TN - Holly Bobo, 20, Darden, believed abducted 13 April 2011 - #30

[~n/t~]

It has been said that Clint went into the woods, at least in some versions I've seen online. Did he hear a vehicle start up or drive away?

He did mention a logging road in one of the interviews but I don't know if that means he saw the perp take Holly there or not.

Will we get another version soon?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

They have to preserve the integrity of the investigation, because if the case ever makes it to trial, they want the person responsible to be convicted. There is a reason behind not releasing any more information... either they don't have a suspect in mind, or they don't have enough evidence to arrest him just yet.
Whether the family knows more than the public knows, or is just being kept in the dark, doesn't matter. LE does not have an obligation to tell the public anything. And in some jurisdictions, they will not name a suspect until they have them handcuffed on the way to jail. That's just the way they operate.
I'm sure Holly's mom IS desperate to know something... but they may not have anything they can tell her right now. That isn't proof that they aren't on the same wavelength, IMO, it just means they can't tell her something they don't know themselves.

TxLady,

Here is what I do not understand, and perhaps you know the Law well enough to explain this:

How does LE, TBI,etc have the right to suppress information pertinent to "FINDING A MISSING PERSON" whose abduction was witnessed by a family member. Holly was taken alive, so it would be safe to assume there would be a small window of opportunity to find her "alive", right?

Now, if LE and the family know for a fact Holly is deceased.... Then take all the time in the world , keep as many secrets as you wish, tell as many cover stories as you want if it means getting a conviction when the case goes to court.......and what harm would it do to inform the public if indeed Holly is deceased. Then all is fair in making sure you can "nail his a-- to the wall!":maddening:

Problem is this case has been "silent" from the beginning. So did they know very early on that Holly was deceased?
Perhaps the Bobo's were following the suggestions of LE in the first few months, thinking this would bring Holly home safe?
Perhaps the family are at odds with LE now because LE's plan hasn't worked, and now they are just desperate?:dunno:

Let's just hope this will not be a cold case, and whatever the outcome is, Holly gets justice:sigh:

 

[NCSleuth]

They have to preserve the integrity of the investigation, because if the case ever makes it to trial, they want the person responsible to be convicted. There is a reason behind not releasing any more information... either they don't have a suspect in mind, or they don't have enough evidence to arrest him just yet.
Whether the family knows more than the public knows, or is just being kept in the dark, doesn't matter. LE does not have an obligation to tell the public anything. And in some jurisdictions, they will not name a suspect until they have them handcuffed on the way to jail. That's just the way they operate.
I'm sure Holly's mom IS desperate to know something... but they may not have anything they can tell her right now. That isn't proof that they aren't on the same wavelength, IMO, it just means they can't tell her something they don't know themselves.

I realize LE doesn't have any responsibilty to tell the public anything, but at some point they need to be smart enough to realize they need the public! Don't stand behind comments like "preserve the integrity of the investigation." They keep preserving the integrity of the investigation as this case grows colder and colder and HB is never found. You have a family that may never know what happened to their loved one. 20 years from now they may not know! I can't imagine what they are going through. Night after night wondering if she is dead or alive. Wondering if she is being held captive. Wondering!!!!! Thinking the worse.

Unfortunately, about the only hope now is if some hunter stumbles across her body. Not trying to be so cold, just frustrated and being realistic.

Its time for LE to say, we can't figure it out, please help. Here is what we know. Here is what we found. Instead of a few people working on this case, lets let millions of people work on it. Who knows, it might ring a bell for a local and connect the dots for someone. I'm sure there are thousands of people that would love to collect the reward!

Of course LE will never do that!

Frustrated in NC!

 

[NCSleuth]

What do y'all think was found on Easter Sunday?

 

[Eileen730]

What do y'all think was found on Easter Sunday?

I think thats the million dollar question!

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

Thanks for this! Yes, I think there are things that we do not know....but there just isn't any reason for me to think that Holly's family somehow conspired to harm or hide her....a girl who from all accounts was very much loved. And your point about the timeline is very true. I know some people really want Clint to be guilty of something, but the timeline just doesn't fit.

I too believe it was an abduction. However I must admit I am not "sure" of the facts surrounding the abduction. The witness account seems to be in a constant state of flux. Unfortunately that tends to make Clint somewhat of a "lightning rod", causing many to conclude Clint must have something to do with it......and indirectly , he may.

Clint as the guilty party doesn't work for me. I hesitate to say this, but I have wondered if Clint could have a mental impairment of some kind.....and before you all go "squirrely" on me:fight:, I am not insinuating "insanity", only a mild form of cognitive impairment of some sort. Just cannot see Clint as the "criminal mastermind" type, but then again I don't see many people as one. Just think for someone to have pulled this abduction off (however it happened), and for 6 months to have passed with no Holly....well , I guess I feel it points to someone who has had a past history of criminal acts.....or it is just "dumb luck".

 

[Oriah]

Yes, just making a general statement. Yes, I believe HB is missing, didn't mean to imply she wasn't.

I am simply saying if a person is missing, finding them should be of upmost importance, not whether someone will be convicted or not.

This is not directed at you NCSleuth at all; just using this post to jump off of.

I truly do not understand why so many people believe finding missing persons (especially those who have disappeared under suspicious circumstances) makes securing a possible criminal case in the future a mutually exclusive thought process?

In my experience (and this is my experience only, of course) most people who have a loved one disappear under suspicious circumstances, first and foremost want their loved one found.
But right up there- shoulder to shoulder with their loved ones' rescue or recovery- is prosecution for who did what and when, to cause harm to their loved one.

LE is often stuck in a quandry, trying to balance these two priorities for families of missing persons. It's a tough position to be in.

 

[~n/t~]

What do y'all think was found on Easter Sunday?

Her cell phone.

 

[Eileen730]

Her cell phone.

Well finding that changed everything dont ya think?
Was there a pic perhaps or text messages?

 

[~n/t~]

Well finding that changed everything dont ya think?
Was there a pic perhaps or text messages?

Speculating that if it was found, yes there would be important evidence discovered including calls made that morning and/or texts which in my opinion would collaborate the eye witness accounts and timeline.... or not.

As an example: If Clint says I called her cell and it rang 5 times, the number he was calling from should appear on the cellphone.

Pings would also be crucial, I think. If Clint called Holly and she was on her way into the woods with the perp, the cellphone tower would've picked up a ping. If it didn't we have a problem. Any subsequent calls to her cell would also be important as to its location.

Was the phone there all along or was it placed there later? Perhaps LE called her cell and it didn't match up to where it pinged on that day but on Easter......it did.

Oh and of course, fingerprints if any

ALL IMO

 

[Carla Lashelle]

Carla, thanks again even though we don't agree it's nice to be able to debate. Most folks here have some really good ideas about what may have happened. Its interesting to work it out with you/them. I am still trying to grasp how a man can plan such a kidnapping without knowing ahead of time what he might encounter. In this case he made a mistake in maybe not knowing that Clint was home. All of the other scenarios and risks he would have encounted didn;t happen so I guess he got lucky. He had no way of knowing if Holly would go with him, he had no way of knowing if a car would drive by while he drove away or if he was walking in the yard. He also as I stated before had the guts to stick around quite a long time after the scream. In fact this not only took guts, but shows how stupid the guy is. Any number of things could have happened after that scream. For all we know a bunch of neighbors could have ran over with guns and shot the guy. Unfortunately we do not know exactly what kind of planned crime this was. I do think it was planned. But what was the real number 1 motive? Was it an abduction? Was it some sort of robbery gone wrong that lead to an aduction? Was it a planned home invasion as some news reports have said? Who knows if the suspect did not know Clint was home or if that mattered or not. Holly obviously knew Clint was home but didn't make any known effort to get his attention after the screams. Things actually went very smoothly for the suspect.

In another parallel world Clint could have thought differently about the situation and grabbed his rifle and ran after Holly or even approached the guy while in the garage. in a normal world ANYONE would have looked in the garage, asked who was there, looked to see who was outside, and would have gone after their sister. Thats the one thing I just do not understand about Clint's story. So again this guy was REAL lucky because I certainly don't think he was smart at how he went about abducting Holly. Well he got away with whatever it was he was doing. Luck or not it worked. I also don't think this guy planted anything to throw off the investigation, that is absurd. There was nothing to throw off simply because there was ZERO evidence left behind so why risk taking the time to leave evidence that may have led them to Holly? Myself I do not necessarily believe in planted evidence. But we do not know where all of the various found items were recovered from. Seemingly the locations of some would make a random dispersal more difficult as they were not all found along, say, the same road leading out of town. Dana said he felt that the lunch bag was planted to make people think the suspect went in one direction when, perhaps, he went in another. There was evidence left behind... the suspect was seen, people heard the crime happening, blood was found at the crime scene. We do not know if MORE evidence was found at the house either.

One last thing. Has anyone ever thought about why this guy went to the trouble to kidnap Holly and what did he want from her? There can only be so many reasons and I don't think there are that many. One could be that he wanted to rape her. If this was the case he could have done it at Holly's house as he certainly stayed there long enough. Maybe he wanted more alone time with her and as sick as this sounds a lot of serial killers like to do this. If this is the case then he brought her to a certain location and she "could" still be alive. I'm pretty sure he did not plan on killing her at least in the beginning as he could have done that at the house also. Would love to hear some other thoughts. I still think this was a planned abduction for the purpose of a sexual assault and most likely a murder afterwards. I tend to believe perhaps the suspect did try to get Holly back into the house/garage after accosting her outside. Perhaps the dog and Clint spooked him so he whisked Holly away. I do not think of this as being the work of a serial killer per se, but more like the Sarah Maynard kidnapping and assault from a year or so back

I base a lot of my own thinking on having been assaulted and nearly killed by a stalker/admirer some 11 years ago. In my case I can see now he had made an attempt to get me to go to a location I did not want to go. And ultimately he found the house I shared with my sister by getting our address from a taxi we used to get home from work on a regular basis.

 

[Carla Lashelle]

This is not directed at you NCSleuth at all; just using this post to jump off of.

I truly do not understand why so many people believe finding missing persons (especially those who have disappeared under suspicious circumstances) makes securing a possible criminal case in the future a mutually exclusive thought process?

In my experience (and this is my experience only, of course) most people who have a loved one disappear under suspicious circumstances, first and foremost want their loved one found.
But right up there- shoulder to shoulder with their loved ones' rescue or recovery- is prosecution for who did what and when, to cause harm to their loved one.

LE is often stuck in a quandry, trying to balance these two priorities for families of missing persons. It's a tough position to be in.

I think its hard(er) when the agency involved is, perhaps, inept.

 

[docwho3]

What do y'all think was found on Easter Sunday?

There are rumors I have read in the news reports and the
rumors I have read online. From the news reports I would suspect
a cell phone was found but I also have thought of something
like a piece clothing, perhaps a pair of shoes. (Speculation only.)

 

[mag84]

What do y'all think was found on Easter Sunday?

My mind keeps wandering back to that same question. Whatever it was, phone, simm card, motel keycard, something totally different, whatever it was, it brought things to a screeching halt. Searches stopped, information from LE came to a halt, townspeople stopped talking. It was like someone flipped a light switch. Whatever it was, that was "a game changer" and whatever the other quote was, I forget, it didn't seem to play out as here we are 7 months later.

To answer your question, I think it was her phone, but that's just a guess, I have no more information than you all have.

And for some reason, in my mind, I just don't believe the person who had been posting all over the net that he was the one that found it and it was a motel keycard.

JMOs

 

[mag84]

There are rumors I have read in the news reports and the
rumors I have read online. From the news reports I would suspect
a cell phone was found but I also have thought of something
like a piece clothing, perhaps a pair of shoes. (Speculation only.)

BBM

I had once thought maybe an undergarment, but I forced my mind to divorce that thought because I just couldn't stand to think it.

 

[mag84]

Oh, the other thought I had later on, was it had to be something pretty small, remember that photo that was taken that showed searchers crawling in a line on their hands and knees in the grass alongside the road?

 

[cluciano63]

Why on earth should ANY item found, no matter what it is (precluding Holly herself of course) be reason to call off searches? That would be reason to search more, IMO.

 

[Eileen730]

My mind keeps wandering back to that same question. Whatever it was, phone, simm card, motel keycard, something totally different, whatever it was, it brought things to a screeching halt. Searches stopped, information from LE came to a halt, townspeople stopped talking. It was like someone flipped a light switch. Whatever it was, that was "a game changer" and whatever the other quote was, I forget, it didn't seem to play out as here we are 7 months later.

To answer your question, I think it was her phone, but that's just a guess, I have no more information than you all have.

And for some reason, in my mind, I just don't believe the person who had been posting all over the net that he was the one that found it and it was a motel keycard.

JMOs

I agree and wasnt the quote something along the lines of things are not always as they appear?

 

[R.U.Kidding!]

This is not directed at you NCSleuth at all; just using this post to jump off of.

I truly do not understand why so many people believe finding missing persons (especially those who have disappeared under suspicious circumstances) makes securing a possible criminal case in the future a mutually exclusive thought process?

In my experience (and this is my experience only, of course) most people who have a loved one disappear under suspicious circumstances, first and foremost want their loved one found.
But right up there- shoulder to shoulder with their loved ones' rescue or recovery- is prosecution for who did what and when, to cause harm to their loved one.

LE is often stuck in a quandry, trying to balance these two priorities for families of missing persons. It's a tough position to be in.

.....and I am only speaking for MYSELF, Oriah, "right up there-shoulder to shoulder with their loved ones ' rescue and recovery" would be a distant "shoulder" if procuring that prosecution meant control and constraint of the situation by LE.

If finding a person alive would mean sharing information that might jeopardize the conviction of that person, I would say there is not one family who would put that prosecution "shoulder to shoulder" in their priorities.
Maybe I misunderstood your comment, since I know you have worked extensively with the families of the missing. Please correct me if I got it wrong.:nono: Thanks, Oriah.

 

[Eileen730]

Why on earth should ANY item found, no matter what it is (precluding Holly herself of course) be reason to call off searches? That would be reason to search more, IMO.

If you recall it was said her mother was RELEIVED!!!!


Nothing makes any sense..
if ya ask me