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

[Mr. Noatak]

In the video interview that JP did, he stated that as LE interrogated him about the video, they continuously got "madder and madder" as he continued to deny any knowledge of the recording.

If this is true, it leads me to believe that LE does not have the video.

My opinion only.

My opinions only, no facts here:

When you are on a fishing expedition and the fish ain't biting, pull out the big lead weight with a treble hook attached. You simply cast this device beyond the fish and reel in until you snag the fish on its side. This is a highly illegal form of fishing in the U.S., but it works like a charm.

The 'justice' consists of snagging the fish and eating it for supper. The 'truth' consists of the fact that the fish was not supposed to be caught by those means.

 

[SteveS]

"The 'justice' consists of snagging the fish and eating it for supper."

Yep, that's one way to get more.

And now, for the rest of the story:

You get to catch lots of fish with your shortcut. The eating is great.

Except that one day, when your shortcut to a meal accidentally snags and gores the neighbor family's pet, and you end up eating dog for supper to hide the deed. But even if you missed the fish, cutting corners still got you a meal anyhow, so it's still okay 'cause it could have been a fish and you intended to get a fish...

You catch more fish, and continue to eat well at supper. Your neighbors are jealous, you're the toast of the town.

Then one time you hook your own dog and drag him into your boat bleeding profusely. You let him off the hook of course, and try to nurse him back to health as best you can, but he's injured so badly he can't ever walk right again, and his life becomes a constant pain.

It's still okay. You still catch fish all the time, rarely any more dogs, and you get fat and happy and who cares about the mishaps with a few dogs because the suppers are great.

That is, until one day your cutting corners lands a shark in your lap ...and for supper, the shark eats you.

Epilogue: When you awake in the afterlife and approach the pearly gates, rest assured that there will be a pack of dogs growling in your path, barring your entrance. At which point, the memories of fishing and eating are going to make you sick forever.

 

[shefner]

Great analogies all but with that aside I will say:

Find who did this and what they did. Find it however you can. Extracting the infection might mean the surrounding area must be sacrificed to some temporary pain. The goal is the truth and truth will mete out its justice for Holly's sake.

 

[SteveS]

Great analogies all but with that aside I will say:

Find who did this and what they did. Find it however you can. Extracting the infection might mean the surrounding area must be sacrificed to some temporary pain. The goal is the truth and truth will mete out its justice for Holly's sake.

I understand "the end justifies the means" mindset. But I totally disagree.

I absolutely want the scum who did whatever-it-was to Holly to pay for it, in spades.

But using shady-to-questionable methods in an attempt to ferret out the guilty and obtain the evidence necessary, means that LE is running the risk of ruining or scarring the lives of innocent bystanders. And that's simply not a price worth paying, as you compound the harm to one innocent by harming more. The laws that keep LE from doing such nonsense, and the concepts of fairness that would keep them from arresting or threatening arrest simply as a way to intimidate and force testimony, are standards that protect the innocent.

IMO condoning such behavior is totally abhorrent, because it empowers and emboldens those who would cut corners and "accidentally" wreak havoc on lives.

What's been done to Holly has already been done, and can't be undone. But other lives don't have to be ruined too, by LE "accidentally" destroying them by playing fast and loose with justice. While that appears to be what may be happening here (particularly with the Pearcy's, but maybe with SA as well), I do understand that appearances may not tell the whole story, so we just have to wait and see. But I hope what it looks like isn't what it is, because that wouldn't be justice.

 

[shefner]

I understand "the end justifies the means" mindset. But I totally disagree.

I absolutely want the scum who did whatever-it-was to Holly to pay for it, in spades.

But using shady-to-questionable methods in an attempt to ferret out the guilty and obtain the evidence necessary, means that LE is running the risk of ruining or scarring the lives of innocent bystanders. And that's simply not a price worth paying, as you compound the harm to one innocent by harming more. The laws that keep LE from doing such nonsense, and the concepts of fairness that would keep them from arresting or threatening arrest simply as a way to intimidate and force testimony, are standards that protect the innocent.

IMO condoning such behavior is totally abhorrent, because it empowers and emboldens those who would cut corners and "accidentally" wreak havoc on lives.

What's been done to Holly has already been done, and can't be undone. But other lives don't have to be ruined too, by LE "accidentally" destroying them by playing fast and loose with justice. While that appears to be what may be happening here (particularly with the Pearcy's, but maybe with SA as well), I do understand that appearances may not tell the whole story, so we just have to wait and see. But I hope what it looks like isn't what it is, because that wouldn't be justice.

And who is saying that LE is using any means necessary, including those that are less than legal? This hasn't been shown. And other lives have already been ruined friends. This is how it is. The lives of Holly's parents and her brother, her boyfriend, her friends are forever devastated. Count in the entire community who has been hurt and frightened by this crime. Bless JP's little heart. It sounds as if he is like everyone else in prisons across the land, who loudly proclaim their innocence despite evidence to show us otherwise. I don't believe for a moment that investigators opened the phone book and while blindfolded, placed their fingers on the names of random individuals to bring in for questioning...deciding to arrest the accused because investigators are "angry."
I also refuse to believe that one witness can say the names of this or that individual and therefore, those individuals are arrested. Certainly there is something else to back up the testimony they have been given.
We have seen the tactic. They have moved MP. Why? For the same reason they have moved others in this case. For safety reasons and also for reasons of drawing out the truth, LE has scattered the accused.
JP is now out on bond. Perhaps his role in this is very small. Perhaps his part is that his brother drug him into it by talking about the video..or showing the video in question. Perhaps there is more. But I do believe there is something to it.

 

[tlcya]

MOO Since TBI is not sharing what they have and what little we have seen seems sketchy they may be using fishing and pressure tactics and they may not.

Either is just as possible at this point MOO

 

[Tugela]

I think they will have others who will testify that Pearcy was there taking the video/photos.

The police don't arrest and charge someone based solely on hearsay. There is much more to this than the TBI is going to divulge to the public.

IMO

Actually, they do it all the time. Convictions are much rarer, but arrests based on hearsay or allegations without corroboration are very common.

 

[Tugela]

Absolutely true. It's up to the jury to decide who to believe, if anyone, and whether the evidence being presented is enough to convict for the crime being charged.

If the evidence is too flimsy, the judge can toss the case before it ever gets to the jury, and that happens sometimes. It can happen in a request for a summary judgment at the very outset of a trial, and it can happen after the testimony has been given but before the jury has a chance to consider it. But having so little, or such weak, evidence doesn't prevent them from taking it to court and making the defendant alarmed.

There's one other legal consideration in this case that leads me to believe this is a tactic, rather than an actual attempt to get a conviction. That's because at this point, if it went to court, my understanding is that under TN law they COULDN'T convict either Pearcy, no matter what they think they have as evidence.

As I read it, they can't convict a person of tampering with evidence, or of being an accessory after the fact to a crime, unless a crime has been committed, and there has been no finding in court that a crime has been committed. If we were at a point in time after ZA or JA had been convicted, then it would be open season. But not now.

Given that, it's really odd timing for an arrest that they believe can lead to a conviction. But not for a tactic hoping to intimidate, and thereby produce needed evidence for the Bobo case.

In this case the crime is disposing of the video, and to convict you would need to show that the video actually exists.

Unless this witness personally knew Holly, she would be relying on the description of its contents from the person who showed it to her, that is when the hearsay rule kicks in. It is pretty clear that this is hearsay IMO.

In any case, does no one ask why this individual would be showing some random third party video of a notorious crime in progress if they themselves were incidentally involved? If this woman really did see a video, she would have known much more about what was going on than simply seeing a video.

 

[tlcya]

I have puzzled under what circumstances a dude would randomly be showing off a video of a felony that ended with murder in which his brother's voice can be heard indicating presence at the crime to some third party.

This makes me skeptical. Which is why I really want to know if anything other than this third party witness testimony is behind the charges.

What if a tape existed. What if a witness wanted to tattle to get themselves or another out of the fire. What if that person told the truth but excluded someone they were protecting and injected the name of someone they weren't?

 

[SteveS]

And who is saying that LE is using any means necessary, including those that are less than legal?

Your post I responded to essentially endorsed that approach by LE, and I was responding to that. Want people to ignore that endorsement? I didn't.

It's absolutely abhorrent.

I certainly didn't say they are known to be doing that, but "go ahead and abuse others who may be innocent, and who cares if you ruin lives in the process" in a quest to solve the first crime and punish the guilty is criminal. I find it repulsive that anyone would condone such behavior.

 

[reedus23]

Absolutely true. It's up to the jury to decide who to believe, if anyone, and whether the evidence being presented is enough to convict for the crime being charged.

If the evidence is too flimsy, the judge can toss the case before it ever gets to the jury, and that happens sometimes. It can happen in a request for a summary judgment at the very outset of a trial, and it can happen after the testimony has been given but before the jury has a chance to consider it. But having so little, or such weak, evidence doesn't prevent them from taking it to court and making the defendant alarmed.

There's one other legal consideration in this case that leads me to believe this is a tactic, rather than an actual attempt to get a conviction. That's because at this point, if it went to court, my understanding is that under TN law they COULDN'T convict either Pearcy, no matter what they think they have as evidence.

As I read it, they can't convict a person of tampering with evidence, or of being an accessory after the fact to a crime, unless a crime has been committed, and there has been no finding in court that a crime has been committed. If we were at a point in time after ZA or JA had been convicted, then it would be open season. But not now.

Given that, it's really odd timing for an arrest that they believe can lead to a conviction. But not for a tactic hoping to intimidate, and thereby produce needed evidence for the Bobo case.

Agree with nearly all of this, but I do have to say, if that is, in fact, the TN law on the P's charges, I'm a little surprised. My limited familiarity with such charges is that they COULD still get a conviction BUT obviously, it puts an additional onus on the prosecution to prove that a crime took place, whereas if they had waited until after a conviction of JA or ZA, the need to establish that element may be obviated. At the end of the day, though, I'd agree, it's probably a tactic because the prosecution would rather have the P's testifying against JA and ZA than having convictions for what are "lesser" charges.

 

[SteveS]

In this case the crime is disposing of the video, and to convict you would need to show that the video actually exists.

Unless this witness personally knew Holly, she would be relying on the description of its contents from the person who showed it to her, that is when the hearsay rule kicks in. It is pretty clear that this is hearsay IMO.

1 "the crime is disposing of the video, and to convict you would need to show that the video actually exists."

True, but they have someone who is willing to testify that it does (or did). Then, unless there is additional evidence to be presented, it comes down to he-said she-said, and that element of the crime ("At one time, was there a video?") has been satisfied if the jury believes the witness. .

2 "Unless this witness personally knew Holly, she would be relying on the description of its contents from the person who showed it to her ....It is pretty clear that this is hearsay"

While what you described would indeed be hearsay, that is not the testimony being offered by this witness. She is said to be testifying that she personally watched the video (in which she heard MP's voice), which would make her eligible to be a direct witness to the video and its contents.

 

[SteveS]

I have puzzled under what circumstances a dude would randomly be showing off a video of a felony that ended with murder in which his brother's voice can be heard indicating presence at the crime to some third party.

This makes me skeptical.

Great point.

 

[shefner]

Your post I responded to essentially endorsed that approach by LE, and I was responding to that. Want people to ignore that endorsement? I didn't.

It's absolutely abhorrent.

I certainly didn't say they are known to be doing that, but "go ahead and abuse others who may be innocent, and who cares if you ruin lives in the process" in a quest to solve the first crime and punish the guilty is criminal. I find it repulsive that anyone would condone such behavior.

I am offended by your post Steve. I don't know exactly what you are implying but after 6+ years at Websleuths, I can say with certainty that I have never said or desired to imply, "go ahead and abuse others who may be innocent."

Let me make it clear: I want the guilty punished to the fullest extent that the law will allow. But I am not saying that LE should do anything illegal to get them. And I don't desire the innocent to be injured in any way. But let's face the truth, sometimes innocent people do get wrapped up in criminal cases.

If JP or MP are innocent, then I hope that will come to the forefront and they can be cleared. But I have heard many a guilty man proclaim innocence, ad nauseum. We really have to wait and see.

I have a ton of time invested in Holly's case. Been here since the start and spent lots of hours reading and studying information ~ posting in the midnight hours. I am not loosely flying by the seat of my pants. I care deeply. Enough said.

 

[SteveS]

I am offended by your post Steve. I don't know exactly what you are implying but after 6+ years at Websleuths, I can say with certainty that I have never said or desired to imply, "go ahead and abuse others who may be innocent.".

We were discussing the idea that LE might be overstepping their boundaries here. When, in response, you said "Find who did this and what they did. Find it however you can. Extracting the infection might mean the surrounding area must be sacrificed to some temporary pain," that left the clear implication that you were endorsing illegal and shady tactics, even if it injured innocent bystanders in the process.

You again left the same implication, when you then objected to my negative reaction to your original implication noted above.

If you don't mean it in the way you wrote it, I accept that. But I would hope that you see what you wrote, and the context in which you wrote it, clearly sounded like you didn't care if rights are abused and lives of innocent bystanders are destroyed. And if no one else cares, I do and will speak up.

Oh, and by the way, if there was no video, and JP's arrest was based on the (false) statement of some woman and is being used as an intimidation tactic, I hope you're saying that's an unacceptable injustice being perpetrated, as much as any other. This was a man who, if he's telling the truth, was living in another town for years and who had nothing to do with any of this, wasn't connected to any of them in any way, and was simply going about his life. No one deserves to be ragdolled through the justice system at the whims of LE if they didn't do anything.

I'm willing to grant a lot of latitude to LE at this point, but not a blank check to abuse their authority and "accidentally" ruin the lives of innocent bystanders.

 

[pearl]

If/Until it is proved otherwise, I place my trust in LE with regards to Holly's case. I do not even entertain the idea that the TBI/FBI would do something illegal or questionable in prosecuting this case.

 

[shefner]

I have had a great disdain for the TBI and local LE's handling of Holly's case. I am not a fan. I have been in trouble here more than once for making my feelings known about that.

They are what we have, however. I pray that they are doing things the right way. MP has a long rap sheet. Would not surprise me if he had some link to this case...if not being directly involved with the abduction then maybe something else. There are reports that MP was in jail on other charges on the days surrounding Holly's abduction. If so, it would be impossible for him to have been a part of that. Of course, LE has that information on hand.
I am wondering how long Holly lived after her abduction. It seems she was seen alive by more than one witness after she was taken. We have no way at this point of knowing if she lived for hours or days.

JP is probably a person with some knowledge simply due to his brother's involvement. He and his brother posted some on their Facebooks about hanging out together. So it would seems to me that MP might bring up something to his brother about a recording of this type. This is just my general take on things. If LE felt JP had some role in Holly's abduction or homicide, he would not be out. So I think its clear he could be linked to this case through his brother.

If there is no video and the witness is found to be lying to authorities, she should be arrested immediately and charged. LE would need to clear the parties that have been wronged and make a public apology.

I want justice but I want it the right (and legal) way.
Find who did this and what they did. Find it anyway you can - THAT IS LEGAL.
Let justice roll.

Holly, we miss you.

 

[SteveS]

JP is probably a person with some knowledge simply due to his brother's involvement. He and his brother posted some on their Facebooks about hanging out together. So it would seems to me that MP might bring up something to his brother about a recording of this type. This is just my general take on things. If LE felt JP had some role in Holly's abduction or homicide, he would not be out. So I think its clear he could be linked to this case through his brother.

"JP is probably a person with some knowledge simply due to his brother's involvement."

Wait, what "involvement" is being surmised here, or assumed?

MP hasn't been charged with any role in Holly's abduction or homicide.

For all we know, MP's total "involvement" may have been as benign as being present in a recorded conversation when ZA and JA one day said something about Holly.

But from what has been submitted to justify the arrests, there hasn't been a single allegation that either did anything to Holly. Just something supposedly to do with a (perhaps-mythical) video that somehow is said to pertain to Holly, and that no will (or can) give to the police.

 

[SteveS]

I have had a great disdain for the TBI and local LE's handling of Holly's case. I am not a fan. I have been in trouble here more than once for making my feelings known about that.

My concern is that over time, the pressure gets hotter on them to do something, and the heat gets turned up.

Then at some point, if they still don't really have enough, they may decide to "do something" to take the pressure off. Arrests bring praise, and thoughts that they are diligent - - even if they are bad arrests.

That's why, after all this time, I'm not as blindly trusting that all of these are good arrests. You would hope that more time spent making an arrest means a better case, but it could be just the opposite.

And they know that while the arrest certainly is going to ruin a defendant, no matter how the trial ends, rarely does an unmerited arrest backfire. If the arrested guy walks at trial because the case was crap, in most cases the defendant is impoverished, people look at him suspiciously even if he is completely innocent ("they wouldn't arrest him unless he was guilty of something," the thinking goes), but LE can usually fall back on the line that "We did our job but the jury screwed up."

 

[Mr. Noatak]

My opinions only, no facts here:

When I think about the main jailed suspect, the second jailed suspect (the big guy), the younger brother of the main suspect, the informant, and the two new brothers, etc., I become dazed and confused and my mind wanders back to the FBI description of the kidnapper and Holly's brother's observations.

We have a kidnapping suspect who does not closely resemble either of the two jailed suspects; this unknown male apparently knew Holly well enough to talk and argue with her for maybe ten minutes or more, before leading her into the woods. This does not sound like a crazed drug-fueled kidnapping. If we did not know any of this other stuff about the "unlucky six", I believe that we would be theorizing about a troubled young man who was obsessed with Holly and trying in some bizarre and confused way to convince her to accept him. And failing that, he became more belligerent, forceful, violent, and panicky; eventually leading her away.

Remember, we have as much as 15 minutes between the initial scream and the event of Holly being led into the woods by the unidentified suspect. And after all that time, Holly is still burdened with her purse, lunch sack, cell phone, etc. Basically, she is carrying everything she left the house with.

In 99 out of a 100 female abductions, the victim would be immediately grabbed and taken out-of-sight and loose personal items would be dropped or ripped loose at the abduction scene, or at the least- tossed out a vehicle window within a mile or two of the abduction. In my opinion, something very odd happened that day, something that is yet to be fully comprehended.