I hope. But the car is awfully small for JM to have done anything there. But, yes, her clothes, with maybe important DNA would be good. LE isn't saying. If it's just evidence that Hannah was in the car, IMO, it's a step in the right direction, but not enough. It's pretty much a foregone conclusion that she went into the car with him. With her hair, DNA in the car, it nails that, so that the whole idea that he walked to the street and bid her adieu on the spot is out the window. But so what if he gave her a ride? Without some more evidence, it is possible he just dropped her off where she requested, and mayb got picked up by someone else thereafter. I don't believe it for a second, but it's could have happened. No proof beyond getting into the car? I don't think that's good enough. If he drove her 7 miles to some abandoned place, no reasonable person is going believe she wanted a ride to there, and that he just dropped her off there alive and well. But JM has to be placed there or there has to be some proof he did something harmful to Hannah. THat's what the evidence has to show. NOt just that he was with her, that he gave her a ride.
Thank you for pointing that out. Invariably, when I see references to DNA as evidence, it is referred to as direct evidence. I have always believed, as you have stated, that DNA is indeed circumstantial evidence. Yes, it is STRONG circumstantial evidence (much circumstantial evidence is actually stronger than some direct evidence), but circumstantial none the less and doesn't stand alone. IMO