Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo- Sept 11 & 12, 2017

[UndiscoveredTruth]

A special thanks to Emi, Niner and epiphany for updates, tweets and summaries.

I second that!! Also a big thank you to you too, Harmony2. Much appreciated.

Can I just try something here, kind of testing so maybe I can help posting the tweets if you other wonderful members ever need a break! I need to get it right first.

[video=twitter;907729428318445570]https://twitter.com/FOX13Memphis/status/907729428318445570[/video]
[video=twitter;907731495325925376]https://twitter.com/FOX13Memphis/status/907731495325925376[/video]

Edit: :happydance: I followed your instructions on how to post tweets from a laptop, Harmony2. I had no idea it was that simple lol. Thanks once again!

 

[Fence Sitter]

Can someone explain or elaborate on the photo in the year book of the neighbour (was it)? What was that about

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[2Hope4]

What was that outburst at the very end---about her not being charged? My phone rang and I could barely hear what the court was angry about because I was listening to someone on the phone.

Defense was asking if the witness had been charge with lying to the investigators, impeding an investigation. State objected. Judge overruled stating witness was only being asked if she had been charged and she hasn't.

 

[Gee]

NC5 stream keeps freezing up on me. I give up. What is another alternative?

TIA

wsmv.com is one alternative

 

[JenaTaoson]

Every time I think of a drug addict testifying for the state I will always think of the Mel Ignato murder case. His mistress who had a drug problem testified that she was there when he raped, tortured, and murdered another girlfriend, and she said he even had her video tape the entire thing.

None of the jury believed her even though she told the 100% truth about it all and the jury found the murdering ... NG. Years later after he sold his large home a carpet contractor was laying new carpet and had to take the floor vents up and there he found the video of the entire thing from beginning to end.

It shows even though someone may have a drug addiction problem it never means they are lying in court about something so serious as a murder.

RSBM:
That's always my greatest fear in cases with former addicts. Either the jury will think the witnesses are unreliable or that the defendant couldn't remember what they did due to drugs. Personally, I found her testimony and the walker from earlier the most damning so far.

 

[lonetraveler]

Yeah, we need him on all cases!

True, but I don't really want to see Juan Martinez in the courtroom on the Defense side of the courtroom unless he is defending me.....LOL

 

[lonetraveler]

Word of advice, don't put your lap top on kitchen counter and watch trial while you are chopping cabbage for slaw!

 

[Ssejors]

Word of advice, don't put your lap top on kitchen counter and watch trial while you are chopping cabbage for slaw!

oh no did you lose a finger tip?! :thinking:

 

[SteveS]

Katydid23, that's so true. I am a litigator but not in criminal law, and I can't tell you how many times I got better information from witnesses, things they probably didn't mean to admit, just by being respectful and calm. Being aggressive really only works with someone who is being aggressive and very evasive, and that's not most witnesses.

*I learned the hard way once as a baby lawyer when I tried to impeach the credibility of an 80-year old lady because she had one bounced check charge!

I noticed something when watching the trial on a live feed, which keeps getting noted by one of the tweeters, and I wanted your feedback as a litigator.

From the get-go of this trial, the state has been "leading the witness" on just about every witness, which can be prevented but only if the defense objects. She doesn't. By not doing so, it allows the state to more or less craft the witness testimony to say exactly what they want said, and no more or less, which is a huge disadvantage to the defense when it's time to cross-examine and there are no loose threads to use or inconsistencies to explore, and also later when having to counter the testimony. At first I thought it was just some bizarre strategy, but the more it happens the more I'm led to believe that ZA is getting royally screwed by his choice of atty.

Have you watched any of the live testimony? Are you seeing the same thing, and reacting the same way? I'm interested in your take.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I didn't follow this case closely when Holly was missing. I remember hearing some remains had been found, but not really any details. So it's interesting to me to see how much comes out in the court that the jury is hearing, and knowing I only know what the jury is hearing as well.

I don't know anything about the defendant. Only what I'm hearing in court.

I know in the Casey Anthony trial, I had followed that case closely, knew lots of stuff that wasn't in the trial. I think that's why it was so upsetting when she was acquitted, because stuff 'we' had heard wasn't in the trial, and thus the jury didn't know the same as we did. I remember telling a friend that the state hadn't proved the case....jury agreed.

I hope and pray that if this guy is guilty, the evidence supports it and the jury can see and hear that.

Thus far, only the ground work is being laid. Later I'm sure some of this will make sense to me. At this point, I'm hearing evidence, but not sure the significance of any of it yet. Time will tell if the state can connect the dots.

It probably is difficult to put it all together if you haven't kept up with the case closely from the beginning.

The dots are already being connected witness by witness and there are many more witnesses to come for the state since this is only day two. I think the case is going very well for the prosecution and will continue that way.

The star witness will be JA the co-defendant himself. He may be one of the last ones called so the state may rest their CIC after he is called. Imo, his testimony will confirm the testimonies of many of the lay witnesses called for the state.

I have a feeling there will be fireworks when JA testifies and quite a lot of drama. ZAs defense attorney will try to be an aggressive bulldog but I dont think its going to faze JA in the least. Imo, he will be the kind of co-defendant who testified against Rae Carruth in his murder trial, and David Rudolph, the defense attorney was unable to shake him even though he tried his best, and DR wound up making a fool out of himself instead.

Justice for Holly and all of the Bobo family!
'

 

[SteveS]

The dots are already being connected witness by witness and there are many more witnesses to come for the state since this is only day two. I think the case is going very well for the prosecution and will continue that way.
'

Gotta disagree strongly. No dots have been connected. There's been NOTHING that puts ZA in that garage or taking HB away (and in fact, the opposite), nor is there any evidence she was in his company at any later point. No evidence that says he killed her. Lots of items that make you go "That COULD be related" but no links proved yet, not one.

So far, it's just a bunch of dots being offered. They gave evidence that someone took her. They say supposedly he drove around, did erratic and/or illegal stuff, he was a jerk to his GF and tried to intimidate her with references to HB being dead or missing. When the police came to his house, his appearance was subpar and he later did some things that can seem suspicious. But all could just as easily be innocuous, or related to other illegalities. They found some stuff in the woods, but so far we don't even know if they were his. And more importantly, there's NOTHING so far to tie him to any kidnapping or murder. Just because he's a druggie or an azz or a weirdo doesn't mean he's a killer - you gotta PROVE he did the crime. Dots connected? Not even a little bit. Yet.

BUT let me be clear. The lack of connections at this point, in a trial that will take weeks, doesn't matter at all. They have to start somewhere, and the 1st step is to give some dots. And it doesn't matter when in the process it happens, it only matters that they can (and do) connect him to this crime at some point. I'm waiting. I'm hopeful and optimistic. If he did this, he needs to pay. But only IF he did it.

 

[lonetraveler]

oh no did you lose a finger tip?! :thinking:

No, but I'm still cleaning cabbage out of my keyboard. LOL

 

[lonetraveler]

Gotta disagree strongly. No dots have been connected. There's been NOTHING that puts ZA in that garage or taking HB away (and in fact, the opposite), nor is there any evidence she was in his company at any later point. No evidence that says he killed her. Lots of items that make you go "That COULD be related" but no links proved yet, not one.

So far, it's just a bunch of dots being offered. They gave evidence that someone took her. They say supposedly he drove around, did erratic and/or illegal stuff, he was a jerk to his GF and tried to intimidate her with references to HB being dead or missing. When the police came to his house, his appearance was subpar and he later did some things that can seem suspicious. But all could just as easily be innocuous, or related to other illegalities. They found some stuff in the woods, but so far we don't even know if they were his. And more importantly, there's NOTHING so far to tie him to any kidnapping or murder. Just because he's a druggie or an azz or a weirdo doesn't mean he's a killer - you gotta PROVE he did the crime. Dots connected? Not even a little bit. Yet.

BUT let me be clear. The lack of connections at this point, in a trial that will take weeks, doesn't matter at all. They have to start somewhere, and the 1st step is to give some dots. And it doesn't matter when in the process it happens, it only matters that they can (and do) connect him to this crime at some point. I'm waiting. I'm hopeful and optimistic. If he did this, he needs to pay. But only IF he did it.

Always enjoy reading your views on cases. I respect your prospective here but I feel that you are giving way too much credence on the jury's ability to see the "dots" the way that you do. I can say with my old age wisdom here, as well as having served on several juries over the years, that most jurors do not dissect the "dots" like you, unfortunately. Most disregard the minute details and go for the bird's eye view and make decisions on guilt or innocence. Use the Casey Anthony case in point, ie., the jury did not, IMO, have the intellect nor the ability to comprehend the forensics thereby they decided to go with the last thing they heard from the Defense attorney, which was a bunch of malarkey but, it worked.

 

[Plumeria5]

Looking at the photo I didn't expect to see that much blood in the carport. I remember hearing early on there were drops of blood but there is what I would call a pool of blood along with the many drops. Was there any mention yet on what they think caused those injuries?

 

[Harmony 2]

Holly Bobo trial: What to know for Wednesday's testimony

http://www.jacksonsun.com/story/new...ial-what-know-wednesdays-testimony/659670001/

 

[Harmony 2]

Zach Adams' Ex-Girlfriend Testifies Against Him

Her testimony was the most damning so far in this two day long trial that has already proven to be an emotional roller coaster.

http://www.newschannel5.com/news/zach-adams-ex-girlfriend-testifies-against-him

 

[Harmony 2]

911 calls shed light on Zachary Adams' drug problem

http://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/24959635/911-calls-shed-light-on-zachary-adams-drug-problem

 

[cfreyja23]

Hi SteveS, I've enjoyed reading your comments on WS for a really long time! Just wanted to say that.

I've only watched some of the live testimony, and watched some of the Youtube videos yesterday evening. It's difficult to watch, because I can't help but critique the presentations from all of the attorneys. (And, for the same reason, I rarely watch fictional courtroom dramas, because I will yell out objections to the TV). The attorney who is live-blogging is IMO pretty spot-on in many of his comments. It's possible that these attorneys are following the custom of their county, so some of my comments may reflect a difference in trial strategy or presentation in different states.

Re: leading witnesses, I noticed the prosecutor doing it today, and agree that defense counsel should've objected more often. Objecting is absolutely necessary to preserve error on appeal. Without objecting, you waive error re: testimony or evidence that is admitted. On the other hand, in trial advocacy training, attorneys are often told that it is unwise to constantly object in a jury trial, as jurors tend to think you are hiding something or they resent information being withheld from them. One way to counteract that is to make a "speaking objection" (some judges will shut you down when you try to do this, however) that informs the jury of why you are objecting and paints the other attorney as the one hiding information or not following evidentiary rules.

I was surprised she did not object more often. It's entirely possible that it was her strategy to allow the prosecutor to lead with the ex-gf because then the witness was not really speaking from experiential memory and in her own words and could be more easily tripped up on cross. To some extent, I think that worked as the ex-gf did get confused about some of the events and sequence. However, defense counsel also should not have asked open-ended questions of the ex-gf because it gave the witness an out and allowed her to clean up her testimony, which I think she did fairly effectively. As I mentioned before, she was overly aggressive, and had the toned it down a little bit, I think she could've elicited more agreement from the witness about her memory lapses.

My biggest pet peeve was the prosecutor repeating the witness's testimony back to her verbatim. That's objectionable because it is cumulative (the jury hears it twice), and it's not really in question format, it's just a statement/sidebar from the prosecutor.

For defense counsel, she made several inappropriate sidebar comments and actually laughed at the witness. I was surprised the prosecutor did not address that by objecting.

These are just some things I noticed. If you were to watch me in court, you would probably find me making some of these same mistakes occasionally, as even the best trial attorneys (ETA: and I don't count myself among them ;-) can't be robots. Hopefully, the attorneys in this case follow the judge's recommendation to focus and have more organized, effective presentations from here on out.

 

[cfreyja23]

What was that outburst at the very end---about her not being charged? My phone rang and I could barely hear what the court was angry about because I was listening to someone on the phone.

Defense counsel asked ex-gf if she had ever been charged with lying in this case. Prosecutor objected and said, "That's not even a crime," and defense counsel argued back, "It's obstruction of justice, judge!" Judge overruled the objection and said that defense counsel was just asking if she had ever been charged and the answer was no. IMO, defense counsel was trying to insinuate that she could've been charged but wasn't because of her testimony; essentially implying that she received some kind of immunity.

 

[katydid23]

Defense was asking if the witness had been charge with lying to the investigators, impeding an investigation. State objected. Judge overruled stating witness was only being asked if she had been charged and she hasn't.

Defense counsel asked ex-gf if she had ever been charged with lying in this case. Prosecutor objected and said, "That's not even a crime," and defense counsel argued back, "It's obstruction of justice, judge!" Judge overruled the objection and said that defense counsel was just asking if she had ever been charged and the answer was no. IMO, defense counsel was trying to insinuate that she could've been charged but wasn't because of her testimony; essentially implying that she received some kind of immunity.

Thank you both. My husband called from work to ask about dinner plans, and I had to sound interested, but I was really trying hard to hear what was going on in the trial instead. :blush: Luckily I had the crock pot beef stew already cooking....lol