Holly Bobo, missing from TN 2014 discussion #5 ***ARRESTS***

[SteveS]

BBM

With a new DA onboard the Judge will reset the time discovery has to be turned over. It will take the DA quite a long time to go over all the evidence. So I don't see these cases coming to trial anytime soon. It may not even happen until 2016.

This is nonsense. What does "I need to review the evidence myself" have to do with "The court requires your office to present the evidence to the defendant"? If I am the judge and the prosecution doesn't comply with the deadline to provide their evidence to the defense as the LAW demands, after their foot-dragging we've already seen, there will likely be severe sanctions imposed, and rightly so.

One would think the new DA would have to take time to go over everything concerning Holly's case. I could be wrong, but I don't think anything has been reported that the prosecution will not meet the deadline for turning over evidence. The prosecution is obligated to turn over copies of all evidence, etc to the defense but not to have it organized in any way for them. I rather think most DA's offices just give the defense what is required. I think it is up to the defense to go through it and organize it for themselves. This is partly what they are paid to do. I don't think it is a question of being moral. It's a point of law. Also, the defense often asks the court for extended time to sort through the evidence, etc and is, more often than not, granted the extra time. I think it would be a logical request for this new DA to ask for extended time also to study the case.

You apparently missed my point. I am well aware that the new DA will want to go through the evidence for himself.

But what I was reading/responding to [cited above, just so you can see it again] was the idea that having a new DA would justify a request by the DA's office that they don't have to comply with disclosure right now, and should be allowed to put off everything for 6 months or a year so he can catch up to the rest of the class.

Nonsense. They've already arrested the defendants, placed accusations against their name, and deprived them of their liberty, and they have a legal obligation to promptly and fully disclose to the defendants the evidence that they will use to try to make their case.

The DA's office has already had a lengthy time period to produce. The defense still needs - and has the right to - the evidence that the state has, so they can begin the exhaustive task of working through it to prepare for a trial. Swapping out one name on the door for another shouldn't change that time frame, since it's not as if the evidence itself (which is what was already required to be disclosed) is going to change simply because there's a new DA.

After they meet their legal disclosure burden, I suspect that the defense may then agree to extra time, while they are in the process of reviewing the disclosures and working on a defense. But a time out now? Not justified.

 

[Tugela]

With a new DA onboard the Judge will reset the time discovery has to be turned over. It will take the DA quite a long time to go over all the evidence. So I don't see these cases coming to trial anytime soon. It may not even happen until 2016.

I don't think so. There might be a new DA but the assistant DAs will be the same people who were on the case before, and should know what there is to be known.

 

[pearl]

BBM





You apparently missed my point. I am well aware that the new DA will want to go through the evidence for himself.

But what I was reading/responding to [cited above, just so you can see it again] was the idea that having a new DA would justify a request by the DA's office that they don't have to comply with disclosure right now, and should be allowed to put off everything for 6 months or a year so he can catch up to the rest of the class.

Nonsense. They've already arrested the defendants, placed accusations against their name, and deprived them of their liberty, and they have a legal obligation to promptly and fully disclose to the defendants the evidence that they will use to try to make their case.

The DA's office has already had a lengthy time period to produce. The defense still needs - and has the right to - the evidence that the state has, so they can begin the exhaustive task of working through it to prepare for a trial. Swapping out one name on the door for another shouldn't change that time frame, since it's not as if the evidence itself (which is what was already required to be disclosed) is going to change simply because there's a new DA.

After they meet their legal disclosure burden, I suspect that the defense may then agree to extra time, while they are in the process of reviewing the disclosures and working on a defense. But a time out now? Not justified.

You apparently missed my point also. I clearly stated that no time extensions have been sought by the prosecution to extend the deadline for turning over evidence, etc to the defense that we know of. What I meant was the DA could request a delayed trial date so he can familiarize himself with every single piece of paper, test results, whatever evidence there is. It is true that the accused would have to spend more time in custody. They do have rights. The victims of this crime also have rights. The victims are often forgotten when the "rights" of accused people are trumpeted in court. The deceased Holly Bobo and her family have the right to a prosecution that is diligent and well-versed in the case. I, personally, have no doubt that the evidence will speak for itself. This new DA will require time to digest it.

 

[Tugela]

Sometimes I am still amazed how some assume witnesses who come forward are lying and the defendant is telling the truth. SMH.

Sometimes I am still amazed how some assume witnesses who come forward are telling the truth and the defendant is lying. SMH.

The fact is without corroboration it is impossible to know, and under the US legal system, the benefit of doubt is supposed to lie with the defendant under those circumstances.

That is why the veracity of what she is claiming is questioned. It has nothing to do with assuming anything.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From News Channel 5:


Bobo Suspect’s Brother To Be Sentenced On Federal Gun Charges

The brother of one of two suspects charged in the Holly Bobo murder case is expected to be sentenced Thursday on federal gun charges in west Tennessee.

Adams, who is a witness in the Bobo case, is already serving time in jail.


http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/new...ntenced-On-Federal-Gun-Charges-271221611.html

 

[OldSteve]

:scared: This case seems very weak, and I'm beginning to fear the guilty in this case may go free :scared:

 

[rtjedarling]

LTNS Everyone!

I agree. So many in my own area are fed up with whomever is in office now. Many of them, including my family, have vowed we are going to vote against every incumbent in office, and this is in local, state and at the federal level when election time comes. Imo, most Americans are sick of the current government officials collectively no matter what office they held or hold.

But I am elated that Holly's case now has a new DA who seems to be very well qualified and is very successful in trying death penalty cases as well.

I was glad to see this part in one of the articles.

"If we can still prove without a reasonable doubt, but we can't find the smoking gun, can't find the body, that's not going to slow me down," Stowe said.


I think we may know why this case hasn't moved forward much now. I think the prior DA pretty much knew he was going to be voted out.

With a new DA onboard the Judge will reset the time discovery has to be turned over. It will take the DA quite a long time to go over all the evidence. So I don't see these cases coming to trial anytime soon. It may not even happen until 2016.

Also gald to see this new DA. Read somewhere he graduated at the top of his Harvard class. Seems he has taken interest in the case and will be reviewing the evidence thoroughly himself-and that is good, very, very, good.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Also gald to see this new DA. Read somewhere he graduated at the top of his Harvard class. Seems he has taken interest in the case and will be reviewing the evidence thoroughly himself-and that is good, very, very, good.

:seeya: I agree ! And maybe that's what this case needs: a new pair of eyes, and some new energy to get this case moving !

:moo:

 

[Dr. Know?]

Although there hasn't been any evidence leaked out by the DA or defense (since they may not have it yet)...I couldn't form an opinion based on nothing more than the arrests. Trying to do that can make you crazy. Did that, won't try that again. Haleigh Cummings case. Everybody was in and out of jail/prison...Not just those in prison now, but there were so many who could be connected to the five..you could go batty in some towns with the revolving door.

DGC, I signed up for some of the important players and don't have everyone mentioned elsewhere vinelinked. I did read RM, who was arrested with Zack at Natchez is in a rehab, I think or was, or about to go? arghhhh..

I can't wait to hear about evidence, real evidence so I could at least understand where these guys stand. I don't think they stand on the right side though.

jmo

 

[spooky24]

Also gald to see this new DA. Read somewhere he graduated at the top of his Harvard class. Seems he has taken interest in the case and will be reviewing the evidence thoroughly himself-and that is good, very, very, good.

Well, a Harvard degree is not proof a crime was committed. Unless he can somehow manufacture a death certificate(which is a public record) then a 100 Cambridge Law School attorneys could not put these men on trial. 8 weeks ago the 24th said they had 9,000 pages of discovery. That is meaningless since none of them contain a death certificate because they are public records and everyone would know it. They have shot their wad as far as forcing out a confession-which was the entire bases for the Grand Jury True Bill. There is just no other conclusion that could explain this embarrassing and disastrous case.

A question ask in the victims forum was "if the suspects brother turns state evidence however he has no idea where the victim is would that constitute intent?"

Yes, it would however it would NOT constitute possession. A person like that would never be allowed to testify and I think most know why.

Still, the defense could ask the court for an acquittal before the jury is seated since the prosecution can not satisfy the legal standard of deceased.

Once they do that then the accused could never be tried again even if a death certificate is posted. That is the reason for the prolonged delay.

Also, the question was asked: if the brother could testify that the defendant told him he committed murder would that be enough to satisfy the legal definition citing the Perry March case.

No, since Arther March testified that he never looked into the sleeping bag to see who's body he burned up he just assumed it was Janet. The prosecution simply convicted Perry of conspiracy along with a host of other charges.

If he had looked and could testify who it was then that would be intent along with possession.

Also another question: Although it is highly unlikely at this point supposing there is a trial could the defense use the maximum stupidity of the 'family advisers' and bring into the court room the silly front porch rant as evidence of incompetence of the TBI?

So far the only trial attorney I ask about this said-(in true lawyer style) that it may or may not be allowed by the Judge-a fancy way of saying they don't know. However he did say that more than likely it would not matter if the prosecution has found the victim then circumstantial evidence would convict them easily.

I have no idea what that profound statement of wisdom means other than lawyer drib drab that if the case does come to trial then the incompetence of the TBI would not matter-I guess.

 

[SteveS]

Wow, I have no idea what that was about, specifically I can't comprehend:

A question ask in the victims forum was "if the suspects brother turns state evidence however he has no idea where the victim is would that constitute intent?"
OR
Yes, it would however it would NOT constitute possession.
OR
A person like that would never be allowed to testify and I think most know why.
OR
If he had looked and could testify who it was then that would be intent along with possession.
OR
Also another question: Although it is highly unlikely at this point supposing there is a trial could the defense use the maximum stupidity of the 'family advisers' and bring into the court room the silly front porch rant as evidence of incompetence of the TBI?

Intent and possession don't seem to be applicable terms to anything to do with this case. The TBI and their "competence" (or lack thereof) aren't on trial.

Sorry, while i followed some of the points, I just didn't get any of that.

 

[Suthrnqt]

Wow, I have no idea what that was about, specifically I can't comprehend:

A question ask in the victims forum was "if the suspects brother turns state evidence however he has no idea where the victim is would that constitute intent?"
OR
Yes, it would however it would NOT constitute possession.
OR
A person like that would never be allowed to testify and I think most know why.
OR
If he had looked and could testify who it was then that would be intent along with possession.
OR
Also another question: Although it is highly unlikely at this point supposing there is a trial could the defense use the maximum stupidity of the 'family advisers' and bring into the court room the silly front porch rant as evidence of incompetence of the TBI?

Intent and possession don't seem to be applicable terms to anything to do with this case. The TBI and their "competence" (or lack thereof) aren't on trial.

Sorry, while i followed some of the points, I just didn't get any of that.

Steve~ I don't get it either.
:dunno:

Spooky~ Is the victim's forum you are referencing here on WS or elsewhere? Link please. TIA

 

[rtjedarling]

Well, a Harvard degree is not proof a crime was committed. Unless he can somehow manufacture a death certificate(which is a public record) then a 100 Cambridge Law School attorneys could not put these men on trial. 8 weeks ago the 24th said they had 9,000 pages of discovery. That is meaningless since none of them contain a death certificate because they are public records and everyone would know it. They have shot their wad as far as forcing out a confession-which was the entire bases for the Grand Jury True Bill. There is just no other conclusion that could explain this embarrassing and disastrous case.

A question ask in the victims forum was "if the suspects brother turns state evidence however he has no idea where the victim is would that constitute intent?"

Yes, it would however it would NOT constitute possession. A person like that would never be allowed to testify and I think most know why.

Still, the defense could ask the court for an acquittal before the jury is seated since the prosecution can not satisfy the legal standard of deceased.

Once they do that then the accused could never be tried again even if a death certificate is posted. That is the reason for the prolonged delay.

Also, the question was asked: if the brother could testify that the defendant told him he committed murder would that be enough to satisfy the legal definition citing the Perry March case.

No, since Arther March testified that he never looked into the sleeping bag to see who's body he burned up he just assumed it was Janet. The prosecution simply convicted Perry of conspiracy along with a host of other charges.

If he had looked and could testify who it was then that would be intent along with possession.

Also another question: Although it is highly unlikely at this point supposing there is a trial could the defense use the maximum stupidity of the 'family advisers' and bring into the court room the silly front porch rant as evidence of incompetence of the TBI?

So far the only trial attorney I ask about this said-(in true lawyer style) that it may or may not be allowed by the Judge-a fancy way of saying they don't know. However he did say that more than likely it would not matter if the prosecution has found the victim then circumstantial evidence would convict them easily.

I have no idea what that profound statement of wisdom means other than lawyer drib drab that if the case does come to trial then the incompetence of the TBI would not matter-I guess.

It sounds as if you think DA may be turning state evidence on ZA, or no? I think there will be a trial and certainly hope justice is served as best as our system can manage. I think there is certainly potential for much justice to be served, though maybe not for all that may have possibly been involved or aware of what happened in Holly's case. I don't know anything about the March case, but if the Perry guy murdered someone, it's ashamed Arther testified he "didn't look," if that's what got Perry a lesser conviction. But juries are like a box of chocolates.

 

[spooky24]

The TBI and their "competence" (or lack thereof) aren't on trial.

You better believe their competence is on trial. OJ Simpson got acquittal on just those very grounds. Your talking about life sentences for these men and the defense will use everything they can to prevent that.

Possession and intent are used in Federal cases in relation to the RICO statute is a good example however they apply here as well. Federal prosecutors use these to show motive and opportunity. There is a higher threshold of evidence in Federal court as the sentences are much longer and there is no parole in sentencing.

For instance Jeffery Skilling got 25 years however he had nothing to do with the fraud it's self. He had possession since he hired the CFO and was his superior and intent because he knew the net worth of the company was being misrepresented by his employees. He possessed the ability to defraud by proxy and his intent was criminal.

Most, but not all, victims rights forums are set up as a small part of WS is. That meaning you must prove who you are-or in my case who you used to be. The interpersonal effects of crime are discussed rather than the crime it's self. Domestic violence is the main topic and that subject needs some security for the comfort of the victims. Also, it cuts out the trolls, spammers, injustice collectors and people who spend a very unhealthy amount of time on the internet.

 

[rtjedarling]

You better believe their competence is on trial. OJ Simpson got acquittal on just those very grounds. Your talking about life sentences for these men and the defense will use everything they can to prevent that.

Possession and intent are used in Federal cases in relation to the RICO statute is a good example however they apply here as well. Federal prosecutors use these to show motive and opportunity. There is a higher threshold of evidence in Federal court as the sentences are much longer and there is no parole in sentencing.

For instance Jeffery Skilling got 25 years however he had nothing to do with the fraud it's self. He had possession since he hired the CFO and was his superior and intent because he knew the net worth of the company was being misrepresented by his employees. He possessed the ability to defraud by proxy and his intent was criminal.

Most, but not all, victims rights forums are set up as a small part of WS is. That meaning you must prove who you are-or in my case who you used to be. The interpersonal effects of crime are discussed rather than the crime it's self. Domestic violence is the main topic and that subject needs some security for the comfort of the victims. Also, it cuts out the trolls, spammers, injustice collectors and people who spend a very unhealthy amount of time on the internet.

Don't like to see murderers get off, but it does happen. We can only second guess what a juror is thinking, even when they say afterwards, I found him thus and so because of this and that- more likely that's only part of his reasoning. I watched a true crime murder last night and the lead detective said when I talked to the suspect his eyes were blank, he had no feeling in his eyes. Each juror ultimately defines reasonable doubt for himself, and if the juror goes as far to analyze intent and possession to the best of their capabilities (law gets a complicated for most people), he still ultimately defines those for himself. I imagine both sides size up their jury audience and play to have as much persuasion as possible upon each member. Jurors are a box of chocolates- some may be persuaded, some able to just attend the evidence presented, some I think, end up going eenie, meenie, miney, moe, and some just want to go home.

 

[dog.gone.cute]

From News Channel 5:

Sentencing for the brother of one of two suspects charged in the Holly Bobo murder case has been delayed.

John Dylan Adams was scheduled to be sentenced in U.S. District Court Western District of Tennessee in Jackson Thursday, but it was continued.


http://www.jrn.com/newschannel5/new...ntenced-On-Federal-Gun-Charges-271221611.html

 

[SteveS]

Possession and intent are used in Federal cases in relation to the RICO statute is a good example however they apply here as well. Federal prosecutors use these to show motive and opportunity. There is a higher threshold of evidence in Federal court as the sentences are much longer and there is no parole in sentencing.

For instance Jeffery Skilling got 25 years however he had nothing to do with the fraud it's self. He had possession since he hired the CFO and was his superior and intent because he knew the net worth of the company was being misrepresented by his employees. He possessed the ability to defraud by proxy and his intent was criminal.

Um, okay. ~smh~

 

[Suthrnqt]

You better believe their competence is on trial. OJ Simpson got acquittal on just those very grounds. Your talking about life sentences for these men and the defense will use everything they can to prevent that.

Possession and intent are used in Federal cases in relation to the RICO statute is a good example however they apply here as well. Federal prosecutors use these to show motive and opportunity. There is a higher threshold of evidence in Federal court as the sentences are much longer and there is no parole in sentencing.

For instance Jeffery Skilling got 25 years however he had nothing to do with the fraud it's self. He had possession since he hired the CFO and was his superior and intent because he knew the net worth of the company was being misrepresented by his employees. He possessed the ability to defraud by proxy and his intent was criminal.

Most, but not all, victims rights forums are set up as a small part of WS is. That meaning you must prove who you are-or in my case who you used to be. The interpersonal effects of crime are discussed rather than the crime it's self. Domestic violence is the main topic and that subject needs some security for the comfort of the victims. Also, it cuts out the trolls, spammers, injustice collectors and people who spend a very unhealthy amount of time on the internet.

I don't see how it is relevant to Holly's case. Also, standard practice here on WS is to provide links to back up your statements. HTH.

 

[Hatfield]

I was thinking back to how all this latest news and arrests got started like with the theft of the pearls and stuff.
Then, onto some arrests and when ZA communication was intercepted about telling his brother to keep quiet or he will be in grave beside her.

As far as evidence the state may have. If the brother testifies against people and if he can actually state some specific things, then I think that may be some of the key evidence the state is relying on.

So here is a question.
Lets assume the brother spoke with someone and that someone admitted to killing her, would that be enough to convict the other person if there is nothing else?
Assuming no body and no other witnesses saying the same thing.

One of the reasons I am wondering about this is because I always thought that was considered "heresay" when there is a report of another persons words by a witness.

 

[SteveS]

A confession is admissible as an exception to the heresay rule, under the assumption that a person wouldn't falsely admit to a misdeed or crime.