Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #4 ***ARRESTS***

[Dr. Know?]

WZTV FOX 17 ‏@wztv_fox17 · 3m
#HollyBobo Case: We are #LIVEonFOX17 at 1pm Streaming defendant Jason Autry's prelim hearing. http://m.fox17.com/stream pic.twitter.com/S9AYzcgEIz

https://twitter.com/wztv_fox17

http://m.fox17.com/stream

 

[Dr. Know?]

Joseph Pleasant ‏@JPleasantwkrntv · 7m
Jason Autry arrived at courthouse and tried to pass note to media. It was confiscated before it could be read. #hollybobo

https://twitter.com/JPleasantwkrntv

Sarah Clausen ‏@WSMVSarahClause · 8m
Autry just arrived. I asked him where #hollybobo...He said "good question!" Livestream begins at 1 on http://wsmv.com

https://twitter.com/WSMVSarahClause

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Joseph Pleasant ‏@JPleasantwkrntv · 7m
Jason Autry arrived at courthouse and tried to pass note to media. It was confiscated before it could be read. #hollybobo

https://twitter.com/JPleasantwkrntv

RBBM: Unbelievable ... now we know why they had those handcuffs so tight on him last time he was in court !

:moo:

:seeya:

 

[Cherry]

thanks so much for the links

 

[SteveS]

This is my thought as well. A lot of people think they want to pull immunity due to the fact he had more involvement than he previously stated. That never made sense to me.

I believe he said he knew where the body was, and he didn't. That is why the DA wants to pull immunity. The guy lead them to believe he had some vital information and he just didn't.

This makes the most sense to me.

Ultimately, if he offered to tell more than he really knew, in order to get a free pass on something else (say, for example, some drug charges), then the DA certainly has every right to pull the immunity.

The question for the court to decide, if that's what's in play here, is to match up what he promised in the proffer, and what he was able to deliver when he talked, and determine if they were materially the same.

 

[~Lyric~]

This makes the most sense to me.

Ultimately, if he offered to tell more than he really knew, in order to get a free pass on something else (say, for example, some drug charges), then the DA certainly has every right to pull the immunity.

The question for the court to decide, if that's what's in play here, is to match up what he promised in the proffer, and what he was able to deliver when he talked, and determine if they were materially the same.

If I'm not mistaken, I haven't looked at the agreement recently but didn't it say charges going back to Jan and then certain things to do with Holly? I'll have to read it again.

 

[~Lyric~]

I keep thinking about when Zach Adams said someone broke into his house, this is right around the time of the pearls, then arrest for assault, etc etc.

My question is this, if something was taken during that break in and given over to LE, can it still be used in this case? Of course Zach couldn't report what might have been taken if it would implicate him in a crime, but I have always wondered about this. Could this have been something that started all this? Could Austin have done this? Could this have been how all those pearls been in that van, when it was pulled over and had nothing to do with Holly at all.

Btw did you all know that Autry and Austin both have tat's of the grim reaper.. I found that kind of creepy. Read it in a article on News Channel 5, when they showed Austin being arrested in Murfreesboro.

 

[Hatfield]

This was probably mentioned already, but what if he knew where they put her and then they moved her without telling him?

This is a real good question because this very well could have happened.

What surprises me the most is it sounded like LE did not have SA present with him when they searched where he told them to. Every single crime show I have seen where some witness was going to show LE where a body was, the person was physically with LE.

I do not understand why he was not with them. SA should have insisted on being present and maybe he did and maybe LE refused.

Its so easy for someone to say we didnt find the person where you told us to look but without the person being there it means nothing because they could have been 5 feet to the wrong. Something sounds awfully fishy about that part with him not being present when they looked.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

They are LIVE ...

This link is working :


http://www.wsmv.com/category/279431/watch-now-breaking-news-from-wsmvcom

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Camera just "zoomed in" in Autry's handcuffs ... he is "fiddling" with them ... he KNOWS the cameras are on him ...

:jail:

 

[Dr. Know?]

Judge won't issue a gag order!!!

 

[Xara]

I can't get it to load. :banghead:

Updates please!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I can't get it to load. :banghead:

Updates please!

Try this one : http://www.wsmv.com/category/279431/watch-now-breaking-news-from-wsmvcom

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Judge : the :jail: JA has "constitutional right" to counsel ...

JA's attorney: "whining" to judge ...

 

[Hatfield]

closeup of bobo family. Brother is there.

 

[Hatfield]

Judge : the :jail: JA has "constitutional right" to counsel ...

JA's attorney: "whining" to judge ...

Yes, he was complaining about not being able to talk with his client without other prisoners listening in. He was saying he had to yell loudly towards his client and other prisoners could hear.

It really sounds like they are making it difficult for the attorney to talk with client in private. If we believe the attorney.

 

[CarolinaMoon]

I like the fact that the discovery is so voluminous that the defense here needs more external hard drives to load the information.

 

[Hatfield]

Judge says...."Adverserial Juices are starting to flow on both sides".

 

[CarolinaMoon]

Yes, he was complaining about not being able to talk with his client without other prisoners listening in. He was saying he had to yell loudly towards his client and other prisoners could hear.

It really sounds like they are making it difficult for the attorney to talk with client in private. If we believe the attorney.

That's what a lawyer gets when his client is in maximum security due to prior bad behavior, such as an attempt to escape. I wonder if the "device" could be like the drinking glass you put up to the door to listen to what's going on inside.

 

[Hatfield]

The attorney asked if he could meet his client right after court was over and judge agreed. He was escorted to a back room with guards.

It almost sounds like this is the first time the attorney can speak privately with his client.