Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #3 ***ARREST***

[maskedwoman]

Can someone please direct me to the sketch that was created that looks so much like SA? I have not seen it.

Thanks!

 

[maskedwoman]

That sketch freaks me out. You KNOW that Law Enforcement, especially local LE, knew is was Austin. What took so long?! Why not release the sketch to the public, along with the 911 calls?
It just blows my mind.

I apologize for commenting on this so long afterward but just curious what those who are angry the sketch was not released think would have happened differently if it had been.

If the sketch really is a dead ringer for SA, I rather suspect the TBI knew that already and did not need to release it to be told what they already knew.

Plus, having a sketch of someone from a public event that creeped her out doesn't give them evidence that the person committed a crime. It gives them a place to start, which I think they clearly did, but

Would it have given them probable cause to search any of those properties? I doubt it. After all, staring at someone all evening is very creepy but not illegal.

 

[SteveS]

We will know in a couple weeks if the immunity agreement is null and void or still binding. I think our personal interpretation of the wording of the document is where we do not agree. My main points are:
1. The agreement required SA to be forthcoming and truthful about info he gave LE.
2. The agreement could be declared null and void if it was found that SA gave incorrect info or not all info.
3. The DA wants to null and void the agreement because of some reason that we do not know. .

Nothing I have said has argued in any way about item 1. SA was granted immunity, the moment he signed the deal. Then he had his side of the deal that he had to live up to. If he didn't, he could lose his immunity.

I probably agree with item 2 as well. Unless, that is, you are trying to say that the DA could just remove the immunity by simply saying so. There is absolutely no question that the DA cannot do such a thing, but a court can (and certainly will, if SA doesn't live up to the deal he made).

In a way, I don't even really disagree with item 3. It is obvious that the DA WANTS to void the agreement.

But what has happened is that the DA has said she HAS voided the deal, and that's not her decision to make. She has to ask the court to do so, and present whatever proof she is claiming that SA hasn't lived up to the deal, and then court will decide if she has proof beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

 

[reedus23]

Nothing I have said has argued in any way about item 1. SA was granted immunity, the moment he signed the deal. Then he had his side of the deal that he had to live up to. If he didn't, he could lose his immunity.

I probably agree with item 2 as well. Unless, that is, you are trying to say that the DA could just remove the immunity by simply saying so. There is absolutely no question that the DA cannot do such a thing, but a court can (and certainly will, if SA doesn't live up to the deal he made).

In a way, I don't even really disagree with item 3. It is obvious that the DA WANTS to void the agreement.

But what has happened is that the DA has said she HAS voided the deal, and that's not her decision to make. She has to ask the court to do so, and present whatever proof she is claiming that SA hasn't lived up to the deal, and then court will decide if she has proof beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

I will give the same disclaimer that I have been wrong before and I could be wrong now, but as much as one might think it's wrong or unfair, I think the DA does have the ability to revoke an immunity agreement and indict someone. The DA does NOT have to ask a court to do so. The onus is on the defendant to file a Motion to Dismiss based on the immunity agreement AFTER he has been indicted. I am attaching a link to the actual appellate case that was referenced in that article. Now, this is NOT a Tennessee case but I think it's pretty informative about how such cases are handled. I haven't found any Tennessee precedent either way. But from that appellate case linked below:

 

The Supreme Court has observed that the executive branch “has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to decide whether to prosecute a case,”

i.e. DA's have exclusive rights to determine whether or not to indict and

“It follows, as an incident of the constitutional separation of powers, that the courts are not to interfere with the free exercise of the discretionary powers of the attorneys of the United States in their control over criminal prosecutions.”

the court's are not to interfere with that in the form of restraining orders or injunctions.

As the Court noted, “a post-indictment evidentiary hearing on the defendant's alleged breach was sufficient to satisfy due process.”

A pre-indictment determination is not needed to satisfy constitutional requirements.

 Other immunity agreements that have promised not to charge or otherwise criminally prosecute a defendant, like the agreement at issue in this case, have likewise been construed to protect the defendant against conviction rather than indictment and trial.

In other words, a Court cannot enter a restraining order preventing an indictment.

This distinction is grounded in the understanding that simply being indicted and forced to stand trial is not generally an injury for constitutional purposes but is rather “one of the painful obligations of citizenship.”

May or may not agree with it personally, but it is how the courts view it.

“Although it is surely true that an innocent person may suffer great harm to his reputation and property by being erroneously accused of a crime, all citizens must submit to a criminal prosecution brought in good faith so that larger societal interests may be preserved.”

So they recognize the fact that being indicted harms someone's reputation and comes at a financial cost of having to hire an attorney to defend it, but that's not sufficient reason to infringe on the DA's authority to indict those he believes in good faith should be indicted.

Here, Stolt-Nielsen and Wingfield may interpose the Agreement (as a defense to conviction) in a pre-trial motion.  (“In accordance with due process, [the defendant] was entitled to a judicial determination that he had breached the agreement before being subjected to the risk of conviction.   The district court's pretrial [but post-indictment] evidentiary hearing satisfied this requirement.”).  But their contention that the immunity they purportedly received under the Agreement precludes an indictment in the first place is belied by precedent, and we see no compelling reason to reach a different result in this case.

In other words, the DA can indict him and the Equity Court cannot do anything but dismiss the lawsuit and certainly cannot enter a restraining order prohibiting an indictment and once indicted, he can then file a Motion to Dismiss in that court based on the immunity agreement.

 “[A] suit in equity does not lie where there is a plain, adequate and complete remedy at law ․ [that is] as complete, practical and efficient as that which equity could afford.”  Here, Stolt-Nielsen and Wingfield have a practical and efficient-and indeed complete-legal remedy available to them, i.e., access to a federal forum post-indictment in which they may assert the Agreement as a defense.  

Instead, we are guided by other cases from the Supreme Court and Courts of Appeals that lead us to conclude that non-prosecution agreements may not form the basis for enjoining indictments before they issue.

In this context, we conclude that the District Court lacked authority to employ the extraordinary remedy of enjoining the Government's indictments of Stolt-Nielsen and Wingfield.   The judgment is therefore reversed and the case remanded with the instruction that the District Court dismiss their complaints with prejudice.

Pretty self explanatory.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1312488.html

If you see anything in Tennessee that suggests they handle such lawsuits differently, I'd love to read it. Otherwise, I'd suggest that yes, the DA in their own determination, can decide that an immunity agreement is revoked or void and can decide to indict an individual. If that person disagrees, their remedy is not to file for a restraining order, but to file a motion to dismiss the charges and have the court rule on it in that fashion.

I'm not saying I agree or disagree from a personal standpoint, but simply explaining why I think the lawsuit itself (not the allegations set forth within it) will quietly and simply be dismissed.

 

[jggordo]

At this point, to me it seems like six of one and a half dozen of the other. In this particular case the same Judge (McGinley) will be ruling on the RO one way or the other. He presides over both Courts.

To me if he calls a GJ meeting and the DA and TBI presents substantiated independent evidence that Shayne himself was present or was involved in the kidnap/murder or drugging of Holly, and the witnesses are not a co conspiritor (charged or uncharged). And the GJ hands down a true bill indictment I believe his goose is cooked either way

JMO's

 

[SteveS]

Reedus, I read that case and opinion when it was posted earlier. However, imo it's not really instructive or applicable here for a couple of reasons at least:

1 the original ruling (which supported the same stance SA atty is taking) wasn't overturned on the merits but rather on a "lack of jurisdiction" basis... and the SC didn't bother to rule on it either
2 it wasn't a TN ruling which means it doesn't apply to TN state law (except as it might deal with constitutional rights).

But more importantly, we have the TN law itself to go on (ie, the text of the ruling of their SC regarding the issue of immunity agreements in general). That's what really governs such agreements, and here's their stance:

"An agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant is contractual in nature and is enforceable under the law of contracts."

If they mean what they say, SA position will hold up. That's because under contract law, if you have a breach of contract (which the letter clearly is), the remedy is to go to court to enforce the contract. But we'll see what happens.

 

[SteveS]

Reedus, as a side note, in looking at that federal case in WA, I ran across some interesting notes about immunity agreements and how they work in Canada. Obviously they would have no effect on how things have to be done in TN or elsewhere in the US, but it sounds like they might have a more effective way they work them.

I found this statement intriguing, with some procedures perhaps worth copying :

"In Canada, the Competition Bureau operates an immunity program similar to the Division’s. Immunity has only ever been revoked from two individuals in Canada, and never from a corporation. The Bureau has recently revised its immunity program to clarify that before it discuss any issues with an immunity applicant and give the applicant a chance to cure any defects before recommending to the Director of Prosecutions that immunity be revoked."

 

[reedus23]

But more importantly, we have the TN law itself to go on (ie, the text of the ruling of their SC regarding the issue of immunity agreements in general). That's what really governs such agreements, and here's their stance:

"An agreement between a prosecutor and a defendant is contractual in nature and is enforceable under the law of contracts."

If they mean what they say, SA position will hold up. That's because under contract law, if you have a breach of contract (which the letter clearly is), the remedy is to go to court to enforce the contract. But we'll see what happens.

Yeah, I'm beating a dead horse now so I'll leave it after this. Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting they're not enforceable nor am I suggesting that they aren't guided by the laws of contract. The case I cited acknowledged as much as well. Rather, simply how or in what forum they are enforced. Like you said. We'll see what happens. I think it's actually a case of first impression in Tennessee so they'll probably be making new law either way.

 

[SteveS]

Reedus, I understand.

You said "I think the DA does have the ability to revoke an immunity agreement and indict someone. The DA does NOT have to ask a court to do so."

I certainly see it's possible that the determination made from this case follows your line of thinking. But if that happens, it will not actually be following the law of contracts, as the DA given such latitude would be making a unilateral decision rather than one in line with contractual law; accordingly, I think SA atty makes valid points that are more aligned with contractual law (as well as due process protections).

We'll just have to see how it plays out.

 

[Hatfield]

great discussion all.

It sure is interesting as I have never heard of a plea agreement trying to be backed out of. This case never ceases to amaze me with the strangeness.

 

[pearl]

so I'll leave it after this.

snipped and bolded by me

reedus23, I'm with you here. As a former co-worker used to say, "It is what it is." We can debate this agreement for days, but we will have to wait and see what it is when the Chancery Court rules. I will say again that SA is either arrogant or lacking in common sense if he reneged on this sweetheart of a deal.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

so I'll leave it after this.

snipped and bolded by me

reedus23, I'm with you here. As a former co-worker used to say, "It is what it is." We can debate this agreement for days, but we will have to wait and see what it is when the Chancery Court rules. I will say again that SA is either arrogant or lacking in common sense if he reneged on this sweetheart of a deal.

My opinions only, no facts here:

First, the officials obtain their initial information from the main suspect's brother. This brother happens to be in prison for a fairly long stint. We do not know if the main suspect's brother was offered a deal (shorter sentence) to talk. But we presume that he claimed certain things about who abducted Holly Bobo and these things implicated his brother (the main suspect).

Then we have the utterly-predictable "jailhouse confession" of the main suspect, where he threatens his brother for ratting on him, in the presence of other inmates. I discussed the probability of this jailhouse confession before it happened; this is why I call it utterly predictable.

Then we have the immunity agreement with this other guy (see Pearl response to reedus23 post above), who apparently does not really know where the remains are. Maybe it is just me, but does anyone get the feeling that the officials are bouncing off the walls and getting worried? None of this circus would be necessary if the officials possessed unequivocal evidence from the get-go.

I said this in my Holly Bobo timeline and I will say it again here, "a lot of people may be talking, but who is telling the truth?" Sure, the prosecutors may yet get a conviction of one or more of the detained suspects, but will the truth be served?

Remember, the current names or initials being bandied about here are not necessarily the most logical suspects from the local community. I spent hundreds of hours constructing my Holly Bobo timeline, and I "encountered" other interesting possibilities during this exercise.

 

[Little Jedi]

Can someone please direct me to the sketch that was created that looks so much like SA? I have not seen it.

Thanks!

Don't think anyone has replied yet ?

Here you go :

*Link to News item below

* http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/25397291/bobo-friend-describes-man-in-camouflage-at-coon-hunt

 

[reedus23]

I said this in my Holly Bobo timeline and I will say it again here, "a lot of people may be talking, but who is telling the truth?" Sure, the prosecutors may yet get a conviction of one or more of the detained suspects, but will the truth be served?

My experience has been that we never know the full truth in any of these cases unfortunately. There may be various forms of so-called closure, but rarely are all the questions answered, much less answered truthfully.

 

[maskedwoman]

It has taken me a good two months to read all the posts 'over there' and to say the least I have sure gotten an education on how forums shouldn't be run.

I have had to wade through hundreds of posts that are nothing but infighting to even find posts related to the case. I also notice 'over there' it seems to draw quite a few conspiracy theorists that are even quirkier than a lot of conspiracy theorists I've seen before.

I have read some doozies. Some believed at first that Holly never existed and then believed it was a hoax so the family could make money on selling t-shirts.:scared: Then it goes on to drug trafficking to those believing its all about owing someone money. Of course like most conspiracy theories there is absolutely no facts to be found to support any of them. Some of them 'over there' have posted night and day, wasting three years of their lives glued to that forum.:scared: And of course since it is an un-moderated forum you have a few Bobo bashers thrown in the mix.

It has taken quite awhile to learn who to scroll by and who's post to read.

I am beginning to believe those that started posting about the A-Train a year and a half ago were just running their 'mouths' 'over there' about what they knew but weren't going to the police directly to tell them. The very ones they should have talked to immediately....I don't think they were.

If the TBI has monitored that entire forum since its inception the officer or officers doing it have to be pulling their hair out when trying to determine what may be truth and what may be put out by liars who are only seeking attention and pretending to be 'in the know.'

While it is interesting to be able to see the posts written about the suspects 'over there' ..it also makes me very thankful for WS and how they run their site.

I bow to your determination. You are a rock! I spent about 20 minutes reading "over there", got a headache and stomach ache from the combination of fighting and sheer craziness and gave it up.

 

[maskedwoman]

My opinions only, no facts here:

From news reports it sounds like there are no discovered remains. Lacking that, one would hope that the sworn depositions are from people of high regard and clean records.

I get the feeling that authorities are waiting on DNA analyses from vehicles, etc. and holding their breath in the meantime.

Sleuth On!

I'm not sure it matters overly much. If they have multiple statements, that means corroboration. And, as the attorney said in The Big Easy, clergymen and bankers are seldom witnesses at criminal trials.

It doesn't sound like they will have any trouble at all establishing that people were too scared to speak up until they were in jail.

 

[jggordo]

I believe there has been a lot of distrust in the system and LE over the past three years. Because of the way past crimes have been dealt with. With both defendants. I think I saw where Zach had Domestic Assault charges before (more than once) where his bond was $12,500. This last time when the DA asked for $500,000 and the Judge made it $1M it was turning of the tide.

And until both defendants were proven to the public that they were not going to use the revolving door this time to the penal system and they are finally feeling a sigh of relief. With the additional demonstration of adding coercion charges for intimidation of people are just now beginning to build trust LE with the awful secrets and nightmares many have known about for years.

And Dylan even though in custody is no doubt feeling the most safe for any time in his life. I believe he is finally getting some help to deal with the abuses he has gone through by growing up with a monster in the house.

JMO's

 

[maskedwoman]

RE: a million tips with limited resources to use.

SteveS, the anger is not misplaced at all, imo. I can't remember another high profile abduction case where the tremendous amount of investigative resources were utilized; local, state, & federal, combined with a very large reward & ms media awareness.. Yet, a POI sketch was prepared, yet not shared/released to the public.. <snipped for brevity>.

I would add "that you know of". Local LE may have seen the sketch and known exactly who it was. The purpose of releasing a sketch is to identify a suspect. If you already know who the person is, there is no reason to release the sketch and get a ton of calls telling you something you already know. It might keep someone from getting through who has information you really do need.

JMO, of course. It's the call I would have made, if I were in their shoes.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It may sound like I'm trying to advocate for SA in this matter. That's not the case. But I am very much a believer in people being treated fairly under the law, and not being abused by the governmental workers, because I've been on the receiving end of that "we can do whatever we want, we own this city, laws be damned" attitude by government and it's nasty, wrong, and traumatic to have to fight.

I certainly don't know what SA did or didn't do. But whatever it is, the legal process needs to be required to run its course in a fair and just manner. That protects not only him, but the rest of us if we get unfairly accused some day.

LTNS Everyone! :seeya:Way too many hot cases for this one old woman to handle at one time.

I am a strong believer in everyone being treated fairly under the law. I also firmly believe that everyone in this country has a right to be treated fairly in the criminal justice system. The 'government' has never been nor will ever be my "BFF.'

However; that is also a two way street between the government (justice system) in this case and Austin. When any immunity agreement is agreed upon both sides must be treated fairly.... equally. In this particular case the DA thinks SA has not lived up to his part of the bargain. I tend to agree.

Since rescinding immunity deals are extremely rare... I believe the DA has a very good faith basis for wanting to rescind this agreement. He certainly is very well aware that it must go before the Judge in order for the rescinding of the agreement to happen. This DA is no new kid on the block.

In fact in over three decades of researching true crime and reading about thousands of cases this is the first time I have ran across a case where the DA has set up a hearing to rescind an immunity agreement. Of course I have always been aware of the attachment clause to the agreement explaining the agreement can be null and void with the reasons given.

Frankly I do think he will be able to support his position or he would have never made the decision to rescind it to begin with. The simple answer is he has all the unfolding evidence before him now and we can only guess or speculate.

Through the gossip rumor mill 'over there' it has been said that SA was more involved with Holly's kidnapping, rape (imo), drug injections, murder and burial than he has let on.

We will learn eventually just how involved he was.

IMO

 

[maskedwoman]

Don't think anyone has replied yet ?

Here you go :

*Link to News item below

* http://wnow.worldnow.com/story/25397291/bobo-friend-describes-man-in-camouflage-at-coon-hunt

Thank you very much. Yes, definitely SA.