themom
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 26, 2014
- Messages
- 627
- Reaction score
- 3
It wasn't specifically directed at you, just wanted the information on the feed for those who needed it!
Tempo Restaurant: What Happened There?
- Thread starter bessie
- Start date
newredtabby
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 1, 2014
- Messages
- 661
- Reaction score
- 1,966
<snipped and BBM>
Conductor71 wrote:
"There may be evidence that JM did just drop her off somewhere. Prosecutors seal and can even suppress exculpatory evidence or that which supports JM's innocence. He is supposed to be presumed innocent.
LE is not in the business of showing objective fact. Once they target a suspect, they want a conviction. Police can and do fabricate evidence; it is considered legal. Not saying that was done here. Just saying that simply because we have no evidence of something that weakens LE's case on JM doesn't mean it does not exist. It is all in the hands of the attorneys; mainly the prosecutor."
Umm, no. Both of these scenarios are very ILLEGAL. I am sure there are prosecutors that cheat the system, like in the link you provided, but making blanket statements like you did here is simply untrue. Our justice system is much better then that. JM is innocent untill proven guilty, yes. But I believe LE has more then enough evidence for that proof. If they had significant evidence to support his innocence, that will be shown also. That's how our system is designed.
Conductor71 wrote:
"There may be evidence that JM did just drop her off somewhere. Prosecutors seal and can even suppress exculpatory evidence or that which supports JM's innocence. He is supposed to be presumed innocent.
LE is not in the business of showing objective fact. Once they target a suspect, they want a conviction. Police can and do fabricate evidence; it is considered legal. Not saying that was done here. Just saying that simply because we have no evidence of something that weakens LE's case on JM doesn't mean it does not exist. It is all in the hands of the attorneys; mainly the prosecutor."
Umm, no. Both of these scenarios are very ILLEGAL. I am sure there are prosecutors that cheat the system, like in the link you provided, but making blanket statements like you did here is simply untrue. Our justice system is much better then that. JM is innocent untill proven guilty, yes. But I believe LE has more then enough evidence for that proof. If they had significant evidence to support his innocence, that will be shown also. That's how our system is designed.
bessie
Verified Insider
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2008
- Messages
- 31,771
- Reaction score
- 1,692
Nope, and yes.
klily444
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,577
- Reaction score
- 39
It makes perfect sense to me. He would have a reason to be on the mall, and maybe he even thought something could have happened to her at Rapture, which he has a vested interest in.
MJPeony
SF Bay Area
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 1,744
- Reaction score
- 10,666
That would primarily depend on how the Grahams want to proceed I would imagine. If they/their counsel thought offering that would make a murder conviction more likely for JM (witness testimonies that could help in that way for example), then it would seem to be reasonable to me. But if it wouldn't, I would think perhaps there might be a lawsuit against Tempo and there really would be no reason to offer them immunity. JMO.
klily444
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2014
- Messages
- 1,577
- Reaction score
- 39
I'm confused. LE knows who white guy is. Why would the poster call LE with WG's identity?
Because the poster is saying that it's possible that WG and JM have known each other for a long time, if WG is who the poster thinks he is, and that leads one to think that they aren't just two guys who happened to be on the Mall at the same time. If they have known each other for a long time, but acted like they didn't, then all the more reason for someone to get to the bottom of it, because something stinks to high heaven.
A long long time back in a different thread there was some discussion about a Rapture bouncer, and WG, and JM, and the scenario that night:
Regarding this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...527_story.html
"Cecilia Rodi, owner of Rapture restaurant and bar, said that a bouncer working the doors that night saw Graham walking down the mall. Rodi said that the bouncer later saw Graham speaking with a large man; Matthew is 6-foot-2 and weighs 270 pounds."
It would depend on how much "later" he saw her. He would have been able to see her walk from Rapture to Tuel's, so "later" could be seconds. Or not. So the question is, how much later is later.
Rapture sits between Sal's and Tuel's. If he were watching, he'd have seen JM approach Hannah, and WG behind them.
But here is the scenario: remember JLM was walking west at first, so he must have past by Rapture, and could have been seen then. Who knows JLM might have been doing to arouse suspicion -- we know he high fives passers by. Bouncer hadn't seen HG yet, but certainly had time to get a little way down the street following behind JLM, but before HG came up the street going east. Then when bouncer sees JLM cross the street following HG, he knows the pair is worth watching.
Regarding this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...527_story.html
"Cecilia Rodi, owner of Rapture restaurant and bar, said that a bouncer working the doors that night saw Graham walking down the mall. Rodi said that the bouncer later saw Graham speaking with a large man; Matthew is 6-foot-2 and weighs 270 pounds."
It would depend on how much "later" he saw her. He would have been able to see her walk from Rapture to Tuel's, so "later" could be seconds. Or not. So the question is, how much later is later.
Rapture sits between Sal's and Tuel's. If he were watching, he'd have seen JM approach Hannah, and WG behind them.
But here is the scenario: remember JLM was walking west at first, so he must have past by Rapture, and could have been seen then. Who knows JLM might have been doing to arouse suspicion -- we know he high fives passers by. Bouncer hadn't seen HG yet, but certainly had time to get a little way down the street following behind JLM, but before HG came up the street going east. Then when bouncer sees JLM cross the street following HG, he knows the pair is worth watching.
Charlie Chan
Member
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2014
- Messages
- 203
- Reaction score
- 1
What would the likelihood be that WG IS the same bouncer at Rapture who made that comment about having to temporarily ban LJ?
Emaa
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 718
- Reaction score
- 1
http://abcnews.go.com/US/bar-center-missing-uva-student-case-face-legal/story?id=25787415
I didn't say he DID use growlers, just that it's legal and so it could be how he left the bar with alcohol.
Emaa
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 19, 2014
- Messages
- 718
- Reaction score
- 1
My point is they could be sold there.
RIght now, Longo said he spoke to one person who said s/he saw Hannah inside Tempo. Tempo's response is that the person is mistaken. ALL of the employees who worked there that night said she was not there. Yes, it is possible they or some are lying, or they missed her, or that she was not in the main area. But if push comes to shove and there is only one witness who so says, and many others who say she was not, and the description and place that person saw "Hannah" turns out to indeed be someone else dressed similarly, and that is brought out, it's not going to fly. Witnesses can be mistaken, and it is common to get some conflicting information. If it is important enough, it will go to court and be so decided, but for now I think LE and the authorities are going with Tempo's stance. If more witnesses step up and say they saw her inside, there could be an issue.
No one saw JM drinking in there, so my guess is that he found a place whether inside or outside of Tempo where she could wait for him while he got the drinks.
There is that matter too that she was drunk already before she even got to the mall, something her fellow partygoers are not denying in the least. No evidence that I can see that will hold up under the scrutiny of a court, that JM gave her anything to drink, or that she drank anything at Tempo's or was even in there. Unless LE has some evidence they are not sharing.
SteveP
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 4,587
- Reaction score
- 44,688
Glad someone besides me didn't know. I looked it up and apparently it is a half-gallon refillable glass jug that craft beers are sometimes sold in. Apparently you take your growler in, and it is refilled. FWIW, it seems a growler would be next to impossible to conceal, and neither JLM nor Hannah is ever seen holding one at any point on video that we have seen. As an aside, apparently beer goes "skunk" very quickly when it is put in a growler, from what I read. JMO
SteveP
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2012
- Messages
- 4,587
- Reaction score
- 44,688
I'm not sure that there would be any need to. Despite many peoples' hunches that Hannah was inside Tempo at some point, including mine, so far as we know, there is only one eyewitness that has said that she was, and many employees of Tempo seem reasonably sure that she was not. If employees of Tempo are ever subpoenaed to testify in this case (and if it goes to trial you can be sure at least some will be) and they all deny under oath that she was ever inside, knowing otherwise, and it can be proven that she was, they then would be subject to perjury charges in addition to any alcohol violations. I really believe that if she was inside Tempo that evening with JLM, more than one person would have noticed and come forward before now and said so. While proof that JLM bought an already drunk Hannah a drink certainly may strengthen the intent to defile charge against him, I don't think whether or not Tempo knowingly sold Hannah a beer is too high on the list of concerns for the Graham family at this time. However, if it is proven that they did, I can definitely see a civil suit somewhere down the line. JMO
Well, actually, that's my point. If they were subpoenaed to testify, and, if, in fact, Hannah had been inside and drinking, wouldn't they have every right to take the Fifth? And, if they did, the next step would be to offer them immunity, and so on?
So, since underage drinking is trivial compared to murder, wouldn't it make sense for the police, and alcohol licensing agencies, and so on, to just offer blanket immunity up front, in order to get the truth? (And, of course, the truth may well be what we've already heard, that Hannah was not in the place.)
ThinkHard
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 17
No they couldn't have because it is not a place that sells growlers.
Growlers are sold at breweries by breweries and occasionally in retail stores. Regular Bars do not have growlers that you can buy and and take home with you.....and no bar I have ever been to EVER sells growlers to be drunken at a bar/brewery itself.
ThinkHard
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 17
You are absolutely right, they a bought at breweries, and can be brought back for refills. And people keep them for souvenirs. Here's a photo:
ThinkHard
Former Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2013
- Messages
- 3,272
- Reaction score
- 17
Food for thought for sure.