Zach Adams guilty in kidnapping murder of Holly Bobo Sept 23, 2017

[dog.gone.cute]

The entire reason for change of venue was to obtain a Fair and Impartial Trial. That didn't happen. According to Kenneth Belkin, Jurors can not know the parties involved.

This case should have been tried somewhere EAST of Nashville. That's the bottom line.

BBM: I totally agree ... this case was tried too close to home.

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

fyi
The post trial discussion of evidence thread is now open:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?350188-post-trial-discussion-of-evidence

:tyou::tyou:

:seeya:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Not only that, but JN's boss/friend had ethics charges brought against her. She also showed up in court the day the verdict was reached.

:seeya:

JMO and a big fat MOO:

BBM: But I find it very interesting that the D.A. of Shelby County just happens to show up in time to hear the jury verdict ...

Also interesting is that the TBI Director just happens to show up in time to hear the jury verdict ...

Man ... what a coincidence !

:moo::moo::moo:

 

[maskedwoman]

BBM: I totally agree ... this case was tried too close to home.

:moo:

I wonder if having the trial the next county over was literally the most they could afford to do? Decatur is a very small county, with few financial resources. Just moving it one county away and housing the jurors put a big dent in their budget for the year. If they had moved it to East Tennessee, I think they would also have had to pay the other county to have their personnel guard the jurors, ZA, JA, etc.

 

[Harmony 2]

:seeya: Hi Harmony,

I do not want to post something that violates the rules here, but I just want to clarify if it is okay to discuss the following:

1. Is it okay to discuss a person whose name was brought up at trial?yes the testimony only but no further sleuthing beyond what was stated or shown in testimony especially of children, peripheral friends or family who didn't testify.(you can check with me if that isn't clear.)- NOT to blame/bash them - but to show their connection to the perp(s), statements that were made by witnesses,yes but with a caveat- family members were not on trial- Autry made some derogatory claims about the backgrounds of family members. He could have been lying - I would like to keep that information out of the discussion unless an MSM to back it up is linked or a law enforcement official testified and backed up the information- I am trying to avoid a free for all regarding bashing family. statements to the MSM yes?

2. Is it okay to discuss the other 2 perps (JA and DA) who are awaiting trial/deals, and SA, who committed suicide ?yes

3. Is it okay to discuss "beyond a reasonable doubt" - for example: that a person's testimony raises BARD ? yes


I totally understand that ZA was found guilty on all 8 counts by a jury, however, I still have many unanswered questions as to what the State presented at trial.

Oh, and by the way, I do believe it is probable that ZA was involved in these crimes, however, I just do not think it totally fits with JA's "story" he gave on the witness stand, as well as the timeline.My sentiments exactly and that is the reason for the caveat.

Thank you.

:moo: :moo: :moo:

Hi dog.gone.cute
My responses in bolded red

 

[Gooddeeds]

Hey
So - it was where ZA raised his right hand - that was the "official" sentencing?? TIA!

Niner-
Thanks for riding this question out! All others who are able please post your observation and view of why the typical courtroom sentencing *verbiage was omitted or skewed.

*You are hereby sentenced to...
(or whatever the official accordingly to this is)

TIA!

 

[dog.gone.cute]

I wonder if having the trial the next county over was literally the most they could afford to do? Decatur is a very small county, with few financial resources. Just moving it one county away and housing the jurors put a big dent in their budget for the year. If they had moved it to East Tennessee, I think they would also have had to pay the other county to have their personnel guard the jurors, ZA, JA, etc.

:seeya:

That's a good point about finances being a decision in the location, traveling further east would have been more costly as well for all involved.

However, maybe the court, attorneys, etc. could have made a one time trip further east to pick the jury, then bus the jury back for the trial, and then bring them home when done. That way, those jurors chosen further east would probably have not known as much about the case, and maybe they did not know the judge, etc.

:moo:

 

[dog.gone.cute]

Hi dog.gone.cute
My responses in bolded red

:seeya: Thank you ... I think I got it ... and will do my best

:tyou:

 

[Gooddeeds]

dog.gone.cute said:
Today 09:30 AM
Good Morning, Y'all !

Just getting caught up here as I missed the "Sentencing" on Saturday ...

Wow ... and just when I thought this case could not have any more twists and turns an agreement is reached for ZA's sentence between the State and Defense. JMO I was surprised, but yet on the other hand, not surprised considering all that has happened in that courtroom the past two weeks.

I know I am in the very tiny minority here but IMO, there was a lot missing from the trial and I have many more questions today than I had back in April 2011 !
JMSSO = Just My Super Secret Opinion

-It just seems there ought to have been more info spoken/given about the many 'missing' things. With no official sentencing statement, no courtroom adjourned-etc, Zach just casually walked out of the courtroom effortlessly as though it was another trial day. He most likely would do that on any exiting but he escaped the valid lawful final word given to a criminal on sentencing day. ???

 

[crhedBngr]

I read Holly's comments on how she wanted live next door to her parents after she and her boyfriend were married - just heartbreaking.

 

[Niner]

Hey!

Niner.
Seeing those lovely treats, on last thread, I'm pleased your celebrating end of season, and I guess this 'trial result'.
They look so delicious and really colourful.
Hope you don't get a tummy upset, stopping your great contributions, here at websleuths.

Hi Lonetraveler and Steve P.
Pleased with all your experience you also have some difficulties.
I couldn't post a reply to Niner here, from last thread, about his delicious treats.
My mouth is watering, just looking at them.

No, I didn't buy those cookies for myself - they are presents. And I'm a her!

 

[Gee]

According to this post 20/20 is doing a segment on Holly this upcoming Friday night. If they show info not released at Zach's trial - and IF Dylan does go to trial - will this not make it even more difficult to seat a jury? I cannot see this as a good idea at this time

https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1939878759619463&id=1833156546958352


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

I'm trying to remember in all my years of watching 20/20, Dateline, and 48 Hours if they ever released information not known or available to the public and before a case was litigated, and I can't think of any time except if the perp is interviewed (like Jodi Arias) and they themselves talk about details of their case. Information won't be shared with the media by the people who were working on the case.

The defense wants to see the case appealed. The state might not be participating in the show at all. The family will likely be interviewed, maybe some jurors, but the family isn't going to say more than they already have, and jurors only know what was presented in the courtroom.

As such, I don't think DA's case will be affected much, if at all. I can easily see his case ending via a plea deal where he won't get the DP and will accept a long prison sentence in exchange.

 

[krkrjx]

In 2015 I had jury duty in the county I lived in at the time. I had lived there for about 7 years and had no family in that county but some people on the panel knew some of my relatives from neighboring counties.

Most of those selected for the jury knew the defendant and his family. Some had kids that had played with his kids. Many knew the judge. Yet, they were selected and the trial lasted 8 days and resulted in a guilty verdict. There was lots of evidence and it was almost all circumstantial.

I think in some cases trial would have to be moved out of state to ensure that people did not know each other. I am not sure that knowing someone necessarily taints. There is knowing, and there is knowing. To know who someone is is very different from socializing with them.

I don't know how reasonable it would be to move a trial out of state and I am not even sure it would be legal to do it. People are supposed to have a jury of their peers and the further away you move the less of that you will find, and who is to say that that would not be an issue on appeal?

I guess what I'm getting at here is I will have to see some evidence that jurors were tainted by knowing the judge, or the court reporter, or the DA, or whomever. Yes, it can happen. But it is not a given, imo.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't know how reasonable it would be to move a trial out of state and I am not even sure it would be legal to do it.

Not possible legally, as each state owns their case and each case must be litigated inside the state that owns it. Federal cases are different, but this wasn't a federal case.

What I heard was the judge recognized some of the jurors because the judge knows someone in the family from way back, but at no time did we hear or hear of a juror saying, "hey I know you too!" Jurors would have been thoroughly questioned through the voir dire process and no doubt the defense team would have ensured there weren't any friends of the judge or prosecutors empaneled.

 

[maskedwoman]

:seeya:

That's a good point about finances being a decision in the location, traveling further east would have been more costly as well for all involved.

However, maybe the court, attorneys, etc. could have made a one time trip further east to pick the jury, then bus the jury back for the trial, and then bring them home when done. That way, those jurors chosen further east would probably have not known as much about the case, and maybe they did not know the judge, etc.

:moo:

That would have been a very creative solution.

 

[kaen]

Not possible legally, as each state owns their case and each case must be litigated inside the state that owns it. Federal cases are different, but this wasn't a federal case.

What I heard was the judge recognized some of the jurors because the judge knows someone in the family from way back, but at no time did we hear or hear of a juror saying, "hey I know you too!" Jurors would have been thoroughly questioned through the voir dire process and no doubt the defense team would have ensured there weren't any friends of the judge or prosecutors empaneled.

I think we will find out about the judge's connections with jurors during the appeal. I think JT will note these comments from the judge and the judge's failure to recuse based on his prior involvement with ZA.

Interesting to me, on a different note, is that ZA would have been incarcerated when Holly was abducted were it not for the judge continually giving him diversion, rehab, and leniency over time. Hindsight is 20/20. However, in a small town, when the same person is before you repeatedly, their family files restraining orders based on threatening and committing crimes against you, I would think that we can see a train wreck coming. Rehab was not helping him. The saddest part is that the Adam's family needed resources for DA and some tough love for ZA.

 

[lstiff]

I'm trying to remember in all my years of watching 20/20, Dateline, and 48 Hours if they ever released information not known or available to the public and before a case was litigated, and I can't think of any time except if the perp is interviewed (like Jodi Arias) and they themselves talk about details of their case. Information won't be shared with the media by the people who were working on the case.

The defense wants to see the case appealed. The state might not be participating in the show at all. The family will likely be interviewed, maybe some jurors, but the family isn't going to say more than they already have, and jurors only know what was presented in the courtroom.

As such, I don't think DA's case will be affected much, if at all. I can easily see his case ending via a plea deal where he won't get the DP and will accept a long prison sentence in exchange.

As a huge fan of Dateline, I have seen some cases that have multiple (follow up) episodes to cases that are ongoing. There was one recently where a husband had been to trial 3 times for the death of his wife and it was at least the 2nd episode I had seen on the story. I never thought about it tainting a jury pool but you make a good point.

IMO

 

[terpstra1]

Looks like 20/20 will be doing a show on Holly this Friday. I understand they have unseen footage.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[kaen]

<modsnip>

I thought the judge drew the names of the jurors who would be alternates. At least, that is what he said he was going to do.