|Sunday at 9-1-1 (Photo credit: MoHotta18)|
|Image via CrunchBase|
In order to follow the entire story, you can CLICK HERE and go to our site where the only thing on the site is evidence of this case. We are now starting off with the soundtrack from the 911 call.
Now keep in mind, we took the 911 call recording and had it analyzed by a 911 call center professional who informed us every area where the call recording was in violation of 911 call protocols. We were informed that there are only two ways to interpret this recording. One, it's fake. Two, it;s a cut up piece of evidence or in other words, highly tampered with. Now this is just the 911 recording itself. We have not even begun to touch on the other two pieces below this recording.
Now let's look at Holli's own testimony that comes directly from the court transcripts. To open with, Holli states that the 911 recording that you just heard above is a true and correct copy of the 911 call she received. Holli then claims that she can not remember if she called the victim in this case back or if the victim called her back. This was only a few months after the incident. Question right here. Where is the recording of this second call? According to the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, all calls from that time period have since been erased and that there is no evidence that even this call took place. They have no record of it. I have the email from them on this. So without evidence of there being a second call, no second call ever took place.
Now I also have to ask the question, where did Holli come up with the victim being armed with a shovel? All one has to do is listen to the above 911 recording again and at no time is a shovel mentioned. In fact, a gun is not mentioned either, yet you hear Holli state not one but two times for the victim to not shoot out that door. Holli's testimony here about the victim having a shovel can only come from having conversations with both sheriff's deputies and animal control officers in collusion to develop their evidence story. In other words, it sure looks like Holli is lying and perjuring herself to no end.
The second audio recording we have numerous people stating what they heard Holli say that is in direct conflict with the 911 call recording as well as Holli's own testimony. At this point there was enough to throw this case out. In our opinion, Michael T Soberick was either a lousy 10 cent lawyer or he was misrepresenting his client and working more for the county.
Now let's look at Holli M Cohoon's recent statements to all of this. Sent via her Facebook account email.
I dont normally use this facebook account and just saw this message. Perhaps you should think outside your circle of friends and attempt to get all statements before publishing info. I have no idea about your "fun raid" theory. I simply answered a 911 call and was told by another dispatcher that an officer was at the door with animal control and to tell the caller the same. When the caller disconnected from the 911 call, I called her back on a landline! I dont know why the second call was not taken to court as I stated in testimony! I didnt and dont have access to the "taped call database"... that would be my prior supervisor! ASK her! Perhaps it was "gone" by the time the tape was requested because it was a landline, I DONT KNOW! The 911 call you have on your site is NOT altered in any way as I recall the conversation, but I did call her back! I DID NOT LIE in court, I DID NOT recieve a "payoff" and I DONT know of any conspieracy.. I dont even know which deputies were on her property other than Sgt. Emauelle. Perhaps thats why I was told to answer that perticular 911 call !! Lets get the "new girl"! I worked at the sheriffs office less than 2 years while preparing to open a business. It was not my "cup of tea" and VERY well known! I was not friends with or in any circle of friends within the sheriffs office.. didnt attend parties, gossip etc. I am a "come here" and left the Glou Shefiffs Office as soon as I got a loan for the business. You are "investigating" the wrong person, I am requesting that you take all info about me and my business off your website and turn your attention torwards those who know what the hell when on that day. Like I said, I was new to this county, an outsider, and have no idea about all the crazy crap that goes on in Gloucester County "good ol'boy" Society. Just wish we hadnt moved to this crazy place! Thanks!
To begin with, just because she claims she does not use that facebook page does not mean she didn't get the message as the message would have went straight to her email account. Strike one. Second, she is arguing about getting her side of the story before publishing any story. Well, this was the chance. She didn't want to respond before this. Third, I never asked her about any kind of fun raid. she got that from reading this site. That's three strikes already.
Now this is where everything really becomes interesting. Holli claims she was told to answer the 911 call from the victim and that there was already a deputy and animal control on the property? Major violations of 911 protocol. How did the 911 operators know this ahead of time? This is very serious stuff Holli just released.
And now Holli, who after 3 months, based on her own testimony now states that she called the victim back when she stated in a court she could not remember who called who? This is now more than two years later? And what is with the land line statement? Is she telling us that all 911 calls are not land line calls coming in?
Also, now Holli is saying that there is a second phone call? The sheriff's department has no record of a second phone call. Someone here is lying. Holli is also saying that the 911 call above is not altered. She states this above. Well then she blatantly refused to follow protocol for 911 emergency procedures then? That's what she is saying otherwise. She states she did not lie in court. Where did the shovel come from Holli? There is no evidence of any conversation of a shovel. You didn't lie? Really? I'm having a very hard time believing that.
One also has to love her statement, "I did not receive a payoff." No one ever said she did. Isn't it interesting that she brings this up? Now another interesting area here at this point is Holli making the claim," let's get the new girl.", What does that mean? Is she saying she was setup? Why would she even think that somehow she might have been setup?
Another interesting area is Holli's statement that she was only working the 911 call center until a loan came through for her to open up her present business, Sunrise Donuts. Try and get a 911 call center job sometime. One goes through a lot to qualify for that job. The background checks and intense interviews are not easy to pass. It's not like getting a job at Wal Mart. It's a career job. A tough job no question about it, but it's not something one goes into while waiting for a loan.
Holli makes it very clear here that everyone at the Sheriff's office knew she hated her job?
Is this why she thinks that maybe she was setup somehow? And at the end of this first communication she claims that she was an outsider who could not wait to get out of her job as she was not comfortable there? And why was she not comfortable? That is very interesting.
Now here is Holli's second response;
Holli M Cohoon 1:32am Aug 9
"Not long after leaving the sheriff's office, she gave false statements in court against the victim in our news stories and also received a very large sum of money from the Gloucester Sheriff's Office.
Not long after that, Holli opened a new business.. One could say that the Sunrise Donuts Shop has been financed by the tax payers of Gloucester County as the Sheriff's Office is not supposed to be a money making enterprise. The finances come from we the tax payers."
Whatever wording you choose.. the above sounds like a "payoff". Again, I did not recieve "a large sum of money" from the Sheriffs Office. Or any sum of money from the Sheriffs Office. No, I dont believe I was "set up" , my comment was facetious. I was simply the second chair dispatcher that day. I have given you my side of the story, the truth. Its just not nearly as exciting as the version you are posting. I find it interesting that you say you dont publish the so called "victims" name in your report, yet I am now a victim and you have no problem posting mine. I am being wrongfully accused of lying and being involved in a 'conspiracy", it is quite hurtful and damaging to my reputation. In reguards to the recent posting about how I got - Name removed' - address for the Protective Order.. I was not assisted by the Sheriffs Office, I just"googled" her name. Just goes to show how something so simple can be turned around to a sinister nature. Again, I request that you do not post anything else about me or my business.
The top part of this response has to do with another article written about Holli. We received inside information from someone close to Holli who volunteered a great deal of news to us. Everything we were able to check came out verified and one area we could not verify without breaking a number of laws, so in a case like this, one has to deem the information as being valid based on all other verified information.
We could not report the exact statements given to us as it has the potential to reveal the person who gave us this information. If that should happen, the person who revealed the information would then have to file protective orders against Holli in fear of retaliation. With that said, we are still not revealing the exact information that was given to us and we are choosing to protect the informant. To clarify though, there is no reason to believe that Holli received some kind of direct payoff for lying in court. That was not our statement and never has been.
The second part of this response deals with Holli now claiming to be a victim. It's fair to say that she has become a victim. While these responses have been going on, this is the same time that Holli had filed for protective orders against the victim in this case. The first hearing was in Holli's favor but was contested and an appeal was filed. The appeal was held a little over a week later.
Judge Long heard the appeal, in our opinion, there is a clear conflict of interest here in having Judge Long hearing that appeal, we reported before the first hearing that judge Long was one of the people who should not hear this case because of potential conflicts of interest. However, we have reviewed all the details on this case already and will not press that issue. Based on information that came out in the protective order hearing, I have to side with Judge Long. He was correct in granting the order.
The details mainly are based on a video the victim shot outside of Holli's Sunrise Donuts shop and then posted the video on Facebook and then proceeded to post some comments afterwards that were considered to be a potential threat to Holli.
Now here is where the story continues to twist and turn and get even more bizarre. The behavior could not be considered normal. The victim has since been to a doctor and diagnosed as suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, or PTSD. Please CLICK HERE to see more about PTSD from the Mayo Clinic's website. Though this does NOT justify the victim's actions, it does explain the victim;s actions against Holli,
The victim in this case has been through so much over the past several years that she keeps reliving the entire event of the illegal raid and all the issues that have followed. The victim lives in a constant state of fear because of all of these issues. She worries about suffering another illegal raid and even possibly being killed by the local Sheriff's Office Deputies or Animal Control Officers. She also worries about what the courts may do and that they might try to lock her up. This is an everyday event for her. This is what numerous county officials and employees have created.
Now there are other interesting statements that Holli makes in her remarks. She states that she has told the truth but is now being put into the middle of a conspiracy. Does this mean that she knows that a conspiracy exists? And if she knows that a conspiracy exists, why is she going along with it? That would make her a part of the conspiracy and lying to cover it up. Each time she has sent a response to us, she has had some very serious holes in her story that open a lot more questions.
http://www.facebook.com/holli.cohoon?sk=friends&v=friends&ft_ref=fbsa Here is a link to Holli's friends page on Facebook. She claims to not have been friends with people in the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office. These remarks are right on this page in her own writing. Her page sure tells another story. She has a bunch of friends from the Gloucester County Sheriff's office. But remember Holli does not lie. She told us so herself numerous times. In the event she removes these friends, we have taken numerous screen shots that show the state of friends on this date and time. Friends from the Gloucester County Sheriff's Office, Animal Control and local county court system.
For all the latest news, please click on the Home button towards the top of this site.
Have a news story? Submit it above.
Some of Gloucester's most incredible history is found on this site in detail.
Gloucester, VA Links and News – A GVLN Website.
We cover what no one else will.