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

[oceanblueeyes]

Imo, SAs role will be learned during JAs testimony. I have no doubt the ADA will ask him questions pertaining to exactly what happened from beginning to the end and who all was involved and each role they played.

I don't even see any need for the state to even enter what SA said earlier to LE. Imo, they dont need his statement he made during the immunity deal. The state learned something new even back then that showed he wasn't being truthful and that was long before one of the main defendants started to sing like a canary.

Like in most cases where one defendant testifies against the others the state will have other witnesses who will testify that will support the testifying defendant's testimony. In this particular case it seems this gang loved to run their mouths about the hideous things they had done to Holly so I see a lot of witnesses coming forth to testify for the state. Not things they were told by someone else but were directly told certain things by the defendants themselves.

So as far as I can see it will not be even necessary for the state to even enter anything about the immunity deal SA was given. I think he.... like the others ran his mouth thinking others wouldn't ever rat him out, but imo, some of those people have come forward and have agreed to testify to what each of them were told by anyone who boasted they were involved. Imo, the witness list for the prosecution in this case will be vast.

The motive for kidnapping Holly has to be very depraved for the Judge to tell ZAs attorney she needs to run and and try to get ZAs a plea deal. This was around the same time there were rumors JA had rolled over on all of them. So whatever he said convinced this Judge if ZA doesn't plea he will be sentenced to death. IMO. So the motive has to be something awful for the Judge to say he needs to try and make a plea deal. That was sound advice imo but I just don't see the state offering a plea deal of any kind to ZA and I think his attorney knew that already so she tries to save face by saying they are going to trial because she knows they really have no other choice.

 

[SteveS]

Imo, SAs role will be learned during JAs testimony. I have no doubt the ADA will ask him questions pertaining to exactly what happened from beginning to the end and who all was involved and each role they played.

Since SA's not on trial, and won't testify, not sure why they'd mention him in the trial. There's no evidence we know of that says he had any role whatsoever in this crime.

SA's statement seeking "immunity" said explicitly he had NOTHING to do with the crime, with his attempt at immunity mostly being about unrelated drug charges, plus covering the knowledge of what he shared. His assertions about HB included, and may have been limited to (1) a claim that he was TOLD by the perps that they were holding HB and he could come have a turn at raping her, and (2) a claim that he knew where they disposed of her body. But from what we have seen and from inferences drawn, it appears he never did ANYTHING related to HB before her death, never acted on their offer, and his location was wrong (which made them decide he had just made it all up).

None of what he said can be used anyhow, I wouldn't think, since he's not available to testify and be cross-examined on that testimony. But LE has already declared him to be a liar, specifically in relation to what he told them, so the deposition is worthless on that basis too.

 

[SteveS]

The motive for kidnapping Holly has to be very depraved for the Judge to tell ZAs attorney she needs to run and and try to get ZAs a plea deal. This was around the same time there were rumors JA had rolled over on all of them. So whatever he said convinced this Judge if ZA doesn't plea he will be sentenced to death. IMO.

Let me preface the following by saying that while I suspect ZA did all this more likely than not, I have a healthy respect for the fact that we have heard almost nothing with any reliability that would pin him to this crime. From where we sit, it's been assumptions and innuendo and unbacked claims, and lots of bickering back and forth as to whether any REAL evidence exists. So there's that, which has me very much in a wait-and-see mode.

That having been said ....

1 Respectfully, "motive" would really have nothing to do with anything. It's about having evidence of what he did, and how solid that evidence is. "Motive" is essentially a "why" and requires mind-reading, so it's not part of the law, even though we have been conditioned to focus on motive (as if they can ever TRULY be known) instead. Whereas actions are actions, and can be seen and described. Yes, "true detective" novels and crime novels/shows/movies play up the motive angle, and juries like to be told "why," but you can conjure up a feasible motive for countless people in relation to any murder, so whatever motive is described is not really evidence but is mostly assumption.

2 As for the info that the judge encouraged a plea deal, that really is NOT indicative of anything. Judges typically encourage defendants to take plea deals, as it lessens the case load in our crowded courts. And it takes two to tango, so I would wager the judge is saying the same thing to the state ("you guys need to try to get a plea deal worked out"), even though it's not being played up.

3 There's also the possibility that the judge sees the evidence as somewhat weak, or having MAJOR holes in some areas, and yet indicative that there's a strong "maybe" the defendant(s) did something and wants to see some punishment rather than spinning the wheel with one possibility being that the defendants simply walk. IOW a plea is a "negotiated" sentence, and if he's pushing for a plea, we really don't know what he would think is the middle ground.

4 Whatever JA might testify is still unknown. The idea of one person blaming another and making up a self-serving story to do so is human nature. So I don't assume that JA will simply waltz into court and tell a tale and it's accepted as gospel and that's the end of it. I do think that IF we see JA testify, it's probably a sign that there's other good evidence that has persuaded him to do so, but I also think it may be mostly wishful thinking to assume his raw testimony will be taken as gospel. Whether he comes off as a repentant humble truth-teller who has finally come clean, or as a self-focused weasel who is saying what he has been told to say, will be up to the jury.

 

[Chainsaw385]

Since SA's not on trial, and won't testify, not sure why they'd mention him in the trial. There's no evidence we know of that says he had any role whatsoever in this crime.

After our debate a while ago I conceded his statements made to LE to secure immunity will not be admissible.And I agree 100% that SA's statements are all but worthless anyhow for the prosecution since they have declared them lies.But in no way do I think SA will never be mentioned in any of these trials.

I can see a way that what SA said may be helpful for the defense.
The defense may try the angle that LE gave SA immunity and then later tried to revoke it pointing towards a bungled investigation that had them desperately trying to frame their clients.And also not following other leads that pointed to other suspects.I have seen things similar used as defense in other trials.

I do not believe this but if ZA or DA goes to trial they will put on some type of defense and if the trial starts going bad for the defendants.They will start throwing all kind of things at the wall to see if anything sticks.Also don't forget ZA's attorney wanted SA's attorney to join their team.This may be hint of how their defense is going to play out.

LE was actively trying in courts to revoke SA's immunity at the time of his death.So it is pretty safe to assume they wanted to charge him with some type of crime relating to Holly.They wouldn't be doing this at that time to charge him with perjury.

If JA takes a plea (and it looks certain he will) he will be testifying and I would certainly expect if SA had any involvement he will testify to that.This has no bearing on weather SA is dead or alive.

TBI is notorious for not releasing evidence before a trial and for that reason it is silly to assume since we haven't seen any it doesn't exist.
We have seen no evidence that JA is involved either but it looks like he is going to plead guilty.JA has seen enough against him he doesn't want to risk getting the DP.JA got jittery after he saw the evidence against him.Writing letters to reporters and also for the first time saying Holly was at ZA's house a couple days before her abduction.We do not yet know what he was scared of but will eventually.

I have said it before and will say it again that crock print in the Bobo carport is going to match ones owned by ZA.
And they can prove Holly was at the ZA/DA residence.
I will add another one now......SA was more involved rather then disposing or knowing where her remains were and this will come out at trial.

 

[Tugela]

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.

The defendant has the right to cross-examine a witness against them, and that is what the hearsay rule primarily is used for. The state however does not have that right, which means that the defense can present whatever SA said as evidence of an alternative version of what happened in order to establish reasonable doubt. They do not need SA to be present in court to do that, they could just use his recorded statements. That said, once SA's claims are entered into evidence in that manner, the state could use it to bolster their case in some way (although that is unlikely since they apparently stopped believing what he said was true).

 

[Tugela]

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 !

My guess is that he will claim the same sort of peripheral involvement that SA and DA claimed to get out of the mess, and be offered some relatively minor sentence in return for co-operation. Time served for being an accomplice after the fact, or something like that. Of all of them I would have expected the case against JA to be the weakest.

In the end the state will need some pretty clear forensic evidence to sort out who is all telling the truth. All of the procedural mess over the last year or two suggests that such evidence is probably not there, and consequently the state has to have one of the accused take some sort of plea deal to carry on.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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 !

Good Morning Everyone!

According to the filing, Autry confessed on Jan. 20 this year to taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo.

This is very consistent with co-defendants who windup taking a plea deal. JA isn't a defendant who is on the outside looking in. He all along, has been charged as a main defendant along with the Adams' brothers. Imo, JA didn't watch all of this happening from afar, and because of that his testimony will be more riveting and much more compelling. I believe he was there from the very beginning of the kidnapping of Holly to the very end when she was murdered. Zach Adams went to do the actual kidnapping at her home but IMO most likely JA was waiting for both of them in the woods not far from her home. JA wasn't charged with after the fact crimes.

Over the years I have seen co-defendants be granted plea deals in order to testify against other co-defendants. During those times I have seen many who did not try to diminish their own participation, and I don't expect JAs testimony to be any different.

Imo, he will not testify that he really didn't participate in the actual kidnapping, rape, and murder of Holly, and instead will testify he had full participation in all of it, and will testify to what he did along with what the other co-defendants did and each role they played.

As far as his plea deal it will not be a slap on the wrist although it will save him from possibly being sentenced to death. IMO, JA will still be given many years in prison for his participation.

If it is not LWOP then it may be a sentence of 25 years to life with a possibility of parole.

In the Rabbi Neulander death penalty case both hit-men were sentenced to 20 years, iiirc. Even though they fully participated in the heinous murder of the Rabbi's wife they agreed to testify against him at trial. They didn't sugarcoat any of their own involvement when testifying, and neither will JA, IMO. The Rabbi was convicted of first degree murder and conspiracy to commit murder and received the harshest sentence. Iirc, he received the death penalty.

IMO

 

[pearl]

IMO, the prosecution has ALL the evidence that is needed for a successful prosecution of all 3 accused. If JA, being a career criminal, did not know the evidence to give him the death penalty was there, he probably would not have taken a plea deal. This is not his first rodeo, although it may be the first murder accusation. This confession just gets the death penalty off the table.

 

[SteveS]

... the defense can present whatever SA said as evidence of an alternative version of what happened in order to establish reasonable doubt.

You keep missing the point that the defense would never want the jury to hear that "alternate version" that SA told the state. Paraphrased, SA told the state that: "The defendants TOLD me...
(1) they had kidnapped Holly,
(2) they had her as a prisoner and were using her as a rape object and inviting others to participate, and
(3) later they killed her and dumped the body in the woods by a river."

There's no reasonable doubt created by that story. It's a second story that points to their full and complete guilt of every crime they are charged with.

 

[SteveS]

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.

That's fairly definitive on JA, isn't it? I missed the full clarity of that when it was originally posted, but it's not unclear in any way. JA confessed to what he did, it includes "taking part in the kidnapping, rape, and murder of Bobo," and it's common sense to understand he will testify against the others.

 

[jggordo]

Chris Conte
4 hrs ·
Zach Adams glances up from notebook frequently, seems to be paying close attention to his lawyer questioning on death penalty #HollyBobo

About 500 people have been summoned for the #hollybobo jury pool here in Hardin County. Zachary Adams is also here @NC5 https://t.co/PCPfbNMn0i

According to Chris Conte @ NC5



2
2

 

[jggordo]

Link for entire article:

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/jury-selection-begins-in-holly-bobo-case

 

[tlcya]

NashvilleNewsChannel‏ @Nashville_NC [video=twitter;850019040990961664]https://twitter.com/Nashville_NC/status/850019040990961664[/video]More



Nashville News Jury selection underway for accused Holly Bobo killer Zach Adams http://dlvr.it/NqDzMg

 

[SouthernCutie]

I'm glad the case is finally progressing forward. I was going to attend the trial but they moved it so I'll watch from home. Newschannel 5 Nashville will be streaming it when it begins. Their app is on the play store and I Tunes or it will be on their FB page... Prayers with the Bobo family as they continue their journey for justice for Holly

💘 💘"Break the rules and stand apart, ignore your head and follow your heart" 💘 💘

 

[lisette]

Isn't that kinda risky choosing a jury now and having them wait until July for the trial? Just seems that would be a long time to expect them to not read, watch, or hear about the case...JMO

 

[lonetraveler]

Isn't that kinda risky choosing a jury now and having them wait until July for the trial? Just seems that would be a long time to expect them to not read, watch, or hear about the case...JMO

I think it's extremely long and way too much opportunity for friends and neighbors to give you their opinion as well as the opportunity to read all case information and form an opinion. :thinking:

 

[AmyPond]

I agree. Way too long. I was almost on a jury for a murder trial and just for the two days of jury selection it was so hard to not Google or tell anyone the case. As soon as I was dismissed, I was on my phone Googling.

 

[abeaman02]

I'm glad the case is finally progressing forward. I was going to attend the trial but they moved it so I'll watch from home. Newschannel 5 Nashville will be streaming it when it begins. Their app is on the play store and I Tunes or it will be on their FB page... Prayers with the Bobo family as they continue their journey for justice for Holly

 "Break the rules and stand apart, ignore your head and follow your heart"  

I will be watching this and hoping for justice for Holly. On a side note IMO ZA looks evil...just saying

 

[Niner]

Hey all!

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

How can they sequester a jury in April until the trial in July?? That's going to be one heck of a hotel bill!!

Also, anyone know "how" SA died? Just curious.

Okay - found my answer.

snipped by me...
......even if they took the cowardly way out and committed suicide

Was SA in jail when he committed suicide?? TIA!

snipped by me...
I'm glad the case is finally progressing forward. I was going to attend the trial but they moved it so I'll watch from home. Newschannel 5 Nashville will be streaming it when it begins. Their app is on the play store and I Tunes or it will be on their FB page...

Do you have a link to this? I don't have apps....

Isn't that kinda risky choosing a jury now and having them wait until July for the trial? Just seems that would be a long time to expect them to not read, watch, or hear about the case...JMO

I wondering that - that's why I asked in my first question - that the Jury will be exptremely sequestered - until July??

I can't believe this case is FINAL coming to an end...


:rose: JUSTICE FOR HOLLY!! :rose:

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think it's extremely long and way too much opportunity for friends and neighbors to give you their opinion as well as the opportunity to read all case information and form an opinion. :thinking:

Good morning everyone!

The Judge doesn't have a clue how long it will take to get the qualifying jurors in this case. It could take a month or even longer. I imagine many when questioned will say they have already formed an firm opinion about the case or they have hardship reasons for not serving.

It takes much longer to get a sequestered jury since they will be away from home all during the time the trial is being held including the sentencing phase if Adams is convicted. A lot of people just cant be gone from their family/work or business for that long.

The selected jurors are not required to know nothing about any case. If selected then they have convinced the attorneys and the presiding Judge that they have the ability to set all aside what they have heard outside of the courtroom, and only consider the evidence entered from the witness stand to come to their determination. Someone would have to live in a cave to not know about this case.

Being I have been a juror five times on criminal cases, I have found jurors do take their oath very seriously, and will and do abide by all of the rules the Judge sets forth. Once someone is a selected juror IMO it changes everything, and most all jurors want to honor their oath, and strictly abide by the rules.

When I served on a high profile death penalty case I never did anything I wasn't allowed to do even though I knew the case was being covered on our local news on a daily basis. I knew my responsibilities to be true to my oath was very serious and not something I take lightly. Not once would I have ever gone against what I had sworn I would do. Usually a person's word means everything to them, and they make sure they are true to their promise they have made as a juror.

IMO