I still continue to believe all of this brutality was video taped.

This story is about pure evil done by the most evil among us.

I hope they all rot in hell.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The discussion of admissibility of warrants and such are going to be done outside the presence of the jury. So even if SA's statement(s) had some bearing on some search warrant or another, it won't be admissible as evidence in the case itself per se, ie the jury will never hear it and weigh its content in relation to whether it was truthful and whether/how it could bear on guilt or innocence of the defendants.

It's not about what effectiveness they might be able to gain from the content. It's about the fact that for purposes of the trial itself, what SA said will almost certainly be INADMISSIBLE HEARSAY. That's the key thing to keep in mind.

Let me ask you a question please.

If JA testifies in the trials against ZA & DA could he testify to what role SA played in the case when he lays out what happened from beginning to end? Isn't it up to the jury to believe him or not and weigh his credibility? If SA had involvement I don't see how JA can exclude him when testifying about what all happened and by all participants.

I do recall in a few other cases a video or a transcript being entered when the person who gave the interview had died before trial. Iirc, in those cases the person was being deposed under oath and both the DA and the defense were allowed to ask questions and were both present.

It seems SA knew eventually the immunity deal would be legally taken off the table at some point and he knew his involvement in Holly's case was much deeper than he tried to pretend. Imo, he knew it was just a matter of time that one of the main participants rolled over wanting a plea deal and they would implicate him in his true role, and not what he said in order to get immunity.

Whether it is allowed to come into trial or not I hope once the trial is over the DA will allow the BoBo family to read all of the evidence even if it was deemed to prejudicial to come into the actual trial. They deserve to know all of the truth.

In many trials I have kept up with the most interesting evidence was the evidence found to be too prejudicial to come in. It is disclosed after the trial when the media discloses them after getting copies through the FOIA of all hearings where the Judge ruled on particular pieces of evidence and found them to be too prejudicial.

When such hearings are being held are the victim/s' family members allowed to attend? I know in the Arias case Travis' family was included even in closed door hearings. If so in TN, the BoBo family may be aware of evidence that will not be allowed to come in during their trials.

This case is going to be even harder to stomach than it was during the Christian-Newsome case but both families in that horrid case were there everyday on the front seat during every hearing and during the trials and relied on their strong religious faith to get them through it. I think this will be the same strength the BoBo family will exhibit. I do not believe they would ever want a plea deal for ZA no matter how hard it will be to sit there and listen to what all happened to Holly.

 

[SteveS]

Let me ask you a question please.

If JA testifies in the trials against ZA & DA could he testify to what role SA played in the case when he lays out what happened from beginning to end? Isn't it up to the jury to believe him or not and weigh his credibility? If SA had involvement I don't see how JA can exclude him when testifying about what all happened and by all participants.

I do recall in a few other cases a video or a transcript being entered when the person who gave the interview had died before trial. Iirc, in those cases the person was being deposed under oath and both the DA and the defense were allowed to ask questions and were both present.

Of course JA can testify about SA. I have never said otherwise.

The issue being discussed earlier was whether "here is what SA said to LE" would be admissible as evidence, and I don't believe it's even close to possible. A defendant has the right to hear and cross-examine all witnesses against him, so what SA said would be considered hearsay, and therefore inadmissible unless it meets one of the exceptions.

You mention a situation which did meet one of the exceptions. I think the statements of SA did not. (Beyond that, given the nature of what SA said here and there, I don't think either side would want what he said to be used anyhow.)

But JA would of course be able to testify to whatever he claims to know, and take the stand, and that can certainly include mention of persons dead as well as living.

 

[SteveS]

One other thing to keep in mind about what SA said to LE. As I recall, LE declared publicly, in writing, and under oath when they were challenged, that it was not truthful testimony, and on that basis had decided to void his immunity deal. Going forward, they can't have it both ways, and say SA gave truthful testimony that is valid evidence for a jury to hear. So there's that obstacle as well, that this would be "lies" (per LE) of a "liar" (per LE).

 

[Mightymight]

When such hearings are being held are the victim/s' family members allowed to attend? I know in the Arias case Travis' family was included even in closed door hearings. If so in TN, the BoBo family may be aware of evidence that will not be allowed to come in during their trials.

This will be at the judge's discretion. I am aware of instances in TN where the judge has allowed all of these hearings to be streamed by the news. The trial of Lindsey Lowe is one example where all parts of the trial were streamed except sidebars and meetings inside chambers.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It is great to know that JA can testify to what role SA played in this crime. Although I am a little puzzled by the add on of "I have never said otherwise" since I didn't ask SteveS if he had said otherwise nor did I ever state he said something different. But thanks for the reply. If JA does testify for the state then all participants involved in this horrendous crime should be outed and known ......even if they took the cowardly way out and committed suicide..