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

[SteveS]

I believe prosecution is filtering OUT any information they got from SA at this point in that they themselves stated they intend not to use him as a witness. Thompson already is looking for search warrant information as to whether they used his information to obtain those search warrants. In the event they did, it could be problems. LE has already called him a liar and not truthful.

Legally, they can't omit that evidence from their disclosure. If they don't plan to use it, it still may be considered exculpatory (ie, favorable to the defense).

 

[jggordo]

Legally, they can't omit that evidence from their disclosure. If they don't plan to use it, it still may be considered exculpatory (ie, favorable to the defense).

The question is if Austin committed perjury and that information was the catalyst for the search warrants how does that put evidence collected in possible jeapordy?

She is looking for what evidence LE had to actually arrest and charge him and how did they obtain it?

JMO

 

[SteveS]

The question is if Austin committed perjury and that information was the catalyst for the search warrants how does that put evidence collected in possible jeapordy?

She is looking for what evidence LE had to actually arrest and charge him and how did they obtain it?

JMO

The theoretical usefulness or value of such gathered-for-this-case evidence doesn't matter, when it comes to disclosure. Nor is it relevant as to whether it might be convenient for the prosecution to disclose or not. If they have it, they have to give it up. That's the law.

The state's discussions with SA were at one point (and perhaps even still) thought by the state to be "evidence" of something, and the defense is required to be provided what was obtained so they can (maybe) use it. Perhaps they would decide to use it in a much different way than the DA would want or expect.

Once the defense gets it, it then is up to them to use it, discard it, or be ready to defend against it, as they see fit. But the state is not allowed to make those decisions for them and fail to disclose what they obtained.

 

[jggordo]

The theoretical usefulness or value of such gathered-for-this-case evidence doesn't matter, when it comes to disclosure. Nor is it relevant as to whether it might be convenient for the prosecution to disclose or not. If they have it, they have to give it up. That's the law.

The state's discussions with SA were at one point (and perhaps even still) thought by the state to be "evidence" of something, and the defense is required to be provided what was obtained so they can (maybe) use it. Perhaps they would decide to use it in a much different way than the DA would want or expect.

Once the defense gets it, it then is up to them to use it, discard it, or be ready to defend against it, as they see fit. But the state is not allowed to make those decisions for them and fail to disclose what they obtained.

Thank you Steve. Maybe I was unclear as to my point. I know and understand the disclosure. It ALL has to be disclosed. However the actual search warrants and supporting documents and arrest warrants and supporting documents do not need thumb drives and IMO should have been turned over immediately. It does not take weeks much less months to copy those and we all know it.

By "filtering" I did not mean what they will or will not disclose yet what they intend to use to prosecute the case against ZA that will stick and not be possibly thrown out from a search not properly executed. To me there must be some reasons to "waffle" about not turning those documents over yet to date. I'm hoping the games being played in this immunity deal gone haywire does not put these cases in jeapordy.

I also believe that part of the skepticism and lack of faith in both this investigation but also Judicial system has to do with lack of disclosure and lack of transparency. And these prolonged cases of "kicking the can down the road" for another year simply underlines that feeling.

JMO's

 

[reedus23]

No sir. The info/order you provided is out of date info. The need to provide disclosure NOW, as much as possible as soon as possible, rather than waiting with anything, that was part of what the June 4 hearing was about, in fact. It was a response to the way the DA was responding to that order you showed.

[I don't disagree that they don't yet have to offer up info they don't even have yet, but that's really not an issue. How could they hand over what they don't have? Obviously they cannot.]

But on what they already have, that was one reason they were in court, only one week after that order was written. The DA wanted to play the game you are proposing, and the judge shoved them up against the wall instead and said, "No way."

The point made quite clear yesterday was that the deadline isn't the start date, it's the end date of discovery. The judge is not going to allow the state to pile it up and keep it, but rather hand it over as fast as possible. Right now the leash is flexible, in the way it was written, but he made it clear that his intent is more strict and it's up to the DA to act accordingly.

My take is that despite the latitude of the end-of-summer date, if the defense doesn't start seeing this evidence in droves, pronto, the DA faces the strong possibility of issues with the judge, and based on yesterday's hearing, I think the judge would come down hard on the DA. A new order with new deadlines and very strict requirements can be written at any time, if that's what it takes. Despite the earlier order as written, the DA's LEGAL obligation is to hold back nothing, and common sense makes it clear that there's no way that 29 volumes will all be done on the very last day. The defense should be getting tons of info immediately, and piles more every week.

The article:

DECATURVILLE, Tenn. — Prosecutors should not wait until the end of a court-ordered 90-day period to hand over all their evidence to the defense for a man charged in the disappearance of a Tennessee nursing student, a judge said Wednesday.

Zachary Adams, 29, was indicted on murder and kidnapping charges in March in the April 2011 disappearance of 20-year-old Holly Bobo. Another man, Jason Autry, 39, faces the same charges. Both have pleaded not guilty.

Decatur County Circuit Judge Charles Creed McGinley said prosecutors could start furnishing evidence they have already gathered in the case to Adams’ lawyer, Jennifer Lynn Thompson. She had complained that prosecutors had not given her evidence she needs, while also arguing her client was not being given standard access to mail and family visits in the Chester County Jail.

Bobo disappeared from her home in rural Parsons and a massive search in the fields and woods of West Tennessee proved fruitless. Prosecutors and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation have released few details about the case, although they have said that Bobo’s body has not been found.

Thompson filed motions asking McGinley to make prosecutors give her any favorable evidence that pertains to her client’s guilt or innocence, including witness statements and search warrants. Thompson also wants the state to tell her what punishment may be imposed if Adams is found guilty at trial. Prosecutors have not ruled out the death penalty.

Prosecutor Beth Boswell said she is working to assemble the evidence, and she will disclose all that she must under the law.

McGinley said prosecutors should furnish evidence to Thompson as they gather it.

“This is a case of unusual complexity because of the length of time the investigation has gone on,” McGinley said.

First off, two different cases weren't they? I didn't think JA's attorneys were back in court on the 4th?!?! I could be wrong. As for ZA, I read the article, but ultimately, the deadline in any order is the deadline. What the other comments tell me is that the prosecution better not mess around with the deadlines. But at the end of the day, even with strong admonitions, the deadline in the order is the deadline and it is not grounds for reversal as long as the deadlines are met unless the deadlines themselves are unfair. But that wouldn't be because of any action/inaction on behalf of the prosecution but because of action/inaction by the Court itself. If the Court actually entered another order commanding the prosecution to turn over discovery NOW, I'd love to see it because I haven't seen that one yet.

 

[reedus23]

Thank you Steve. Maybe I was unclear as to my point. I know and understand the disclosure. It ALL has to be disclosed. However the actual search warrants and supporting documents and arrest warrants and supporting documents do not need thumb drives and IMO should have been turned over immediately. It does not take weeks much less months to copy those and we all know it.

I wouldn't give it too much concern. It will all be turned over in time. Who knows. Some may have already been turned over. At this point they're not going to have a release stating certain items were turned over. The only time we'll hear about it is if the defense claims they didn't get the information by the deadlines and/or when those deadlines come and the defense says they need more time to review it all and ask for the later dates to be continued or pushed back.

 

[jggordo]

I could be totally wrong on this but I believe the Grand Jury is helpful and useful in determining whether a defendant has enough evidence against them to be bound over for trial for the charges against them. The idea of using a Grand Jury to implement a cloak of secrecy for an extended period of time to not disclose ANY information to defense or the public as far as I'm concerned is an abuse of the Judicial system the way it was intended.

IIRC Thompson stated she had not been given ANYTHING as of the other day. I get the deadline for total discovery, but not even search and arrest discovery at this point is hedging. I am not advocating for ZA yet concerned about the process.

JMO's

 

[reedus23]

I could be totally wrong on this but I believe the Grand Jury is helpful and useful in determining whether a defendant has enough evidence against them to be bound over for trial for the charges against them. The idea of using a Grand Jury to implement a cloak of secrecy for an extended period of time to not disclose ANY information to defense or the public as far as I'm concerned is an abuse of the Judicial system the way it was intended.

IIRC Thompson stated she had not been given ANYTHING as of the other day. I get the deadline for total discovery, but not even search and arrest discovery at this point is hedging. I am not advocating for ZA yet concerned about the process.

JMO's

No need to worry. Again, it really hasn't been that long. They'll get their evidence and they'll get it timely. You have to understand that the prosecution has to go through it all as well because it's not all discoverable. They have to go through it piece by piece to differentiate it all. It takes time. In fact, I thought the August 29 date was a pretty damn quick turn around given the length and magnitude of this case in terms of evidence collected over time.

 

[SteveS]

However the actual search warrants and supporting documents and arrest warrants and supporting documents do not need thumb drives and IMO should have been turned over immediately. It does not take weeks much less months to copy those and we all know it.

That is correct, and it's essentially the sort of point made by the defense and that the judge echoed yesterday. The defense isn't getting the stuff that should be easily ready, and the judge wants that corrected.

By "filtering" I did not mean what they will or will not disclose yet what they intend to use to prosecute the case against ZA that will stick and not be possibly thrown out from a search not properly executed. To me there must be some reasons to "waffle" about not turning those documents over yet to date. I'm hoping the games being played in this immunity deal gone haywire does not put these cases in jeapordy.

They would have had NO justified excuse to fail to disclose everything they have, good or bad, because there isn't one. And they do not have the option of sifting the evidence. IMO (and seems to me this is exactly what the judge was saying) the "waffling" (as you term it) over letting go of what they already have ready was a case of the state playing games with the deadline, and she isn't going to allow that.

 

[SteveS]

First off, two different cases weren't they? I didn't think JA's attorneys were back in court on the 4th?!?! I could be wrong. As for ZA, I read the article, but ultimately, the deadline in any order is the deadline. What the other comments tell me is that the prosecution better not mess around with the deadlines. But at the end of the day, even with strong admonitions, the deadline in the order is the deadline and it is not grounds for reversal as long as the deadlines are met unless the deadlines themselves are unfair. But that wouldn't be because of any action/inaction on behalf of the prosecution but because of action/inaction by the Court itself. If the Court actually entered another order commanding the prosecution to turn over discovery NOW, I'd love to see it because I haven't seen that one yet.

If you commented on a discussion of one case with a picture of an order from another, what can I say?

In any event, the discussion and the admonition from the judge on June 4 was reportedly over the necessity of disclosure being done now, and not in a massive data dump in 3 months. That's a fact.

If you want to postulate from what was said on June 4 that (a) the court will nevertheless be comfortable with no discovery provided until the very last day, as the May 28 written order might seem to allow, or (b) the judge is applying one set of discovery guidelines to one of the defendants but a different set to the other, then I have to say I strongly disagree with both of those.

From both a common sense point of view, as well as from the sense of the reports of the arguments in the court, I don't think any of that is realistic at all. And it simply doesn't make sense from a "need to proceed" basis, to let the DA drag the heels and delay the ability for the defense to go to work. Ultimately I don't think there will be any real tolerance for that sort of game-playing - the idea that this judge would set up a case timeline, only to allow it to be derailed by the whims of the DA as to whether they want to disclose as soon as they have items ready or not. The sheer amount of materials involved precludes room for the court to allow such BS, to be honest.

If the defense doesn't started getting loads of discovery materials soon (the first huge pile in the first week or so, and then massive amounts on a regular basis thereafter), let's see what happens.

 

[reedus23]

If you commented on a discussion of one case with a picture of an order from another, what can I say?

In any event, the discussion and the admonition from the judge on June 4 was reportedly over the necessity of disclosure being done now, and not in a massive data dump in 3 months. That's a fact.

If you want to postulate from what was said on June 4 that (a) the court will nevertheless be comfortable with no discovery provided until the very last day, as the May 28 written order might seem to allow, or (b) the judge is applying one set of discovery guidelines to one of the defendants but a different set to the other, then I have to say I strongly disagree with both of those.

From both a common sense point of view, as well as from the sense of the reports of the arguments in the court, I don't think any of that is realistic at all. And it simply doesn't make sense from a "need to proceed" basis, to let the DA drag the heels and delay the ability for the defense to go to work. Ultimately I don't think there will be any real tolerance for that sort of game-playing - the idea that this judge would set up a case timeline, only to allow it to be derailed by the whims of the DA as to whether they want to disclose as soon as they have items ready or not. The sheer amount of materials involved precludes room for the court to allow such BS, to be honest.

If the defense doesn't started getting loads of discovery materials soon (the first huge pile in the first week or so, and then massive amounts on a regular basis thereafter), let's see what happens.

Meh. I'll stand by my opinion that the order says what the order say, but it won't be an issue. It's just discovery and the defense will get it. Probably in pieces. I don't know how soon, but I'm sure the prosecution will start sending it over in a timely fashion that is well within the deadlines. I can't imagine any of it becoming a problem. And certainly no need to get worked up about it before it is a problem, which certainly isn't now. One order was just entered last week and the other yesterday. It is way early in the game.

 

[tlcya]

I have appreciated what our members have had to say, especially the discussion coming from two alternate angles on the legal issue of the immunity situation. Thanks to both SteveS and Reedus for a very illuminating discussion of this topic.

I look forward to seeing how it all plays out with both viewpoints having been so comprehensively explained.

 

[evelyn24]

ZA and JA should have the exact same access/privileges as any other inmate. If the policy is bad, it needs to be changed for ALL. These 2 deserve no special treatment.

They're not asking for special treatment. From what I glean from the court hearing on Wednesday, the DA asked the TBI to keep Zach Adams under their rules while in jail due to the coercion charge. Again, I assume the TBI rules have Adam's on a short leash.
The judge said he didn't agree that Adams should be treated differently due to the charges. He should get the same privileges as the other prisoners in the jail.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

First we have "The Tale of Two Ditties" (two short canary songs in this case). News reports claim that the main suspect's brother said he saw Holly with his older brother (the main suspect) after her disappearance. Then we have an un-indicted informant who supposedly cuts a deal and supposedly claims to know where Holly is buried, but cannot deliver, after much digging. The way I see it, most or all of the search warrants are based upon the main suspect's brother's story. Let us apply minimal logic. If the un-indicted informant cannot deliver, why are so many people basing all of their faithful arguments upon the testimony from prison of the main suspect's brother? Is his halo larger and more golden? In short, lacking physical remains, there is nothing in either of these stories that is worth a tinker's dam in court (a tinker's dam is an archaic term for a feeble clay or paper patch on a water leak until it can be properly repaired; the word 'damn' may actually derive from this).

Now, let us apply ultra-logic. The authorities engaged the informant to deliver the remains. The authorities now seem VERY disappointed with this informant. IF this informant had delivered even a few grams of identifiable remains (454 grams to the pound), he would have successfully cut a sweet deal with the authorities. So- the authorities must not have any remains. But now mainly limited to the he-said they-said claims of various felons, ex-felons, etc., they probably now require magic evidence to successfully prosecute this case. I will attempt to predict what this magic evidence will be (if this case actually makes it to trial).

My gut tells me that the authorities need DNA evidence. Let me tell you a bit about current DNA. Skin-cell DNA evidence is now so precise and long-lasting that if the authorities very thoroughly vacuumed my home they could identify DNA from EVERY human who has ever been in it for the past +40 years (even the carpet mites would have failed to eat it all). But would that prove that I killed any of these people? They also could probably find and identify DNA from a hair or two from every pet and mouse that has ever been in this house. But would that prove that I killed these pets or 'offed' the mice in cruel leg-traps? I suspect that even the authorities are beginning to recognize that DNA of simple associative origins may be losing respect in court

The reason I am leaning towards DNA as the magic evidence is because of the following logic. First, the authorities seem to be certain that Holly Bobo is deceased- hence the murder charges. Any physical item that could be factually linked to Holly Bobo is something that the suspects could claim they found by the road or bought from some "fence". Furthermore, by their simple existence, these physical items could never prove death in any court. Skin-cell DNA from Holly Bobo on the main suspect's property would only prove that she had visited there at some point in her lifetime. So, I conclude that the DNA must be from "blood" and it must be on some item that it could not be on under any circumstances other than death. I am stumped at the moment as to what this singular item has to be. I fully intend to predict in advance of the trial what this main evidence is, but for the moment I will apply the old adage: "better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt!"

Sleuth On!

 

[Tugela]

After all this time she is very likely dead. The murder charge may have stemmed solely from the two informants allegations, with corroboration in the form of rumours, so they made the charge in anticipation of finding something where the informant told them.

But, if they didn't find anything, all they might have now are the allegations of these two individuals, and possibly hearsay from other people. That won't be enough in trial however.

 

[Tugela]

ZA gave the message to another inmate who was being transferred to the same jail as his brother. They don't name the informant, for obvious reasons.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/holly-bobo-murder-suspect-faces-new-charge/

I see. How predictable.

 

[Tugela]

The question is if Austin committed perjury and that information was the catalyst for the search warrants how does that put evidence collected in possible jeapordy?

She is looking for what evidence LE had to actually arrest and charge him and how did they obtain it?

JMO

It doesn't matter if he made false statements, as far as evidence collected under a search warrant is concerned, all that matters is that LE acted in good faith, not if the information they used was correct or not.

 

[Tugela]

First off, two different cases weren't they? I didn't think JA's attorneys were back in court on the 4th?!?! I could be wrong. As for ZA, I read the article, but ultimately, the deadline in any order is the deadline. What the other comments tell me is that the prosecution better not mess around with the deadlines. But at the end of the day, even with strong admonitions, the deadline in the order is the deadline and it is not grounds for reversal as long as the deadlines are met unless the deadlines themselves are unfair. But that wouldn't be because of any action/inaction on behalf of the prosecution but because of action/inaction by the Court itself. If the Court actually entered another order commanding the prosecution to turn over discovery NOW, I'd love to see it because I haven't seen that one yet.

What the judge is concerned about is if the DA hands it all over at the last possible minute, the defence would have valid reason to request more time to prepare (as a consequence of the DA stalling) due to the volume of material to be examined. That would push the trial even further back. The judge wants the process to run smoothly and reasonably, so the trial can proceed at the scheduled time. He is trying to ensure that neither side plays games with procedure, something that would disrupt his calendar.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

I see. How predictable.

My opinions only, no facts here:

The supposed "jailhouse confession" of the the main suspect serves the purpose of limiting future communications between him and the outside world. But what does this contribute to a scientific resolution of the Holly Bobo case? I am only interested in the truth.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

My opinions only, no facts here:

First we have "The Tale of Two Ditties" (two short canary songs in this case). News reports claim that the main suspect's brother said he saw Holly with his older brother (the main suspect) after her disappearance.

Then we have an un-indicted informant who supposedly cuts a deal and supposedly claims to know where Holly is buried, but cannot deliver, after much digging. The way I see it, most or all of the search warrants are based upon the main suspect's brother's story. Let us apply minimal logic. If the un-indicted informant cannot deliver, why are so many people basing all of their faithful arguments upon the testimony from prison of the main suspect's brother? Is his halo larger and more golden? In short, lacking physical remains, there is nothing in either of these stories that is worth a tinker's dam in court (a tinker's dam is an archaic term for a feeble clay or paper patch on a water leak until it can be properly repaired; the word 'damn' may actually derive from this).

Sleuth On!

Snipped and BBM: :seeya:


All my :twocents:


1st BBM: Maybe what Dylan told LE "got the ball rolling" ? But we do not know that for sure YET ...


2nd BBM: As to SA "talking" and the "immunity deal" :

SA is "friends" with both ZA and JA -- but SA is the one that was offered some sort of "immunity deal" -- which means IMO that he is the one who "ratted out" his "buddies" ZA and JA ...

In other words, out of the 3 of the A's, SA is the one who "rolled" first, as he got the "deal" -- which he may NOT have any more ... we shall see ...

I hope that made sense ...


:seeya: And Morning Y'all !