re: Trey Holly posts about his innocence on IG

quote:

---

Also, only one of the shooting victims is in critical condition. The second victim was shot in the leg and is completely coherent and stable

So people thinking the cops are going rogue are a little foolish.

---

I don't think that, I think they are going by the info provided to them. The question of mistaken identity by an eyewitness is another matter entirely.

My hopes are primarily driven by my desire for LSU football to have the necessary running backs available. So I hope Holly's claim of innocence and mistaken identity are correct, I would not be surprised by any outcome here.

Allegedly three shooters shot up an apartment or shot people at an apartment complex, which Trey says is his home.

quote:

---

The Union Parish Sheriff’s Office conducted an investigation of the scene and determined that three shooters were present firing multiple rounds. The investigation has also uncovered that the shooting was the result of earlier altercations at a local apartment complex.

---

Regardless of his involvement, why would anyone be charged with attempted murder for defending his or her home against shooters? The only scenarios I could see would be shooting people in the back as they were fleeing or shooting people with no reasonable fear for your life.

But Trey says he wasn't involved whatsoever and was just there.

None of this story adds up.

I mean it all adds up beside Holly saying he is innocent

Two of the victims were randomly at the crime scene and got shot. Pretty much every "in public" shooting has people randomly at the scene.

quote:

---

and never have someone killed inside their home

---

Inside his home or at his apartment complex? Pretty big difference.

His claim of "no involvement at all" rather than self-defense is also interesting. I guess we'll see.

(no message)

Dang that's a strong response.

As a former homicide prosecutor who has taken many dozens of murder cases to the grand jury, I can make a few random observations:

1) The vast majority of homicide arrests we got ended up in some sort of conviction. Most murders are not well planned and typically involve someone who is drinking or drugging, people who dont cover their tracks very well. Most homicides are relatively easy to prove. Gunfight cases can be a bit harder if self defense is an issue.

2) An arrest is not an indictment. A DA cannot even charge a murder on his own, as he can with most cases. It must be brought to a grand jury. I saw a few cases, not many though, where the follow up investigation the DA did before presenting to a grand jury did not support an indictment and the charges were dropped.

3) I think most every defense atty and person charged with murder vehemently deny involvement or claim self defense. I invited every atty for someone charged with murder to testify in front of the grand jury considering their indictment. I don’t remember any doing so. I was always interested in any proof someone was innocent. Police and witnesses can make mistakes, or in some cases, lie. When you convict the wrong guy, two mistakes are made. An innocent person goes to jail while a bad guy walks. Despite what we see on many tv shows and such, most DAs, police, judges and jurors want bad guys in jail and innocent people set free.

4) Putting out a statement as Holly did was quite unusual in my experience. Its equally odd he states that he “cant give many details because its an ongoing investigation” but then goes on to give many very relevant details. This is very risky business for a defendant. When you declare you were not involved in any altercation at all, thats a critical detail. It removes a self defense argument if there was an altercation. One can hardly claim self defense if they were not in an altercation.

5) So, what details that would be important are left out of this statement? The first that jumps out at me is that there is a weapons charge involved. The statement is silent as to whether Holly has a gun or if his gun was involved somehow. Of course, there is no crime in owning a gun in La, but he is charged with illegal use of a weapon, why not explicitly deny that?

6) Putting out a statement such as this does make me question more if he might be wrongly charged just because if he is involved, issuing this statement is massively dumb for him or his atty. I have to assume his atty is involved in the statement.

7) And once he decides to give this statement, who says he cant go into more detail? It’s America, he can say all he wants. All that part means to me is that he is cherry picking info to hand out. I assume he knows what this shooting is about and who has accused him. If he has zero to do with anything, then why not disclose the other details? Of course there could be reasons not clear.

8) Black people, specifically young black men, can very much be at a disadvantage in our judicial system. I dont see any race issue in this case, however, in the limited facts we know. When I see anyone charged with murder of any race, I assume they probably did it. Thats just my experience, most murder arrests end up with a conviction. Odd that it sounds, I can assume someone is guilty yet still presume they are innocent. The presumption of innocence is a legal standard guaranteed by our constitution. When I read of Holly’s arrest, I thought he was probably involved. Thats my experience. It still has to be proved and if there is doubt, then he should be found not guilty. And to be clear, just because the police charge someone doesnt make them guilty. There were a handful of cases I saw where someone was charged and we chose not to indict because subsequent investigation did not support a charge.

9) If I were the DA, my door would be wide open to Holly and his atty. I don’t want to convict an innocent man, let’s talk about all the details. I all so don’t want to appear to favor an LSU football player. If I am going to not indict Holly, give me all you got so I can look like I made the right call.

10) Its a weird statement for sure, particularly “I was not involved in the incident at all. I was at home where the incident took place”. Yikes. All I get from this is that I know lots of stuff I am not telling. I can only hope it’s a typo, and he meant to say he was at home “when” it happened, not at home “where” it happened. Could an atty have actually proofed that and missed it? Could Holly have written this on his own? Strange stuff, either way. I am still strangely encouraged by the statement that maybe he is innocent. The only other conclusion I can reach is that he and his atty are complete fools for giving a statement if it cant be backed up 100 %.

I'm not going to act like Union parish PD is the FBI here but you don't put out an arrest warrant for 2nd degree murder off hear say.

It'll come out in trial but I don't think the odds are in his favor.