JLM: What Do We Know About Him?

[FindHG]

Well I did read in article early on, that it was obvious to at least 1 of his friends that it was him in the video, be because the friend said he was wearing those horrible long white shorts and he wore them all the time.

Seem to recall (hopefully, correctly)it was in one of the first Daily Mail stories about him, his sister saying she recognized him in those "goofy" shorts.

 

[Tugela]

I agree with you that the videos alone are not good enough to be solid evidence. But once people who will attest to being in the videos are identified, and can tell what happened about when, the videos can provide good verification. There has been confusion with the tapes as well.

When Hannah's description was first aired and the "Missing" alarm was raised, there was no reason to look at the video footage at the mall. All LE knew was that it was Sunday afternoon and Hannah was last seen by UVA students at a party who out and out said she had been drinking and left them at a location at "the Corner" where UVA grads tend to cluster. She had been with contact with some of the partiers that morning of 9/13 and the texts that she sent to them were pretty quickly collected as well as the accounts of those students in that area who had seen her last.

The next break seemed to be from those who saw her walking at the mall. She is a tall girl, dressed to party, alone and apparently her demeanor and stride did attract some attention. People at the mall let police know she had been there and the timing was after what fellow students reported from the Corner, near where she lived, near where the students tend to hang out. So video footage from stores and the mall area were obtained and studied. It takes a lot to go through the grainy, vague footage in real time and glean the pertinant shots from it. Again, without, people who stepped up and gave time/place marker on seeing her there, it would have been tough getting a fix on her so quickly, IMO.

But it also confused things, as WG who did come to LE described someone different from who was on the camera, and who LE had pretty much already gotten a fix on--JM with his dreads. JM was well known there at the mall. He hung out there and he was seen with Hannah definitively at Tempo. Really that has turned out to be the most salient info from all of that since that was the last sighting of Hannah. She left with him, was the word.

JM had been at Tempo earlier that evening--sales receipts and several witnesses have placed him there He left at about the time the encouter with Hannah is seen on tape, and I agree that without WG saying what happened, the time stamps of bills paid at Tempo, that he did return to Temp with Hannah, bought something there, paid for it with credit card and Hannah was also seen in the vicinity (unclear whether she actually went into Temp, and isn't relevant to what happened afterwards). So it's a combo of what is on tape, witness accounts, including more than one person, and JM actually leaving credit card info at given times that show pretty definitively what happened at the mall.

I can't make out a danged thing form the footage alone, either. I can verify sort of from a narrative, but I wouldn't bet anyone's life on the images alone It's like a lot of evidence, which alone won't stand up but with other pieces of info tell a most probable story.

Seriously, Hannah could have been planning to go off with someone night, met up with him, and JM was the conduit to take her to that person and she's off in the islands sipping a Pina Colada But I don't think that's likely. Unfortunately, the most probable scenario, given what LE has told us, she is probably dead and lying in a creek, lake, underbrush, ditch, thrown off a crevice. From what I've seen around Charlottesville and what those who know it well have said, there are many, many places within minutes of the city where a body can be hidden and unlikely found. We can only hope that JM was as careless with pitching Hannah as he is with most everything else he does in his life and that he did something quick and easy that LE can track and she can be found. So far, that 's not been the case.

There is no detail in those videos, they might be helpful for investigation purposes but they can't definitively say who is doing what because you cant actually ID anyone for sure on them.

I doubt that they were directed to the videos by witnesses, there were a butt load of people walking down the street that night, she would not have unduly stood out enough to have been remembered specifically. The method they would have used is to start at the point she was last reported by friends to be at, then look at any video in a radius within that timeframe to see if she could be spotted again, and in that way try to reconstruct her movements.

I am curious how they came to get his name specifically, there must be something else otherwise it doesn't make sense.

 

[FindHG]

I'm not sure if it's OK to post this as it's hearsay, but I read on my mutual friend's FB page that the lawyer's son was two years younger than JLM in high school. I don't know if that was Monticello or Albemarle. I would guess Monticello since that's where JLM graduated from, IIRC. Friends of JLM were trying to figure out how to get in touch with the lawyer or his son so they could donate to the legal fees. This was before the media reported a DNA link, FWIW.

ETA: If this isn't OK, I'm sorry, and please delete. Thanks.

I'm new too. The mods will let you know, but you haven't used any names. Thanks for posting. Did you go to the same high school, if it's okay to ask? What I'd like to know, is the tradition there, what was the biggest event of the year, besides prom and graduation where JM attended? The one the kids couldn't wait for?

 

[Le Singe]

Sorry that I have no link to provide, but LE did state soon after the forensic connection to MH, that they may prosecute JM for Morgan's murder FIRST.

I'm almost positive that was a analyst / former LE guy (maybe) not an LE member working the case, but I don't have a link either.

 

[Tugela]

Just IMHO, I think search of JM's car was prompted simply because people on the mall had told police that JM left Tempo with her, even got into his car with her, and that she could barely walk. (I'm sure LE were cognizant of his resemblance to sketch in MH case, too.) Inside car, IMHO, they simply got JM's DNA . . . but that DNA matched what was on file from the MH case. Bingo! Reason to put out warrant for his arrest. We have no idea if there is any DNA from HG among JM's car or possessions; in fact, if I think there were, he would might have been charged with her murder already. In other words, maybe they can forensically link him to MH -- but have only witnesses and video linking him to HG, and no more.

No they didn't, because Longo on the 21st was specifically appealing to people to come forward and say that they saw they two of them getting into his car between 1:20 and 1:40. They had already carried out their search warrants by then.

Whoever it was that claimed to have seen him with her didn't know him, so why would they have gone specifically after him so quickly?

 

[glasshalffull]

I'm new too. The mods will let you know, but you haven't used any names. Thanks for posting. Did you go to the same high school, if it's okay to ask? What I'd like to know, is the tradition there, what was the biggest event of the year, besides prom and graduation where JM attended? The one the kids couldn't wait for?

No, I live in VA but not in C-Ville. My friend went to high school with him but is reticent to talk about it, understandably.

 

[Deba]

BBM. Seconding that almost anyone who grows up in C-ville will have Northern Virginia connections.

Sure, but not everyone will have a NoVa connection who they were visiting around September 2005.

Wasn't trying to be cryptic but was trying to ascertain whether JM could have been visiting a friend who lived or was going to school in the area during that time. There isn't much information which ties JM to anyplace during 2005 that I am aware of.

 

[Tugela]

I agree with everything you say. There are some reports from various media sources that I have checked against what LE said, and those reports really were supposed to just reprise what was said at the press conference, and they have flat out incorrect info in them that can't be cross checked anywhere. Also, absolutely LE is not telling us everyhing or even most of what they know, hopefully, just a tiny bit of what they have. The AM case actually had an official news block on it because the evidence had to be presented well, with absence of body, the DA needed everything he could get to secure a conviction. Defense, through discovery does get a look at what the state has, but there is no need to taint to jury pool, not need to put ideas in others' head. Note that JM's attorney hasn't made a statement, not one. Not a peep from that quarter. My guess is that they are sitting very tight, hoping Hannah's body is not found, because frankly, without a body , in most such cases, a conviction isn't going to happen. The AM case is unusual and had a lot of very explicity DNA evidence on top of a perp who talked and couldn't tell a lie that would hold up and had to back track with so many storieds that no one could reasonab'y believe a word he said.

We really don't know what tied the case to the car even before JM was brought into the picture. Maybe LE did try to talk to him. If the info is as we know it, I think it was a huge gaffe on part of LE to go serve the warrent on the car without a very skilled interviewer with them to baby sit, commiserate with and try to get any info out of JM instead of setting him off as that whole thing did. LE directly said that they don't even know when and how he and his roommates left. No one there with coffee and donuts and a sympathetic ear on the scene, carefully watching JM's reactions, interaction. That, too me is a major fail, but then maybe there was and LE isn't telling. What they found there, why they could get that warrent is not known to us.

We do know that even with what was found, even that next day at the station, LE couldn't nab JM. Still not enought to charge him. It took the reckless driving for them to do that and that they went all out on such a trivial charge, to me, signals that they really did not have much in the way of evidence.

From looking at all that has transpired and how JM has reacted, I too, am in the camp that thinks he was guilty and that with a link to the MH murder, LE may well have caught a serial rapist and kller. But the MH case where there may be definitive DNA, and certainly that 2005 rape case, is where LE may have the best evidence. When I lay out distinct possibiities for Hannah, unless LE has some really good stuff in evidence, I don't see how it comes close to the guilty without reasonable doubt with a presumption of innocense to be observed which is our standard that has to be observed in court. Heck, yes, it's possible Hannah is still alive. Even Longo said so a couple of days ago, remember? Many of don't go for the slavery ring theory, and I'm one of them who doesn't think it's likely at all, but hey, it is possible. There are people who believe this and in absence of a body, well, yes, it's posssible JM turned her over to someone who might have been so involved. Hannah could have met up with someone and disappeared to the tropics, was off to meet the person, got lost, and JM gave her a ride somewhere to someone and the poor dumb JM is now stuck with a stupid story and no proof in a climate where everyone wants his head on a stick. I don't go for any of this but with what we know, yes, possible.

If JM was the rapist in 2005 then he is caught, no question about it. But so far he has not been linked to that case at all AFAIK. So the forensic evidence is unlikely to be DNA since DNA is the link between MH and the rape case, otherwise they would have said so IMO. The wording of the description of this forensic evidence is also odd....they refer to it as opening up new leads for investigation, which again suggests that whatever it is it is something physical and more vague rather than DNA.

 

[StrayKat]

JMO... I wondered about that especially after reading a press release that included the comment about them searching for the cell phone and shoes. Foot Fetish or what?.

 

[ZsaZsa]

JMO... I wondered about that especially after reading a press release that included the comment about them searching for the cell phone and shoes. Foot Fetish or what?.

Yes, I think so too - he wanted to examine the feet of both of the girls he was annoying at the mall, earlier in the evening..

 

[Foxfire]

Sorry if repost. "Everyone I've talked to says UVA suspect knows the woods better than anyone." - Coy Barefoot
https://twitter.com/CNNSitRoom/status/519242760852103169

We know that JM was an avid outdoorsman and fisherman. Wondering if he was also an avid hunter and if he owned or had access to firearms?

 

[jamicat]

If JM was the rapist in 2005 then he is caught, no question about it. But so far he has not been linked to that case at all AFAIK. So the forensic evidence is unlikely to be DNA since DNA is the link between MH and the rape case, otherwise they would have said so IMO. The wording of the description of this forensic evidence is also odd....they refer to it as opening up new leads for investigation, which again suggests that whatever it is it is something physical and more vague rather than DNA.

Likely, LE is lying low about the 2005 rape case until they get a direct hit with the DNA taken directly from JM which would be evidence needed to go after him. I have no idea what is needed to secure a rape conviction when the victim is alive but not around, as might be the case with that woman who was raped. She might refuse to resurrect the case, and I've read that she isn't even in this country anymore. As for what they have to link with MH., LE isn't saying. When they end searching for Hannah, with or without success, they will have to procede with the charges against JM there. Levying charges, means setting a timer and things have to get rolling when they do so. With no Hannah, and not much evidence beyond what we know, nothing defintive, in a few months when things settle down a bit, the situation might look quite different for JM.

 

[ksj3]

Levying charges, means setting a timer and things have to get rolling when they do so.

That's one reason I find it so interesting they've pushed his hearing to December, and the defense willingly.

 

[jamicat]

No they didn't, because Longo on the 21st was specifically appealing to people to come forward and say that they saw they two of them getting into his car between 1:20 and 1:40. They had already carried out their search warrants by then.

Whoever it was that claimed to have seen him with her didn't know him, so why would they have gone specifically after him so quickly?

Pah. I'm willing to bet that LE finds some evidence of Hannah in that car or on JM's clothes. I have no doubt that she was in the car. But so what? She left the mall with him, and I think it's a foregone conclusion she got into his car. No crime to hook up with her at the mall. Pretty much proof positive, she was not fighting him, was willingly with him. Plenty of witnesses for that. So she's not looking so good, looking sick, place closing down, car right there, sure he took her to the car. I don't think that helps one bit to place her in the car. So he drove her to that address and dropped her off. Or any other story, Or no story at all. You can't just make up a story and make it stick without proof when there are so many other alternatives that are possible.

If like the AM case, clear signs of struggle, injury, like blood are found, that's a whole other story, but I don't think LE is going to be any further ahead of the game in being able to simply prove she was in the car. I'm surprised they got a search warrent for it just with that.

 

[jamicat]

That's one reason I find it so interesting they've pushed his hearing to December, and the defense willingly.

Time. Defense usually loves time. If they don't have Hannah by then, search is off by then, it's the holidays, news is older and they can push things back and slow things down even more. With some luck another girl goes missing in a similar mode. What else is JM supposed to do anyways He might as well hunker down and enjoy his vacation in a cell.

 

[Foxfire]

If JM was the rapist in 2005 then he is caught, no question about it. But so far he has not been linked to that case at all AFAIK. So the forensic evidence is unlikely to be DNA since DNA is the link between MH and the rape case, otherwise they would have said so IMO. The wording of the description of this forensic evidence is also odd....they refer to it as opening up new leads for investigation, which again suggests that whatever it is it is something physical and more vague rather than DNA.

Hey, Tugela, good to see ya.. Imo, JM has a pretty good idea of the forensics and other indictable evidence that investigators have on him, and is also aware that the dominoes are falling on him from his past deviant behavior...jmo

 

[ksj3]

Time. Defense usually loves time. If they don't have Hannah by then, search is off by then, it's the holidays, news is older and they can push things back and slow things down even more. With some luck another girl goes missing in a similar mode. What else is JM supposed to do anyways He might as well hunker down and enjoy his vacation in a cell.

Ah. I saw it differently. I thought defense would want to push ahead, before Hannah or further evidence could be found.

 

[Emaa]

"speedy trial statute"

§ 19.2-243. Limitation on prosecution of felony due to lapse of time after finding of probable cause; misdemeanors; exceptions.

Where a district court has found that there is probable cause to believe that an adult has committed a felony, the accused, if he is held continuously in custody thereafter, shall be forever discharged from prosecution for such offense if no trial is commenced in the circuit court within five months from the date such probable cause was found by the district court; and if the accused is not held in custody but has been recognized for his appearance in the circuit court to answer for such offense, he shall be forever discharged from prosecution therefor if no trial is commenced in the circuit court within nine months from the date such probable cause was found.

If there was no preliminary hearing in the district court, or if such preliminary hearing was waived by the accused, the commencement of the running of the five and nine months periods, respectively, set forth in this section, shall be from the date an indictment or presentment is found against the accused.

If an indictment or presentment is found against the accused but he has not been arrested for the offense charged therein, the five and nine months periods, respectively, shall commence to run from the date of his arrest thereon.

Where a case is before a circuit court on appeal from a conviction of a misdemeanor or traffic infraction in a district court, the accused shall be forever discharged from prosecution for such offense if the trial de novo in the circuit court is not commenced (i) within five months from the date of the conviction if the accused has been held continuously in custody or (ii) within nine months of the date of the conviction if the accused has been recognized for his appearance in the circuit court to answer for such offense.

The provisions of this section shall not apply to such period of time as the failure to try the accused was caused:

1. By his insanity or by reason of his confinement in a hospital for care and observation;

2. By the witnesses for the Commonwealth being enticed or kept away, or prevented from attending by sickness or accident;

3. By the granting of a separate trial at the request of a person indicted jointly with others for a felony;

4. By continuance granted on the motion of the accused or his counsel, or by concurrence of the accused or his counsel in such a motion by the attorney for the Commonwealth, or by the failure of the accused or his counsel to make a timely objection to such a motion by the attorney for the Commonwealth, or by reason of his escaping from jail or failing to appear according to his recognizance;

5. By continuance ordered pursuant to subsection I or J of § 18.2-472.1 or subsection C or D of § 19.2-187.1;

6. By the inability of the jury to agree in their verdict; or

7. By a natural disaster, civil disorder, or act of God.

But the time during the pendency of any appeal in any appellate court shall not be included as applying to the provisions of this section.

For the purposes of this section, an arrest on an indictment or warrant or information or presentment is deemed to have occurred only when such indictment, warrant, information, or presentment or the summons or capias to answer such process is served or executed upon the accused and a trial is deemed commenced at the point when jeopardy would attach or when a plea of guilty or nolo contendere is tendered by the defendant. The lodging of a detainer or its equivalent shall not constitute an arrest under this section.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+19.2-243

 

[MJPeony]

If JM was the rapist in 2005 then he is caught, no question about it. But so far he has not been linked to that case at all AFAIK. So the forensic evidence is unlikely to be DNA since DNA is the link between MH and the rape case, otherwise they would have said so IMO. The wording of the description of this forensic evidence is also odd....they refer to it as opening up new leads for investigation, which again suggests that whatever it is it is something physical and more vague rather than DNA.

There's been a lot of discussion here on whether it was, or was not, DNA that LE was referring to regarding JM's link to MH and the Fairfax rape. I for one, have thought from the moment they said forensic evidence that it was something scientifically "provable", but I just now went and looked up the legal definition of "forensic evidence":

" Forensic evidence is evidence obtained by scientific methods such as ballistics, blood test, and DNA test and used in court. Forensic evidence often helps to establish the guilt or innocence of possible suspects. Analysis of forensic evidence is used in the investigation and prosecution of civil as well as criminal proceedings. Forensic evidence can be used to link crimes that are thought to be related to one another...."

From http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/forensic-evidence/

Seems to me that whatever forensic evidence they have is provable and usable in court to link JM to MH and Fairfax rape. JMO.

 

[wall0214]

There's been a lot of discussion here on whether it was, or was not, DNA that LE was referring to regarding JM's link to MH and the Fairfax rape. I for one, have thought from the moment they said forensic evidence that it was something scientifically "provable", but I just now went and looked up the legal definition of "forensic evidence":

" Forensic evidence is evidence obtained by scientific methods such as ballistics, blood test, and DNA test and used in court. Forensic evidence often helps to establish the guilt or innocence of possible suspects. Analysis of forensic evidence is used in the investigation and prosecution of civil as well as criminal proceedings. Forensic evidence can be used to link crimes that are thought to be related to one another...."

From http://definitions.uslegal.com/f/forensic-evidence/

Seems to me that whatever forensic evidence they have is provable and usable in court to link JM to MH and Fairfax rape. JMO.

The FBI says that it was DNA that linked the MH case to the Fairfax case:
http://www.fbi.gov/washingtondc/pre...dia-campaign-in-morgan-harrington-murder-case
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/201...an-harrington-killer/morgan-harrington_060412

So now, the question is - is that DNA in fact JM's?