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

[tlcya]

Every bit of that is hearsay, and not admissible in a court of law. Unless, of course, they can introduce the video as evidence during the trial. Even if they did, miraculously, find a way to get this hearsay into trial, without the tape itself, even a mediocre defense attorney would rip holes in this large enough to drive a truck through. 1. Can you prove that the video you saw was Holly, and not just someone who looked like Holly? 2. Can you prove that this alleged video was taken AFTER Holly's abduction? Can you prove that, if this is a video of Holly, she wasn't there of her own freewill? And so on and so forth.

ETA: At this point, I question whether TBI even has the evidence to prove that Holly is dead. I hate to say that, and I hope like hell I'm wrong (time will tell), but in a murder case with no body, you better bring one hell of an A game, and so far, from the information made available to me, I'm not even seeing a D game here.

totally agree with your edit. I pray they have more than we can see outwardly.

 

[reedus23]

BBM

My point here was that you can not put a witness on the stand to testify to evidence not presented in court. And for x to say that y told him about the existence of said evidence is hearsay. Plain and simple. No tape = no admissible testimony about said tape. IMO, of course.

Truly respectfully, they can and would. The case against the Pearcy's is about the tape. One Pearcy saying they had a tape is an admission. That would be enough for the witness to testify about that statement in and of itself because the charges against Pearcy is about destroying evidence. The witness would absolutely be able to talk about the fact that he saw the video as well. It's something he saw. He could also testify about having heard the other Pearcy's voice on that tape because you're not offering for the truth of anything that Pearcy said in the video but rather to simply establish that Pearcy was on the video with Holly.

I'm not sure how else one would establish a case against a defendant for destroying evidence without witness testimony like this. I mean, the whole charge stems from the fact that you CAN'T bring that piece of evidence into Court because it was destroyed.

 

[jggordo]

Does anyone know when Dylan's sentencing date is this month in Federal Court?

 

[rtjedarling]

IF it is possible to recover a copy of it, LE will, no question. And so many electronic devices save your media to a cloud based storage. If it was out there being passed around, chances are high IMO that it was cached somewhere. IMO this is positive news. The worry IMO would be that in rural TN, there are so many ways to physically destroy or hide electronic evidence, like just throw it into the river or something. But good news, because once you enter the electronic data arena, its very likely that it exists somewhere and will be found. If in fact the story is true that HB's sim card for her phone was taken out and discarded separately does indicate some tech savvy among the perp/perps, so who knows

possible there were recordings plural capturing different persons involved and due the more brain damaged meth heads and perverts that are not aware and tech savvy, LE has at least something recorded as some evidence of what and who, and are trying to round up more proof of who all was involved. I could see if several people were involved and over some period of time, well, some are certainly stupid enough to have recorded and shared something.

 

[tlcya]

:seeya:

I think in cases like this with these list of characters as suspects no juror expects a Mr. Rodgers and Mother Teresa to be on the witness list. Often when the defendant has a vast criminal history the friends they hang out with also have the same background as the thugs they hung around with.

I mean really what law abiding citizen would hang out with a bunch of meth head criminals? What would they remotely have in common? I think jurors get that clearly and will understand that sometimes you have to go to the devil's pot to bring justice to the victim.

So, yes, there will be those who testify with checkered pasts, no doubt in my mind, however; we see that happen quite often in a lot of cases where the defendant has led a life of crime. And time and time again jurors do believe the witnesses that knew the defendants well. Who better to know their vile secrets than those who are around them all the time?

I believe there is going to be way more than one testifying against ZA and JA. With multiple people testifying to the same thing it is going to be hard to make a jury believe that everyone is lying but the defendants. That's a hard sell within itself anyway when its tried. It will be even harder to sell with these particular defendants.

But the one who does not seem to have much of a criminal history is Dylan Adams. As far as I know the federal gun charge is his only crime. I have often wondered if his very abusive narcissistic sociopathic older brother set him up to take the fall if caught giving the handgun to the ex-felon. It has been said that Dylan hates his brother. Well if he knew Zach set him up then that would be highly understandable as to the reason why. It seems ZA abused every member of his family so it is logical to me anyway that Dylan wasn't spared from his rage either.

I am not the least bit worried about the charges against the Pearcy Brothers. The only thing we can be sure of is the TBI/DA has much more evidence than they will ever tell the public. DAs don't lightly arrest and charge someone with a crime and they don't do it if they know they have absolutely no way of proving it. DAs are there to win cases (they are elected) and IMO they are certain they can win these too or they would have never charged them in the first place.

As I have said earlier, I think the TBI has long seen a copy of this video but they know they need to have the original video for it to be admitted at trial against Adams and Autry.

They may not need that in the charges against the Pearcys because I would think just possessing a copy would be considered tampering with evidence even if they tried to hide or delete the copy afterwards after the witness had already seen it.

I am afraid that a lot of people in that town that hung around the members and followers of the A-Train who may have copies and it has been viewed many times by others. Whoever these people are they should also be arrested for obstruction of justice imo if they didn't go immediately to the TBI to report it the minute they viewed it.

So many 'over there' from Darden seem to have known about this video way before it came to light.

BBM and we have seen where those individuals have NOT been believed or their credibility called into question to the point where jurors could now give the credence.

IBM I am.

UBM I agree, this seems to have been believed by the geeral public and me also

 

[evelyn24]

totally agree with your edit. I pray they have more than we can see outwardly.

The way articles about this video have been written by news agencies who have seen the warrant and affidavit seem like the TBI believe JP and/or MP are hiding or destroyed the video. Does that sound like police/investigators have the video or have seen it?

 

[reedus23]

BBM and we have seen where those individuals have NOT been believed or their credibility called into question to the point where jurors could now give the credence.

IBM I am.

UBM I agree, this seems to have been believed by teh geeral publivc and me also

The DA doesn't need a "smoking gun" to make such witnesses credible. The question will be if there is enough other evidence that supports or corroborates their testimony. If the DA has it, they'll be believed. If the DA doesn't have it, they won't be believed..

 

[Foxfire]

Wondering if HB's digital camera that was in her possession when she was abducted was used to film the video/s in question?

 

[tlcya]

The way articles about this video have been written by news agencies who have seen the warrant and affidavit seem like the TBI believe JP and/or MP are hiding or destroyed the video. Does that sound like police/investigators have the video or have seen it?

The DA doesn't need a "smoking gun" to make such witnesses credible. The question will be if there is enough other evidence that supports or corroborates their testimony. If the DA has it, they'll be believed. If the DA doesn't have it, they won't be believed..

Wondering if HB's digital camera that was in her possession when she was abducted was used to film the video/s in question?

I pray that TBI has a device or an upload that backs up the claims of the existence of this tape. As I have said several times, I absolutely believe it existed. I just worry that the device it was on was destroyed or attempts were made to destroy it. I hope like hell they have found in their recent search of Pearcy trailer the device, attempts to destroy or no, and that explains the current charges, and further that TBI or FBI has or is in future able to retrieve that data.

I agree that if witness testimony is all that they have, it COULD still convict, but IMO it WOULD need to be backed up with other independent evidence that gave credence to this alleged tape. Because despite my absolute belief in its existence, bottom line, with just one nefarious person with a criminal history to back those claims up, I worry.

A lot.

 

[Mountain_Kat]

Truly respectfully, they can and would. The case against the Pearcy's is about the tape. One Pearcy saying they had a tape is an admission. That would be enough for the witness to testify about that statement in and of itself because the charges against Pearcy is about destroying evidence. The witness would absolutely be able to talk about the fact that he saw the video as well. It's something he saw. He could also testify about having heard the other Pearcy's voice on that tape because you're not offering for the truth of anything that Pearcy said in the video but rather to simply establish that Pearcy was on the video with Holly.

I'm not sure how else one would establish a case against a defendant for destroying evidence without witness testimony like this. I mean, the whole charge stems from the fact that you CAN'T bring that piece of evidence into Court because it was destroyed.

My previous comments were intended as comments on the Holly Bobo case, not the case against the Pearcy's. But in regard to the tampering case against the Pearcy's, wouldn't the state have to prove that this alleged tape was in fact evidence of a crime (in this case, the murder of Holly Bobo). We have an out of court statement made by one of the Pearcy's to a witness (this is hearsay), and the witnesses testimony as to what he or she saw on this tape. I'm not sure you can even introduce the witnesses testimony of what he or she saw on the tape if his or her's jumping off point is a hearsay statement (you must follow a logical line of reasoning), but assuming one can do that legally, how do you then establish that 1. the alleged tape was evidence of a crime, and 2. the defendant KNOWINGLY destroyed this evidence in order to hinder an investigation?

It all just seems highly problematic to me, from a legal standpoint. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

 

[jggordo]

Anybody think it is odd that JP's birthday is April 13th??? That video could be of his birthday party...just sayin.

JMO's

 

[runningwater]

I'm not to familiar with these devices, but if LE has a copy or parts of the
copy, isn't there a way to trace via ip, where it came from?
Or the addresses of where it was sent to?
Is there a way to trace back to original sender?

Sorry if not a good ???
I don't have a cell or any of these devices, I don't know what you can
do with them.
TIA

 

[evelyn24]

My previous comments were intended as comments on the Holly Bobo case, not the case against the Pearcy's. But in regard to the tampering case against the Pearcy's, wouldn't the state have to prove that this alleged tape was in fact evidence of a crime (in this case, the murder of Holly Bobo). We have an out of court statement made by one of the Pearcy's to a witness (this is hearsay), and the witnesses testimony as to what he or she saw on this tape. I'm not sure you can even introduce the witnesses testimony of what he or she saw on the tape if his or her's jumping off point is a hearsay statement (you must follow a logical line of reasoning), but assuming one can do that legally, how do you then establish that 1. the alleged tape was evidence of a crime, and 2. the defendant KNOWINGLY destroyed this evidence in order to hinder an investigation?

It all just seems highly problematic to me, from a legal standpoint. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

I agree but, something tells me the arrests were to, as JP's lawyer said, shake some evidence loose. I think this is more of a pressure tactic to get the video they believe exists to fry the main two (Zach Adams & Jason Autry). I'd be surprised if the video witness winds up testifying in either ZA or JA's trials if the video is never produced, or neither brother turns on the other and admit it did exist.
It's a gamble I guess the TBI thought they had to take. Make the arrests and keep adding pressure to see if something turns up, or one of the brothers gives in and talks. What if neither scenario ever happens!! That is gonna be interesting.

 

[CNYgirl]

:newhere:


Hello everyone! I'm new here but have been sleuthing from the sidelines for a while. I just finished going through everything that has been discussed here regarding this case. I've been following HB's abduction from the very beginning and I was thrilled when I saw that there had been an arrest :clap:


I'm looking forward to discussing this case with everyone!!!
:greetings:

 

[jggordo]

I believe it is time for LE to decide their plans with Shayne. Until he is arrested I don't believe a Court can rule on any violation. How can a Judge rule on a threatening e-mail? If LE has the goods and goes to the GJ and gets a "true bill" indictment then they should arrest him. If that evidence proves to violate the immunity agreement, so be it. But the key is the truth be told...and that's what Justice is suppose to be about. Not cat and mouse games.

The fact that this tragedy has gone unjustified for three years with all that has been "publicly" known is another tragedy in itself. And furthermore at this point to play "I've got a secret" with the public is unjust in itself.

JMO's

 

[reedus23]

My previous comments were intended as comments on the Holly Bobo case, not the case against the Pearcy's. But in regard to the tampering case against the Pearcy's, wouldn't the state have to prove that this alleged tape was in fact evidence of a crime (in this case, the murder of Holly Bobo). We have an out of court statement made by one of the Pearcy's to a witness (this is hearsay), and the witnesses testimony as to what he or she saw on this tape. I'm not sure you can even introduce the witnesses testimony of what he or she saw on the tape if his or her's jumping off point is a hearsay statement (you must follow a logical line of reasoning), but assuming one can do that legally, how do you then establish that 1. the alleged tape was evidence of a crime, and 2. the defendant KNOWINGLY destroyed this evidence in order to hinder an investigation?

It all just seems highly problematic to me, from a legal standpoint. But then, I'm not a lawyer.

You're probably right on the murder cases. Hearsay rules actually get complicated and I haven't thought that one through yet. Regarding your 2 questions toward the end, those are absolutely legitimate questions, but more geared towards whether or not the DA can get a conviction than whether or not the testimony is admissible. There could be problems. There might not be. We just don't know and won't know until we know everything that a jury would know.

 

[reedus23]

I believe it is time for LE to decide their plans with Shayne. Until he is arrested I don't believe a Court can rule on any violation. How can a Judge rule on a threatening e-mail? If LE has the goods and goes to the GJ and gets a "true bill" indictment then they should arrest him. If that evidence proves to violate the immunity agreement, so be it. But the key is the truth be told...and that's what Justice is suppose to be about. Not cat and mouse games.

The fact that this tragedy has gone unjustified for three years with all that has been "publicly" known is another tragedy in itself. And furthermore at this point to play "I've got a secret" with the public is unjust in itself.

JMO's

My guess is they're in talks with his attorney to keep the immunity agreement in tact and at the same time get more info from him.

 

[Mr. Noatak]

I wouldn't say that you aren't in the minority, rather, extraordinary.
I would hope that LE would not arrest these two with just hear say, I really want to believe that they have something "tangible".

I've ponder.....if something that one of the two SA or DA said to LE, and then this other witness "seeing" or "hearing" this recording establishes this did happen...I wonder then, would that be enough for arrests?

My opinions only, no facts here:

With all due respect to the authorities, they do arrest the wrong people sometimes, but often for the right initial reasons.

The hardest thing for the authorities to do is "Cowboy up" and admit to themselves who REALLY constitutes a suspect that is worthy of confinement until trial. Then dump the rest of the guys, unless and until something changes, and stay focused.

Alternately, they could choose to just keep piling on and applying pressure. If so, when they reach eight or nine names, I will start edging for the exit before they see me standing in the shadows!

Ironically, at the moment, it might be dangerous to your liberty to step forward and try to claim the $250,000 dollar reward with some tidbits of evidence. .

Sleuth On!

 

[Tugela]

And that is exactly why I think the TBI/DA has much more evidence to prove the AATF and tampering with evidence charges. A Judge wouldn't even agree to a SW based solely on a hearsay witness. So there is much more evidence that we don't know about nor should we.

You are wrong, the standard for getting a search warrant is much lower, all that is required is probable cause, the information does not have to be accurate it just has to lead the investigators to believe that it could be true while acting in good faith. Hearsay is entirely OK for that.

People do get charged based on hearsay and not much else. If you recall that case a month or two ago where the bodies of two girls were found in a car at the bottom of a creek from an accident that happened decades ago. In that case one of the neighbors was charged with murder at one point on the basis of a jail house confession (he was in prison on an unrelated charge at the time). They executed search warrants and all that stuff, found stuff that was not directly related to anything and were prepared to go to trial, but had to drop the charges when it was found out that the informant was making it all up to get a deal. Then years later they found the car and the two bodies, pretty much where the girls were last seen travelling and it was an obvious accident.

So saying that there must be more, and that police would never charge someone without more as the rationale, is unwise, because in past cases police have done exactly that.

If you look at cases that have been overturned years after conviction based on new evidence, a common thread in many of them is a lack of hard evidence. They usually have some sort of circumstantial evidence (the accused was known to be a bad guy, etc etc, who else could it be?) and very often some "witness" or jailhouse informant who made stuff up for one reason or another. Sometimes unprofessional police will "fill in the gaps" with fabricated evidence because they have a gut feeling they have the right guy, but can't prove it otherwise. People get convicted on that basis routinely, based on emotional argument rather than real evidence, and I imagine that quite a few of those circumstantial cases are wrongful convictions.

Any time you have a "jailhouse confession" and not much else, chances are very high that there is not a real case to be made for guilt. So far all we have seen in the case are charges based on "informants" and not much else. I would say that it doesn't bode well for the investigation, they appear to be clutching at straws IMO.

 

[pearl]

My opinions only, no facts here:

With all due respect to the authorities, they do arrest the wrong people sometimes, but often for the right initial reasons.

The hardest thing for the authorities to do is "Cowboy up" and admit to themselves who REALLY constitutes a suspect that is worthy of confinement until trial. Then dump the rest of the guys, unless and until something changes, and stay focused.

Alternately, they could choose to just keep piling on and applying pressure. If so, when they reach eight or nine names, I will start edging for the exit before they see me standing in the shadows!

Ironically, at the moment, it might be dangerous to your liberty to step forward and try to claim the $250,000 dollar reward with some tidbits of evidence. .

Sleuth On!

I do agree that sometimes, but not often, the wrong person will be arrested for a crime. IMO, in a case that is high profile like this one, I don't think it happens often. LE is playing their cards carefully. The two arrested and charged with murdering Holly are the ones the community suspected for years. I also think that Shayne Austin could be an active participant and may also be charged with a serious crime. ZA and JA are not getting out of jail unless they are acquitted. I also think SA will be staying in jail if arrested. The Pearcy brothers are out on bail so I think they are not suspected of as serious crimes as the others arrested or receiving (maybe) an immunity agreement. I think LE has had these people as POIs since shortly after Holly was abducted. Obviously no hard evidence until after the arrest for the pearl theft. LE had been talking to Dylan because his mother said so on TV. I think someone who was also arrested for the pearl theft is the one who got the ball rolling by offering evidence. TBI said there would be arrests (plural) and that is just what has happened. I'm thinking there will be more. We will be able to tell the seriousness of the charges by whether the people are kept in jail or bailed out.