Zach Adams on trial for the kidnapping and murder of Holly Bobo Sept 18, 2017 graphic

[oceanblueeyes]

I feel very good about the state's case. It has been riveting testimony at times and when all of the circumstantial evidence links are accumulated in their totality it shows an overwhelming amount of solid evidence proving BARD that Zach Adams is indeed guilty of these crimes.

Some seem to think that a case can only be proven if there is a smoking gun or DNA evidence present. That is far from the truth and many jurors all across our nation are more than able to link all of the CE pieces together to come to the conclusion of guilt. In fact CE cases like this one are the ones that are rarely overturned on appeal. There simply are way too many pieces for the appeal to be successful.

The star witness (JA) for the state was just as we thought but what was so interesting to me is all of the other witnesses afterwards lined up with JAs testimony even the testimonies of those who had been in jail with ZA and did not know JA whatsoever.

This case is unique in one way due to the amount of people ZA ran his mouth to over the years but other than that it is rather typical when a co-defendant agrees to testify for the state against one of the other co-defendants. I have seen a trial where two co-defendants testified against another co-defendant and they both, although seedy criminals were believed by the jury. As far as JA he had no way of knowing what was being told to the other jail inmates by the man who is standing trial now yet not once .............not one time did ZA (the motor mouth) ever say JA was involved. So imo, the jury will deem him to be credible although they certainly wouldn't ever want to live next door to him.

It isn't a surprise that most of the witnesses that had important information had criminal histories like the defendant. That is where the state knew they had to go to find out what happened to Holly.............in the seedy criminal dark world where ZAs roamed.

Every witness who takes the stand and testifies is considered evidence even if it is those who have been told things by the defendant or knew information by being there afterwards when the defendant was present. All testimony from the witness stand from everyone who testifies is considered evidence in a court of law.

I think the state has put on a very good case and I feel even more assured that justice will be served for Holly.

OT:aside

As far as Casey Anthony's trial ...........verdicts like hers are extremely rare. I beg to respectfully differ with Hope4 though. The jurors in that case grossly overburdened the state and expected them to prove things they were not legally required to prove.

I shudder even now thinking about any one of them being put on a missing body case or another case where skeletal remains were found where they cant tell how the victim was murdered. They set an unobtainable burden on the state in CAs case and because of it little Caylee was robbed of justice. They even foolishly said so listing numerous things that were ridiculous and never are burdens any prosecutor ever has to prove in any case. They wouldn't have convicted unless there had been a video from the very beginning to the very end.

Justice for Holly and the Bobo family!

 

[OtisC]

I understand your objections. It is important to follow the rules of a trial. I do agree, however---

...if I know, beyond a shadow of doubt, that a rapist/murderer is guilty of the crime he is on trial for, then I am going to vote GUILTY.

I am not going to ignore evidence because it is inadmissible, if I know it to be accurate and truthful. I know some will find that morally objectionable on my part. I am just saying how I feel.

I appreciate how you feel.

Sometimes listening to the morally void lives of these drug addicts, it is easy to want to punish them for their lifestyles in general. It is almost impossible to understand how a human can get to that low of a level. An interesting view is when a would-be murderer (by his own admission) feels somewhat moral because he disagrees with rape. What a sad world to live in.

I think another issue with this case that could cause a guilty verdict not proven in court is the belief that if Zach did not murder her, he was in a position to but did not stop it and that whoever committed the murder cannot be held accountable due to either death or immunity. In other words, this is the only chance to hold someone accountable for all that happen to Holly. That last statement may be enough to render a guilty verdict by all on the jury.

To be clear, I think that Zach is guilty of all crimes against him. However, I can see why someone could have a reasonable doubt based on the case held in court. It is much easier to justify, in this case, a potentially unproven guilty verdict than to let the crimes to Holly go unpunished.

 

[OtisC]

This area in Tennessee is in bad need of another Buford Pusser for sheriff. Big clean up is needed. JMO

Rather than a higher level of bravado, I believe that a higher level of morals would go much further in preventing these crimes.

 

[lonetraveler]

This testimony doesn't help ZA, as far as I can tell.

I totally agree. So far we have a grieving mother of one of the suspects who supposedly took his life and an aunt who testified that the corn crib looked just fine and that you couldn't drive up to it. All righty then. Defense has a difficult job discrediting all the Prosecution's case. Although convicts make up a lot of the testimony, there's quite a lot of convincing testimony, IMO.

 

[terpstra1]

Has that paper that Shayne Austin signed been released in media in the past? I would like to see it, though I realize it can't be in trial.

I don't think so. He mother looked visibly stunned when she read it. When she blurted out "is that a confession" she did harm to the defense case. Up to that point testimony as to J.A. involvement had been limited.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

 

[OtisC]

I totally agree. So far we have a grieving mother of one of the suspects who supposedly took his life and an aunt who testified that the corn crib looked just fine and that you couldn't drive up to it. All righty then. Defense has a difficult job discrediting all the Prosecution's case. Although convicts make up a lot of the testimony, there's quite a lot of convincing testimony, IMO.

I think the defense's closing statement will focus solely on 1) No physical evidence of rape 2) No physical evidence tying ZA to either kidnapping or murder 3) The only evidence is provided by those with significant criminal records and even some that have admitting lying in court before. The sentence by the defense should be "How can you, with good moral conscience, send someone to death with such a lack of evidence?".

 

[Henry2326]

If I was a juror in a murder trial, and at the end of the trial, I knew , for whatever reason, that the suspect was GUILTY of the crime---I would vote Guilty.

It would not matter to me if it was partially because of what I had learned outside of the trial. What matters to me is that the killer is locked away and can't continue harming us all.

Agreed....the lineup of consistent stories, although criminals, confirmed each other, put me over the top.

Sent from my VK815 using Tapatalk

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't believe anyone is trying to prove that. That said, it is reasonable to believe that they took steps to keep her from screaming.

The testimony given by those who mentioned the rape is the evidence the jury can consider to come to the determination if they believe she was raped.

Everything coming from the witness stand by all witnesses who testified is evidence for the jury to consider. Evidence testimony isn't just from experts, or DNA or forensic experts or investigators etc. That is why all of these people were allowed to testify about what they knew or had been told.

It can be confusing but everything said under oath from a witness stand is considered evidence in a court of law. It is up to the jury what they believe the testimonies shows or doesn't show.

 

[popsicle]

I think the defense's closing statement will focus solely on 1) No physical evidence of rape 2) No physical evidence tying ZA to either kidnapping or murder 3) The only evidence is provided by those with significant criminal records and even some that have admitting lying in court before. The sentence by the defense should be "How can you, with good moral conscience, send someone to death with such a lack of evidence?".

There is a separate mini trial for the death penalty phase.

 

[katydid23]

There is a separate mini trial for the death penalty phase.

YES. And jurors are not supposed to consider the potential penalty when they are assessing Guilt or Innocence.

 

[popsicle]

[FONT=&amp]Burton Staggs‏ @burtstaggsnews [video=twitter;909885618532044802]https://twitter.com/burtstaggsnews/status/909885618532044802[/video]More


[/FONT]
[FONT=&amp]#HollyboboThe document that they have been discussind says that:"Zach called and said I have her changed up... http://fb.me/2nsbfnsOi

[/FONT]"You have to gut them so they don't float"
They put her in the river near a rock with an orange T

 

[OtisC]

The testimony given by those who mentioned the rape is the evidence the jury can consider to come to the determination if they believe she was raped.

Everything coming from the witness stand by all witnesses who testified is evidence for the jury to consider. Evidence testimony isn't just from experts, or DNA or forensic experts or investigators etc. That is why all of these people were allowed to testify about what they knew or had been told.

It can be confusing but everything said under oath from a witness stand is considered evidence in a court of law. It is up to the jury what they believe the testimonies shows or doesn't show.

I don't think that my comment is in contradiction to your statement.

While the prosecution may have made that statement, it is for the defense to object and/or refute.

I believe the closing statements by the state should include an observation that the defense, on many occasions, tried to lead and/or confuse state witnesses into making false statements. On several occasions the witness denied and provided contra-statements to the defense's statement guised as a question.

 

[jggordo]

I think the best witness thus far is the kid from Florida that testified to Zach's "confessions" to him. Totally uninvolved, nothing to gain, from another state even revealing things that only Zach could know. First inkling of a reported video, which I believe there is due to something Zach admitted to his attorney way back in the beginning during a bond hearing.

I take solace in now knowing that kid not only prayed for Zach but also helped him confess his Sins by reporting them, in a twisted sort of way. To me that kid getting busted and locked up next to Zach for that period of time was nothing short of Devine Intervention.

JMO

 

[jggordo]

I don't think that my comment is in contradiction to your statement.

While the prosecution may have made that statement, it is for the defense to object and/or refute.

I believe the closing statements by the state should include an observation that the defense, on many occasions, tried to lead and/or confuse state witnesses into making false statements. On several occasions the witness denied and provided contra-statements to the defense's statement guised as a question.

I agree with you. On many occasions she did this and when challenged by the witness that it was either a lie or she was wrong. Then she had nothing to back up what she said. No statements and nothing to substantiate what her statement / question was.

JMO

 

[OtisC]

I think the best witness thus far is the kid from Florida that testified to Zach's "confessions" to him. Totally uninvolved, nothing to gain, from another state even revealing things that only Zach could know. First inkling of a reported video, which I believe there is due to something Zach admitted to his attorney way back in the beginning during a bond hearing.

To me that kid getting busted and locked up next to Zach for that period of time was nothing short of Devine Intervention.

JMO

I agree with your comment. He seemed to hit on all of the "buttons" to put this away and did not seem to have a motive for false testimony.

Sadly, he also admitted to lying in court before. The circumstances were different but I am not sure how that will play with the jury.

 

[2Hope4]

http://wsmv.images.worldnow.com/library/b12830a9-4f6d-4535-89bc-eeb37ae1c7ea.pdf

Sooo can anyone tell me if this judge is the same mentioned in this document? Because it's obvious to even us watchers that the judge is against the defense for whatever reason... if he had already been asked to step down and refused, and it's him I've watched for a week, then I'm disgusted...

 

[jggordo]

Question. In TN does the Jury vote on the sentence of death or is it strictly the Judge's decision?

 

[Madeleine74]

Some seem to think that a case can only be proven if there is a smoking gun or DNA evidence present.

Yes indeed and they are guilty of what is known as "the CSI effect." They watch TV and think the real world works just that way and expect the state to prove the case in 42 min, with lots of DNA and fancy graphics, and if it's a crime that is devoid of forensic gotchas that means "there's no evidence."

It's gotten so pervasive DA's often resort to mentioning in their openings to a jury this is not the TV show "CSI" it's real life.

If juries aren't being screened for being able to discern real life from a fictional TV show, they should be.

 

[Madeleine74]

Question. In TN does the Jury vote on the sentence of death or is it strictly the Judge's decision?

Always a jury decision

 

[terpstra1]

Question. In TN does the Jury vote on the sentence of death or is it strictly the Judge's decision?

Yes. If he is found guilty there will be a penalty phase.

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk