So if a woman is to drunk to know what is really going on and a man has sex with her is that not considered rape?
So if a woman is to drunk to know what is really going on and gets in a car with a man and they drive off wouldn't that be considered abduction? Considering that she has disappeared.
If she was so drunk she could not consent to sex, how would she legally been able to consent to be given a ride?
IMO there is a difference between willing and not knowing what the heck is going on.
IF it goes to court, and it can be proven that a woman was too drunk to know what was going on, and a man had sex with her and she claims rape, yes, there is a case. Does happen, but a lot of times, most of the time, the woman isn't going to press charges. I think most of us know this.
Who is to say a woman is too drunk to know what is really going on and gets into a car with a man and drives off,that it is abduction? Apparently those who personally saw Hannah standing there with JM didn't feel a need to call the police to report some woman was too drunk to know what is really going on and seems to be with some guy who looks likes he's going to abduct her. Maybe she was too drunk maybe she threw up, maybe she had gas/stomache pains, who knows? Had she gotten home safely, there wouldn't be a murmur about this. A 23 year old card checker who didn't report any of this as suspcious is going to now say that it was?
A lot of people saw Hannah with JM and no one gave it a second thought. If they thought she was there against her will or being taken advantage of, someone might have reported it. It's a normal scene that often occurs. It happens all of the time. In fact, people often stick a drunk in a cab ( or as Hannah personally did onto a bus) to get them home, with them protesting.
The problem is though there is a difference, proving it in a court of law, which may be where all of this ends up, is not going to be easy, because the it is required to assume innocence on the part of the defendent, and it has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt otherwise. In cases, where a verdict for the victim is favorable, the victim is often so attesting that she was too drunk to give consent for anything. In this case, there is no victim to so testify.
Not saying it would not be a go, but it's an uphill fight. No one got close enough to talk to Hannah, no one offered any help, nothing at the time. So that they thought she was that off, why did they not even say a word?
Also, Hannah looks like she was not in such bad shape walking through the mall. It's actually curious to me that she got so incapacitated to be described the way "Abby" did in that short time, and I am suspicious about what JM might have put in her beer, if it can even be proven he gave her one when he returned to Tempo and bought 2 of them. No one is reported to see her drink anything. It's even not a sure thing whether she was in there or not. IF it came to going to court, there is doubt about that.
We can speculate and fill in the blanks and say what looks reasonable, but it doesn't work that way when it actually is brought to charges against a person. Only the facts, for the most part.
IMO, it would be very difficult to prove that JM abducted Hannah with what we know LE has. If they have some big piece of evidence they haven't shared with us, that's a whole other story.
And really: I think Hannah did go willingly with JM. I believe he offered her a ride, and she accepted and was in her right mind enough to know what she was doing She was lost, tired, confused and wanted to go back to her part of town, and it was late. So a ride would have been god send to her, and I've no doubt JM"s demeanor was not at all threatening to her. Had he just given her a ride back, and she'd gotten home, there wouldn't be this problem So the offer of the ride, getting into the car, going with JM, all of that is fine. It's if there were a change in plans after she got into the car, if JM did not take her where she wanted to go, did things to her to which she did not consent, and if he harmed her, raped her and killed her that there is a big problem, and that is the case at hand now But there isn't any proof that happened. Maybe he did drop her off where she wanted, or maybe she agreed to go for a ride with him, and then he dropped her off where she wanted to dropped off after some recreational sex somewhere? Understand that JM doesn't have to say a thing to explain all of this. The DA has to prove otherwise. That's the way it works in court. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.