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

[tlcya]

Couldn't the letter from the DA also be seen as notice of a perceived or alleged breach by the informant. I mean I know some are seeing it as the letter announces an intent or possible intent of DA to breach the contract but to me it seems the letter is actually the DA stating the breach has already occurred on the part of the informant/witness.

 

[~Lyric~]

Here you go Lyric.

Jordan Buie ‏@JordanBuie · 54m
Here is the scheduling order the judge provided attorneys in the #HollyBobo case pic.twitter.com/qfiiKss8sP

Thanks!!! I had copied it and was going to put it in my photo's here and then got distracted and realized that I was not longer logged in... Thanks again!!

Now we can all see it very well!

 

[SteveS]

This immunity lawsuit makes no sense to me, except as a side show to the circus. SA wouldn't be the first criminal to try and get immunity in one case by peddling information he may or may not really have on another case. But surely any DA worth their salt would rescind the deal if they don't get what was promised. Plus, ZA's vicious reputation is well-known. If he never really had the goods or lied to make himself look better, he won't have immunity and ZA will probably wants to kill him, too.

Plus, I wonder why on earth SA's attorney thinks the courts would enforce the immunity deal if SA either didn't have the information at all or lied about it. If he never had the information he promised, or he had it and lied to them, either way, he didn't do what he agreed to do. I'm sure this isn't the first time a DA has rescinded an immunity or plea agreement because the crook - gasp - lied.

The immunity lawsuit isn't about whether SA is required to perform, or not. No one - not even SA's attorney - is questioning that. Everyone agrees that he has taken on a duty and must live up to it.

Instead, the lawsuit is about whether he DID perform, or not. When it comes to that, the DA says one thing, SA and his attorney say another, and it will be up to a court to decide. Hence, we have a lawsuit that essentially says, "SA performed, and we are demanding that the DA does too" and the DA's response can be to prove (if they can) that SA didn't perform.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Carley Gordon ‏@WSMVCarley · 46s
Judge denied gag order request from state. Said he has never gagged anyone and it would be a steep hill to climb to change that. #HollyBobo

(great, what's he going to say when Fletcher asks for a change of venue after he floods the media with JA is innocent)

Carley Gordon ‏@WSMVCarley · 3m
A rush has been placed on all of the state crime lab tests involving the #HollyBobo case

https://twitter.com/WSMVCarley

 

[~Lyric~]

Carley Gordon ‏@WSMVCarley · 3m
A rush has been placed on all of the state crime lab tests involving the #HollyBobo case

https://twitter.com/WSMVCarley

hmmm This somewhat concern's me.....I would hope that crime lab testing would have been finished rather quickly. I sure hope they had more then just "some witness" saying so, when they started making arrest's and deals.

I would really like to see some discovery now.

 

[SteveS]

Couldn't the letter from the DA also be seen as notice of a perceived or alleged breach by the informant. I mean I know some are seeing it as the letter announces an intent or possible intent of DA to breach the contract but to me it seems the letter is actually the DA stating the breach has already occurred on the part of the informant/witness.

The idea that the DA's letter claimed a failure by SA to perform is certainly true. But that's only a claim that SA breached, and not proof, so the letter itself only proved a breach by the DA. As a result, it doesn't insulate the DA from having to prove to a court - when and if it is taken to court - that the DA's breach performed by the letter was preceded by a breach by SA.

 

[maskedwoman]

The idea that the DA's letter claimed a failure by SA to perform is certainly true. But that's only a claim that SA breached, and not proof, so the letter itself only proved a breach by the DA. As a result, it doesn't insulate the DA from having to prove to a court - when and if it is taken to court - that the DA's breach performed by the letter was preceded by a breach by SA.

Bring on the Execedrin!! :floorlaugh:

 

[reedus23]

Maybe. Maybe not. Every case is "unique" in some way, yet contractual law still works the same way. It will be interesting to see if the court prescribes some exception to the norm here, or not. I'm not convinced they will.

It will be interesting. I think the "norm", if there is such a thing, is that these agreements are construed consistent with or pursuant to the laws of contract, but done so within the confines of the criminal setting. I suspect that regardless of the ruling, you may see this go up to the Tennessee Supreme Court. Not too long ago, Tennessee simply didn't even recognize immunity agreements as enforceable. You could write one up, have everyone sign it, have the guy testify and then still charge him and there was nothing the defendant could do. So I imagine either way, they're going to make new law in Tennessee.

 

[reedus23]

The immunity lawsuit isn't about whether SA is required to perform, or not. No one - not even SA's attorney - is questioning that. Everyone agrees that he has taken on a duty and must live up to it.

Instead, the lawsuit is about whether he DID perform, or not. When it comes to that, the DA says one thing, SA and his attorney say another, and it will be up to a court to decide. Hence, we have a lawsuit that essentially says, "SA performed, and we are demanding that the DA does too" and the DA's response can be to prove (if they can) that SA didn't perform.

Or I will add that the DA can respond by saying the Court doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to make that determination at this point. I suspect if the Court says they do have jurisdiction, it will go up on appeal.

 

[Hatfield]

hmmm This somewhat concern's me.....I would hope that crime lab testing would have been finished rather quickly. I sure hope they had more then just "some witness" saying so, when they started making arrest's and deals.

I would really like to see some discovery now.

It really is concerning that they are asking for a rush for crime lab testing results.

If they are waiting on certain results to bolster their evidence this really is concerning because 3 things can occur with the results:
-Positive
-Negative
-Inconclusive

So even if a sample looked like it will prove person A killed person B, if the results come out inconclusive for some reason then it could shock some people not expecting that the samples could not be used.

I am really beginning to worry about this case because they just have not told us much of anything and we dont have Holly back. If LE had found her remains then I would feel better about this case.

They may have the right people but proving it is a whole different thing altogether and it is scary to hear they want a rush on the testing. Wish they could throw us a bone to help us realize they will win the case.

 

[reedus23]

Couldn't the letter from the DA also be seen as notice of a perceived or alleged breach by the informant. I mean I know some are seeing it as the letter announces an intent or possible intent of DA to breach the contract but to me it seems the letter is actually the DA stating the breach has already occurred on the part of the informant/witness.

It doesn't matter. At some point, the DA will have to put on evidence that SA didn't hold up his end of the agreement. SA is simply trying to get them to show their hand now. The DA doesn't want to have to play their hand so early. But whether it's now or later, the DA will have to show SA didn't live up to his end. The one's that stand to benefit the most IMO are ZA and JA.

 

[SteveS]

Or I will add that the DA can respond by saying the Court doesn't have the jurisdiction or authority to make that determination at this point. I suspect if the Court says they do have jurisdiction, it will go up on appeal.

On what grounds? Obviously, the DA can claim anything they want, but what legal basis would they claim to say that a court can't decide issues regarding a contract, indictments, criminals, etc? I don't see it.

 

[reedus23]

It really is concerning that they are asking for a rush for crime lab testing results.

If they are waiting on certain results to bolster their evidence this really is concerning because 3 things can occur with the results:
-Positive
-Negative
-Inconclusive

So even if a sample looked like it will prove person A killed person B, if the results come out inconclusive for some reason then it could shock some people not expecting that the samples could not be used.

I am really beginning to worry about this case because they just have not told us much of anything and we dont have Holly back. If LE had found her remains then I would feel better about this case.

They may have the right people but proving it is a whole different thing altogether and it is scary to hear they want a rush on the testing. Wish they could throw us a bone to help us realize they will win the case.

There is always going to be rushes from this point forward. They will likely continue to find new evidence that has to be examined. What I feel confident in, is that the DA feels there is sufficient evidence outside of what is being tested to obtain convictions. We also know that there was sufficient evidence outside of what is being tested to convince a grand jury. Obviously none of those things guarantee a conviction, but it tells me they are not relying heavily on what is being tested. As for the rest, the nerves will be there until the very end because even if we knew everything the DA does (and obviously we never will) there still is the unknown of how a verdict will come down.

 

[Xara]

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20140528/NEWS01/305280028

Don't think this has been posted.

 

[pearl]

For breeching the immunity? It seems the DA would not have a case if that happened (the body was moved but SA in good faith provided info on where he knew the body to be last).
Hopefully there is more evidence that SA didn't tell the truth for them to end immunity.

SA could have knowingly lied about Holly's location and when called on it by the DA, claimed he did not know she had been moved. I think the DA has proof to back up the voiding of the agreement.

 

[SteveS]

http://www.jacksonsun.com/article/20140528/NEWS01/305280028

Don't think this has been posted.

If the following, from that article, doesn't get your blood boiling mad at the smugness, not sure what will:

"Toward the end of the hearing, [defense attorney] Flanagan requested that at some point in the near future the prosecution give some notice of what punishment they would request for Autry. [Asst DA] Hall said the state had talked with an attorney, and mentioned the death penalty.

"When this was mentioned, Autry pursed his lips, turned his head, looked back at his mother Shirley King and winked."

 

[evelyn24]

If the following, from that article, doesn't get your blood boiling mad at the smugness, not sure what will:

"Toward the end of the hearing, [defense attorney] Flanagan requested that at some point in the near future the prosecution give some notice of what punishment they would request for Autry. [Asst DA] Hall said the state had talked with an attorney, and mentioned the death penalty.

"When this was mentioned, Autry pursed his lips, turned his head, looked back at his mother Shirley King and winked."

It could be arrogance, or the fact he winked at his mom after the death penalty was mentioned could mean "it's gonna be okay, ma". I know Its hard to give this dude the benefit of the doubt considering his past behavior and attitude.

 

[evelyn24]

If the DA goes for the DP, would this be the first DP case with no body, if there is indeed no body or remains?

 

[jggordo]

I believe it will be interesting to see how Dylan's sentencing goes in June.

JMO

 

[Tulessa]

If the DA goes for the DP, would this be the first DP case with no body, if there is indeed no body or remains?

No.

http://www.nobodycases.com/