Authorities: 20 Year old Holly Bobo A...

Authorities: 20 Year old Holly Bobo Abducted in Decatur County

There are 249926 comments on the MidSouthNewz story from Apr 13, 2011, titled Authorities: 20 Year old Holly Bobo Abducted in Decatur County. In it, MidSouthNewz reports that:

Authorities in Decatur and Henderson County as well as the Tennessee Highway Patrol and Tennessee Bureau of Investigation are searching for 20 year old Holly Bobo.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at MidSouthNewz.

Just a mom

Jonesboro, AR

#121893 Apr 30, 2013
Off topic I know...

Guess who--- I laughed til I almost spilled my coffee and my little dog, Gus, was beginning to whine, over the posts all around yours going on about the "spirit world" and you just kept your nose to the grindstone on the case lol :) Took me back about a year and a half ago when I first started posting and before I was here long enough to be part of the fun-- thank goodness (I can only imagine my character analysis lol) I think you were Gambler then... remember that long "poem" about the different posters and their distinct characteristics??? It was hilarious! A little levity never hurts...
eight

Oak Creek, WI

#121894 Apr 30, 2013
Something I am wondering about is the promise ring. It was included in the beginning of the purse story that was retracted as being one of the contents. Why would someone carry a ring around in their purse? Who gave her the ring? Just seems a little interesting. Did she wear it? or just carry it around all the time?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#121895 Apr 30, 2013
Cvt6702 wrote:
<quoted text>
I accusing me of doing meth the best you can do?
I don't do meth or any other drug .
I have bibles and all sorts of pictures of jesus all over my home, and I work with the guides each and every day and we discuss not only the cases that w e work on together, we also discuss people like you and how hard it is to get you to not only wave the bible but believe in what you preach, because there is indeed life beyond earth where we all go after we die.
When a person dies their spirit leaves the body and takes with it all its intelligence and memories and that includes memories of how they died and who is responsible if they were killed and or etc.
i'm surprised that there are some so called religious people that pounce on others like me much like they did back in the days of jesus and later Joan of Arc and the witches of Salem who were trying to tell the world the same things that I and other psychics are and look what happened to them.
Now that they have been murdered by humans they have been martryd but people don't want them speaking from the spirit world they just want them to go lay in the grave so people can say when you're dead your're dead.
What a waste that would be if great scientific minds couldn't channel through people like me and Edgar cayce and others to try to do good and pass on their great ideas.
You are no Joan of Arc either!LOL

Since: Jan 13

Bradley, IL

#121896 Apr 30, 2013
Guess Who wrote:
<quoted text>
I can't thank you enough for this link.
The most outstanding point in it for me was that while yes, there
is a window overlooking the garage, Clint says he viewed from the backdoor.
He never said he looked out that window to get a better look at
anyone he saw kneeling there. The second was the odd angle looking into the trees to the left of the stand. Why go to that point with the camera to take their film. That would not have been the angle at all from the home where Clint would have been looking as he alleges. I do hope they do a better job of that sort of thing tonight.
It does seem they are talking about the path around the pond to the mainroad where a car or truck was parked. The neighbors would have had a great view of it. I think they are talking about a car waiting there, but much earlier than they are reporting. Of someone that Holly may have left with.
There were some very interesting "tells" in speech patterns, choice of words and the "eyes for lies" positions which I will
use tonight as well, and explain what they mean at certain points.
Let me say, both last night's video and this one today, both show,
"invention" not "recollection" of thought.
One thing I do believe, that if the 'camo man' did indeed park his car on the other side of the woods, it would have been visible to others passing by or the neighbors if they had happened to look out or driving by during this time. This is because there would have been very little foliage on the trees yet in April. In this report, it was said that the camo guy PULLED Holly into the woods with him; now, that conflicts from what Clint had corrected two years ago. LE and reporters first said that HE said she was 'dragged' into the woods; remember that fiasco? He (after several months) corrected that statement on the JVM interview and insisted that is not what he said, that he had told authorities that the two were walking side by side, and that is why he at first was not worried during the time he actually saw them; he thought the camo guy was someone Holly knew, and that he probably was Drew. He didn't panic until his phone conversation with Karen who said that was NOT Drew, and then he decided the blood he spotted was not turkey blood.

Now the question is, was this the same reporter who 'falsely' told the public two years ago that Holly was 'dragged'? Did he forget Clint's correction, then when this was taped a few weeks ago, did he again use his own choice of words again, which was 'pulled' into the woods? I think getting this straightened out is crucial for several reasons. We are trying to build up credibility for Clint and I am having some difficulty doing so at this time. But it could be the problem here are reporters who elaborate on their own and choose their own words. If this is the case, how frustrating it must be for the Bobo family.

Since: Jan 13

Bradley, IL

#121897 Apr 30, 2013
Guess Who wrote:
Lastly for the moment anyway, I find it totally distasteful for that goofy anchorman to do his dead-eye dick squint for the cameras to show his skepticism for people who dare doubt the Bobos.
He certainly appears "onboard" and not at all a
neutral party. It was almost as bad as his "dramatic chipmunk" wide eyeroll in the first promo. Urgh.
Oh I agree with that. There is NO way these programs will be neutral in their reporting, IMO. Remember, this is not a direct news release that we should have seen long ago with independent LE agencies reporting a summary of what they know so far. And so far, little of unbiased reporting HAS been done concerning this case. Even the interviews with the Bobo family were gentle and basically harmless, and the questions asked of them were not direct or very helpful to the TV audience.

I assume that is because the networks who have conducted the interviews are in the business of entertaining, not true documentaries.. they all are afraid of negative feedback or worse, possible lawsuits.

Since: May 11

Location hidden

#121898 Apr 30, 2013
eight wrote:
Something I am wondering about is the promise ring. It was included in the beginning of the purse story that was retracted as being one of the contents. Why would someone carry a ring around in their purse? Who gave her the ring? Just seems a little interesting. Did she wear it? or just carry it around all the time?
There was some talk on here that shortly after they found the phone they found something of Holly's by the dumpsters and I believe it was at the fairgrounds. It was very hush-hush but there were rumors that they found her promise ring. We all know how rumors go but that was the word at the time.
opinion

Nashville, TN

#121899 Apr 30, 2013
Go to the WSMV Facebook page and watch the video advertising the story that aired last night - not the actual story, but the advertisement for it yesterday morning. It says "Tonight at 6pm: The Holly Bobo Case, Like You've Never Seen".
Now, pause the video at about 22 seconds and look at the pink binders. The binder on the far right of the screen, it says "Tips Vol 18 Specific POI". Under that it looks like it says "Austin / Adams / Autry /_________".
That's the only binder with names that I can possibly make out, if that's even what it says. Just thought that was interesting...
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121900 Apr 30, 2013
Ponderings wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I agree with that. There is NO way these programs will be neutral in their reporting, IMO. Remember, this is not a direct news release that we should have seen long ago with independent LE agencies reporting a summary of what they know so far. And so far, little of unbiased reporting HAS been done concerning this case. Even the interviews with the Bobo family were gentle and basically harmless, and the questions asked of them were not direct or very helpful to the TV audience.
I assume that is because the networks who have conducted the interviews are in the business of entertaining, not true documentaries.. they all are afraid of negative feedback or worse, possible lawsuits.
I agree that this whole three night set up is basically "infotainment". But, who wrote the anchorman's
teleprompter script? I am sure it is all part of the production.

There is no attempt on my part to rehabilitate Clint's story.
This is make or break and so far, from just the snippet I've seen from tonight's "show" is an epic fail.
To not re-enact from the same vantage point and orientation is a complete fabrication and waste of time by the media.
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121901 Apr 30, 2013
Boon1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was some talk on here that shortly after they found the phone they found something of Holly's by the dumpsters and I believe it was at the fairgrounds. It was very hush-hush but there were rumors that they found her promise ring. We all know how rumors go but that was the word at the time.
Very interesting. What is the description of the "famous"
promise ring? Given to her by Drew, for the person who asked.
Is it some generic linked hearts deal? A dime a dozen, picked
up anywhere setting? Or something so unique, that upon finding
it, everyone would KNOW that was Holly's?

The place where it was found is an almost comical "setting" in itself for the person who planted it there.
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121902 Apr 30, 2013
OFF TOPIC
Since I have been going off on the silly muggings of the anchorman in Nashville, it is a humorous coincidence that Anchorman 2 is being filmed here in part this week. LoL.

Since: Jul 11

Lakeland, FL

#121903 Apr 30, 2013
Boon1003 wrote:
<quoted text>
There was some talk on here that shortly after they found the phone they found something of Holly's by the dumpsters and I believe it was at the fairgrounds. It was very hush-hush but there were rumors that they found her promise ring. We all know how rumors go but that was the word at the time.
One other possibility, rings with a stone of any kind are not allowed when taking test in the medical fields. If the test has any part other than just written, it will cost you on your test score. Safety and cross contamination are a part of most important tests.
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121904 Apr 30, 2013
I am fortunate to live in a very beautiful and picturesque part of the country.
We have had several movies shot in our islands.

Here's a short list:
Anchorman 2
X-Men First in Class
The Legend of Bagger Vance
Prince of Tides
Glory
Camilla
Conrack
Roots
The Longest Yard
To name a few.

Since: Jan 13

Bradley, IL

#121905 Apr 30, 2013
Watching17 wrote:
<quoted text>One other possibility, rings with a stone of any kind are not allowed when taking test in the medical fields. If the test has any part other than just written, it will cost you on your test score. Safety and cross contamination are a part of most important tests.
I am glad you brought that up, and it is true. Also, not knowing Holly there is way for me to know, but there are some people who have a nervous habit of taking off their rings and watches because even if comfortable to wear, they bother them. Or, if they know they are going to be somewhere that jewelry is not allowed or if they are going to work with chemicals, they take them off frequently even during any given day. These people however are also more prone to losing pieces of jewelry for that very reason.
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121906 Apr 30, 2013
So Boon, how did people KNOW the ring was Holly's and not like this purse a close "facsimile"?

Did you hear? Has anyone of the hundreds of silent guests here actually seen the ring to
describe it?

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#121907 Apr 30, 2013
Ponderings wrote:
<quoted text>
One thing I do believe, that if the 'camo man' did indeed park his car on the other side of the woods, it would have been visible to others passing by or the neighbors if they had happened to look out or driving by during this time. This is because there would have been very little foliage on the trees yet in April. In this report, it was said that the camo guy PULLED Holly into the woods with him; now, that conflicts from what Clint had corrected two years ago. LE and reporters first said that HE said she was 'dragged' into the woods; remember that fiasco? He (after several months) corrected that statement on the JVM interview and insisted that is not what he said, that he had told authorities that the two were walking side by side, and that is why he at first was not worried during the time he actually saw them; he thought the camo guy was someone Holly knew, and that he probably was Drew. He didn't panic until his phone conversation with Karen who said that was NOT Drew, and then he decided the blood he spotted was not turkey blood.
Now the question is, was this the same reporter who 'falsely' told the public two years ago that Holly was 'dragged'? Did he forget Clint's correction, then when this was taped a few weeks ago, did he again use his own choice of words again, which was 'pulled' into the woods? I think getting this straightened out is crucial for several reasons. We are trying to build up credibility for Clint and I am having some difficulty doing so at this time. But it could be the problem here are reporters who elaborate on their own and choose their own words. If this is the case, how frustrating it must be for the Bobo family.
Ponderings, Two things about your post…

1) Concerning the foliage – we had an early spring that yr and the foliage was so thick that April that there were reports that the search dogs had to be lifted through the briars and bushes so you are incorrect about there being very little foliage on the trees.

2) I can understand your sympathy and loyalty to the Bobo family. I am not knocking you, that or them. I just really feel that Clint has made up the camo man story out of fear and self preservation.

When it comes to credibility the bottom line is that it should stand on it’s own merit. It shouldn’t be something that you “try” to build up or “have” to build up. It’s either the clear cut and dry truth or it is not and the truth isn’t always pretty! No amount of dressing it up or building it up is going to change that.

If the reporter(s) got it wrong in the first place and miss reported, the Bobo’s could have contacted the editor(s) or had a rep contact the editor of these articles and request they print a retraction. Most editors would oblige. They did not do this. They could have held a press conference at any time and made public statements that they were misquoted or the report(s) was incorrectly stated. They did not do that either. Instead what we did see three months later was Clint trying to tell the story and Karen putting her hand on his leg as to suggest he not say that and Dana getting so disgusted that he walked off the set of an interview. We know what we saw.

I don’t think Clint is lying – I just don’t think he is telling the complete truth.

The truth is the truth – it’s not a made for tv segmented news report of how they want to portray it.

I too am very interested in seeing tonight’s segment. Like most, I am hoping for some clarity!

Since: Jul 11

Lakeland, FL

#121908 Apr 30, 2013
Guess Who wrote:
<quoted text>
Well, were those arrests related to Holly Bobo?
If they were able to arrest on other cases, why not her's with
so much evidence lying about and phone maps?
You really can't keep from being hateful or admit when you're wrong, can you.
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121909 Apr 30, 2013
Ponderings wrote:
<quoted text>
I am glad you brought that up, and it is true. Also, not knowing Holly there is way for me to know, but there are some people who have a nervous habit of taking off their rings and watches because even if comfortable to wear, they bother them. Or, if they know they are going to be somewhere that jewelry is not allowed or if they are going to work with chemicals, they take them off frequently even during any given day. These people however are also more prone to losing pieces of jewelry for that very reason.
Usually when confronted by a situation of a ring not being able
to be worn by profession or by ill-fit or uncomfortable wear will opt to put it on a chain. We have to think of it in context of the idea that the giver of the ring and the receiver had broken up.

If the ring were truly found at the fairground dumpster, and not in the purse as we were told it "should" have been, then this points to another instance of evidence placement.

The person who is doing it has a psychological reason for choosing where they are found. The dubious lunchpurse found by an idyllic
stream and "picnic" setting. The dumpster at the fairground where the Coonhunt took place. The phone leading to near where the
State park is (I think). So this points to a person leading you to presume a suspect based on each item and location.
But, it's so cartoonish, and amateurish, and I think done by a woman because a man it seems to me wouldn't think like that.

It is as the sheriff pointed out "things are not as they appear".
An understatement.
Guess Who

Townsend, GA

#121910 Apr 30, 2013
Watching17 wrote:
<quoted text>You really can't keep from being hateful or admit when you're wrong, can you.
Lead to arrest in HOLLY BOBO case.
What the heck is wrong with you?
Any old arrest does not make it connected to her case.

Since: Jan 13

Bradley, IL

#121911 Apr 30, 2013
Lies Within wrote:
<quoted text>
Ponderings, Two things about your post…
1) Concerning the foliage – we had an early spring that yr and the foliage was so thick that April that there were reports that the search dogs had to be lifted through the briars and bushes so you are incorrect about there being very little foliage on the trees.
2) I can understand your sympathy and loyalty to the Bobo family. I am not knocking you, that or them. I just really feel that Clint has made up the camo man story out of fear and self preservation.
When it comes to credibility the bottom line is that it should stand on it’s own merit. It shouldn’t be something that you “try” to build up or “have” to build up. It’s either the clear cut and dry truth or it is not and the truth isn’t always pretty! No amount of dressing it up or building it up is going to change that.
If the reporter(s) got it wrong in the first place and miss reported, the Bobo’s could have contacted the editor(s) or had a rep contact the editor of these articles and request they print a retraction. Most editors would oblige. They did not do this. They could have held a press conference at any time and made public statements that they were misquoted or the report(s) was incorrectly stated. They did not do that either. Instead what we did see three months later was Clint trying to tell the story and Karen putting her hand on his leg as to suggest he not say that and Dana getting so disgusted that he walked off the set of an interview. We know what we saw.
I don’t think Clint is lying – I just don’t think he is telling the complete truth.
The truth is the truth – it’s not a made for tv segmented news report of how they want to portray it.
I too am very interested in seeing tonight’s segment. Like most, I am hoping for some clarity!
First of all, I am truly trying to remain unbiased with this case, although I do not always come across as being successful to some, I am sure. I do agree with most of your above post; I have had doubts concerning Clint from the beginning but I am always trying to 'work around' these thoughts just in case there are reasons for some things he has done and said.

I personally have never thought that he directly did anything to his sister. However, it does appear to me that he is hiding something - but it could be out of fear for himself; his disappearance from the media early on, his confusing stories (yes, they were!), are certainly disturbing for anyone trying to look at this case from all angles.

Perhaps you are correct about the foliage in April of 2011 in Tennessee; different years will vary, depending on how early Spring arrives, that is certain. But I have been in that general area in April before and although buds and some small leaves are usually on the trees, my point was that even at that, the woods are still not nearly as thick as they are going to be in July.

I agree that one's own word, if true, should be able to stand on it's own merit. No one should have to tell various versions of what they know or saw, spread out over two years. Why not get the facts straight in your mind, tell the media, and let it go at that? I understand needing to have a few weeks to get out of an initial shock as something as horrible as losing a child, but by the time the family took on the media with their interviews, they had time among themselves to get their facts straight without any hesitation. And the journalists whom I have seen interviewing them, were not overly direct with them or asked questions that should have left them flustered, IMO.
Its believable

Sparta, TN

#121912 Apr 30, 2013
Ponderings wrote:
<quoted text>
If he does, that tid bit he has not repeated for over year when retelling what happened that morning. And which version will it be this time - did he see Holly walking side by side towards the woods with the camo man which was the last time he saw them, or, the newer version, where he more recently has said he saw them walk THROUGH the woods with their outside dog, which came back with his tale wagging?
Will he also tell us what he meant by the statement he made the day she disappeared,'She won't be coming back anytime soon'. We all would like to hear his answer to that one...maybe he will.
Why didn't the family put together a series like this last year? If they had written down beforehand what did happen so that their interviews were not in bits and pieces, we might all have come to somewhat a different conclusion over the past 24 months. According to Karen tonight, no one still knows what happened to Holly, so what makes this year, this month different from last year at this time?
You stated,“will he also tell us what he meant by the statement he made the day she disappeared,'She won't be coming back anytime soon'. We all would like to hear his answer to that one...maybe he will”. Do you know for a fact that Clint made that statement. Never heard that statement but once and it was posted on this thread by someone like you or me posting under an assumed name. I never believed it at the time it was posted. It wasn’t anything that was spread around the community to my knowledge. It would never be possible for them to clear all the rumors up, that’s for sure.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Parsons Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Heather West/Walker 8 hr HWalker 5
Sidebar 16 hr G Who 369
Does anyone know a Joshua Grice? (Jan '13) Tue Just curious 11
mike bingham Mon susieq 1
Sherry Morgan, use to be Bibbs Mar 24 Come get it 3
Charles Allen Mar 22 luck of the irish 1
Ann Blankenship (Jun '14) Mar 22 yea rite 16

Parsons Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Parsons Mortgages