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

[~n/t~]

Dylan had no incentive to throw others under the bus. He could have named one person if that were the case. We've also seen what not being completely forthright gets you with this DA. He stands to have any deal that was reached revoked if he's lying.

How do you know that? Just curious.

 

[ThoughtFox]

ZA tried to threaten his brother by getting a message to him in jail. That is called "Coercing a Witness."

Why would ZA be scared of his brother's testimony if it wasn't true?

http://www.wate.com/story/25132232/tbi-files-new-charge-against-zachary-adams

NASHVILLE, Tenn. - The man charged with the 2011 kidnapping and murder of nursing student Holly Bobo tried to threaten his brother, according to an arrest warrant obtained by News 2 Wednesday.

The document, an affidavit for coercion of witness filed Tuesday, states Zachary Adams tried to get a message to his brother, John Adams, who is in custody in the Obion County jail, through another inmate.

Adams, 29, reportedly said to the inmate, "Tell my brother he is the one who started all this s#%t and if he don't [sic] shut his mouth, he will be in the hole beside her."

He made the alleged statement to the inmate on March 4, the day before he was indicted in the Bobo case.

At the time, Adams thought the inmate was going to be transferred to the Obion County jail.

The inmate ultimately reported his conversation to the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation. A second inmate who overheard the conversation and corroborated the incident to a special agent.

In the affidavit, the TBI says Adams was attempting to coerce or influence a witness in the judicial proceeding involving the Bobo case.

Coercion of a witness is a Class D felony.

 

[~n/t~]

ZA tried to threaten his brother by getting a message to him in jail. That is called "Coercing a Witness."

Why would ZA be scared of his brother's testimony if it wasn't true?

http://www.wate.com/story/25132232/tbi-files-new-charge-against-zachary-adams

If you're referring to my posts, I mentioned that I felt ZA acted alone. The coercion charge, imo, is the equivalent of a confession.

As for Autry, I still have doubts.

 

[Tugela]

Ok, but if Heather Sullivan was also attacked by ZA, and she did ID him as doing so, does she also have connection to the gang? Also it seems completely out of character for her to have been involved with them. Not saying your wrong, but I think its a harder connection to make.

Having a connection does not necessarily mean a direct personal connection, it can be indirect through a third person for example. Holly may not even have known these guys, but someone close to her might.

Random stranger abductions are rare, and when it happens they are almost done by an isolated lone wolf. It is much more common for there to be some sort of connection between the victim and the perp.

 

[Tugela]

You can't have more than one alibi. It's nonsensical.

Autry wouldn't have been charged if he had a good alibi for any part of this.

If he invoked his right to a lawyer immediately, there would have been no interview and no alibi to investigate before charges were laid. Presumably LE laid charges based on other evidence and therefore may only be in a position to investigate an alibi afterwards.

People with good alibis get charged all the time, and convicted as well. If you look at cases where individuals are falsely convicted and later exonerated, it is not unusual for them to have solid alibis, but the DA just ignores that and focuses on other evidence instead.

 

[Tugela]

ZA tried to threaten his brother by getting a message to him in jail. That is called "Coercing a Witness."

Why would ZA be scared of his brother's testimony if it wasn't true?

http://www.wate.com/story/25132232/tbi-files-new-charge-against-zachary-adams

Because you can be convicted based on false testimony just as easily as on true.

Anytime you have someone willing to stand up in court and say "He/she did it!! I saw!!" you are in serious trouble.

 

[maskedwoman]

<snip>Random stranger abductions are rare <snip>

I do wonder sometimes how accurate that premise is. Perhaps the exceptions to the rule just stick with me more. I would agree that victims are often stalked without being aware of it. In other words, the kidnapper may have been a stranger to the victim, but the abductor may have picked them out and watched them for a time before kidnapping them.

I hope that makes sense.

 

[Suthrnqt]

That is assuming she was being held under duress when they saw her. She may not have been at that time and consequently they did not give it much thought.

Remember, while you are not legally required to intervene if you witness a crime, if you are physically present and are associated with the perps, and do not at least report it (and remain silent about it once you know about the investigation), you could be charged as an accessory and with obstruction of justice.

BBM
How can you possibly suggest that Holly wasn't being held under duress? There is nothing in Holly's background that suggests she associated with these scum buckets. And the same can be said for the Bobo family.
Now the A-train, OTOH, have extensive criminal backgrounds.....each and every one of them.
:banghead:
Sorry, but I am not buying what you are trying to sell.
:stormingmad:

 

[~n/t~]

ITA! Re: BBM.... Not to mention the people who saw her alive after she disappeared and didn't do anything to help her. They're disgusting.

"We have sworn statements from witnesses that saw Holly Bobo in the presence of both Zachary Adams and Jason Autry after her disappearance. Alive," said TBI Director Mark Gwyn.


Also:

"The TBI says they have several witnesses"

"Thompson told the court she estimates there are 360,000 pages of evidence that will be shared via hard drive. The state has 60 days to copy it all and the defendants have 60 days to review."

(underlined by me)

They have more than just DA's word against these guys (I'm talking about DA = ZA's brother and not DA = District Attorney LOL). I wonder what's on those 360,000 pages??


Read more: http://www.myfoxmemphis.com/story/2...-development-in-holly-bobo-case#ixzz32OyUAb9u
Follow us: @myfoxmemphis on Twitter | fox13news.myfoxmemphis on Facebook

MOO

Well where are these so called witnesses and why aren't they being charged?

 

[maskedwoman]

Well where are these so called witnesses and why aren't they being charged?

As repulsive as it is that people saw her there and did nothing, it's not a crime that they didn't attempt to help her or that they didn't report it at the time. Concealing the information after the fact can be considered obstruction but, often, people aren't charged if they help later on.

For all we know, they were threatened with obstruction and that's why they gave statements when they did.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Well where are these so called witnesses and why aren't they being charged?

:seeya:

Taking a "wild guess" here : probably because they are already in :jail:

:moo::moo:

 

[~n/t~]

:seeya:

Taking a "wild guess" here : probably because they are already in :jail:

:moo::moo:

Even if they are, shouldn't they be charged anyway? Keep piling it up...eventually they'll never get out. (if any others are involved).

 

[~n/t~]

As repulsive as it is that people saw her there and did nothing, it's not a crime that they didn't attempt to help her or that they didn't report it at the time. Concealing the information after the fact can be considered obstruction but, often, people aren't charged if they help later on.

For all we know, they were threatened with obstruction and that's why they gave statements when they did.

Is that the way it works in Tennessee? Can you cite the law that says they shouldn't be charged for aiding and abetting /concealment/cover up?

TIA

 

[~n/t~]

BBM
How can you possibly suggest that Holly wasn't being held under duress? There is nothing in Holly's background that suggests she associated with these scum buckets. And the same can be said for the Bobo family.
Now the A-train, OTOH, have extensive criminal backgrounds.....each and every one of them.
:banghead:
Sorry, but I am not buying what you are trying to sell.
:stormingmad:

I don't think that's what the poster meant at all. You nor I nor anyone here knows what happened that day.

All we can go by is pure speculation based on jailhouse chatter spread by LE

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Having a connection does not necessarily mean a direct personal connection, it can be indirect through a third person for example. Holly may not even have known these guys, but someone close to her might.

Random stranger abductions are rare, and when it happens they are almost done by an isolated lone wolf. It is much more common for there to be some sort of connection between the victim and the perp.

What is common or rare statistically really has nothing to do with Holly Bobo's individual case. Statistics don't really mean diddly squat to the person that has become a victim of someone they didn't ever associate with. So what if they are in the 'rare' category? Stats are an accumulative group of people. Victims are as individual as their perpetrator(s) can be.

Try to convince the countless family members who have had a child murdered by someone they didn't associate it that it is rare.. See if they really care if it is rare or not.

There is absolutely no evidence in three plus years that Holly ever associated with any of those who brutally murdered her. Those closest to her and the ones who would know said she did not associate with this gang or any drug addicts for that matter.

Tying to link Holly to her kidnappers and murderers based on general statistics is nonsensical, imo.

I have no doubt that Holly had 'heard' of ZA and JA. With over 25 arrests each, I am sure they both had made a name for themselves. They all lived in a very small community where someone may know someone only by sight. Or know 'about' them from talking among family and friends about certain ones in the community being strung out meth addicts and career criminals.

I know of such names in my own community. However I don't 'know' them even though I do know who they are when I see them, I don't want to "know' them nor will I ever associated with the lowlifes either or those in their inner circle.

I think it disingenuous at best for you to imply there was any connection between Holly and those who viscously murderer her. Especially when you don't have one thing to base it on other than throwing Holly into a statistical group and ignoring what has been said for over three years which disputes your assumption.

 

[maskedwoman]

Is that the way it works in Tennessee? Can you cite the law that says they shouldn't be charged for aiding and abetting /concealment/cover up?

TIA

That isn't exactly what I said. I said the law (all over the US, I believe) does not require anyone to try and stop a crime, or even report a crime in progress. I'm not sure why. There are exceptions for certain professionals being obligated to report certain types of crime, and there is also a legal obligation for a husband to protect his family or a parent to protect his or her child. That is how it was explained to me.

Here is a pretty decent article that covers some of that issue: http://criminal.lawyers.com/crimina...ing-ignoring-falsely-reporting-and-lying.html

Now, if they were directly asked and lied after the fact, that is obstruction. However, often, people won't be charged for that if they cooperate at trial. I didn't say it was pretty, but that's the way the system often works.

Unfortunately, being a slimy dirtbag with no moral compass is not a chargeable offense in Tennessee. And probably not any other state either. If it were, we would probably have to fence off an entire state to use as a prison.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Because you can be convicted based on false testimony just as easily as on true.

Anytime you have someone willing to stand up in court and say "He/she did it!! I saw!!" you are in serious trouble.

I don't think that is really true and it seems to be rather overly dramatic, imo. If it were that 'easy' then everyone would be found guilty just on words alone.

The cases I have seen where they did have testimony from witnesses saying that the suspects did tell them certain things also had an overwhelming amount of evidence (CE including forensics) to support those who testified about a certain defendant admitting to someone they did it.

I think it takes a heck of a lot more than someone just getting up there and saying he did it. Especially in our courts today.

IMO

 

[Hatfield]

BBM
How can you possibly suggest that Holly wasn't being held under duress? There is nothing in Holly's background that suggests she associated with these scum buckets. And the same can be said for the Bobo family.
Now the A-train, OTOH, have extensive criminal backgrounds.....each and every one of them.
:banghead:
Sorry, but I am not buying what you are trying to sell.
:stormingmad:

I can see one way this could happen where it may have looked like she was not in duress. Lets suppose Holly was just sitting on the couch and was threatened to calm down and act normal if anybody came to the door. If they lied to her and told her she would not be hurt so long as she cooperated then I could see a situation where if strangers (friends of them) came to the door that she maybe was afraid to even speak or ask for help.

To the friends/witnesses that maybe just happened to show up, they may not have realized the situation she was in if she did not speak up. The witnesses may have arrived shortly after she was taken before the creeps did anything worse to her.

There are so many scenerios that could have happened and until the details become known, there are lots of possibilities to what actually happened when, where, how, and why. Everyone is just trying to make sense of the senseless until more is known.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

That isn't exactly what I said. I said the law (all over the US, I believe) does not require anyone to try and stop a crime, or even report a crime in progress. I'm not sure why. There are exceptions for certain professionals being obligated to report certain types of crime, and there is also a legal obligation for a husband to protect his family or a parent to protect his or her child. That is how it was explained to me.

Here is a pretty decent article that covers some of that issue: http://criminal.lawyers.com/crimina...ing-ignoring-falsely-reporting-and-lying.html

Now, if they were directly asked and lied after the fact, that is obstruction. However, often, people won't be charged for that if they cooperate at trial. I didn't say it was pretty, but that's the way the system often works.

Unfortunately, being a slimy dirtbag with no moral compass is not a chargeable offense in Tennessee. And probably not any other state either. If it were, we would probably have to fence off an entire state to use as a prison.

Hi there maskedwoman! LTNS!:seeya:

When I have more time I will try to research the law in TN.

I do know you are right about some states having these laws in place.

I believe they are there so that people will come forward to report crimes... even if later on.... and tell what they may have heard or seen about a crime being committed.

They enact this rule so the persons will know if they do step forward they will not be in trouble with the law themselves if they didn't report it right away. If not, a lot of people will never come forward thinking they can be implicated or charged with an offense just because they didn't tell anyone right away about the crime.

But the person cant have any personal involvement in any part of the crimes themselves....even if it was a minor role, iirc. But if they were interviewed by police and directly lie or cover up for the suspects they can be charged later on with making a false statement to police and aiding and abetting.

IMO

 

[~n/t~]

TENNESSEE STATUTES AND CODES

39-11-411 - Accessory after the fact.

Listen
39-11-411. Accessory after the fact.

(a) A person is an accessory after the fact who, after the commission of a felony, with knowledge or reasonable ground to believe that the offender has committed the felony, and with the intent to hinder the arrest, trial, conviction or punishment of the offender:

(1) Harbors or conceals the offender;

(2) Provides or aids in providing the offender with any means of avoiding arrest, trial, conviction or punishment; or

(3) Warns the offender of impending apprehension or discovery.

(b) This section shall have no application to an attorney providing legal services as required or authorized by law.

(c) Accessory after the fact is a Class E felony.

[Acts 1989, ch. 591, § 1; 1994, ch. 978, § 4; 1995, ch. 281, § 1.]

- See more at: http://statutes.laws.com/tennessee/title-39/chapter-11/part-4/39-11-411#sthash.r8xYHSj4.dpuf

http://statutes.laws.com/tennessee/title-39/chapter-11/part-4/39-11-411