VA - Hannah Elizabeth Graham, 18, Charlottesville, 13 Sept 2014 - #13

[2Hope4]

Hi all, my first post but have been following the case here since the beginning. I'm not sure if anyone else has already mentioned this but here is what I think.

I think LE does not have any DNA or otherwise solid evidence that Hannah was in the car or the apartment.

Now I thought the new charge of abduction with intent to defile is interesting for two reasons. First off, it's a felony which means if he has fled the state then when he is caught, he can be sent back to Virginia to deal with the Charlottesville police regarding Hannah (whereas the reckless driving charges were misdemeanors and not a cause for extradition). Second of all, I think that because he was seen walking with Hannah with his arm around her when she was apparently very intoxicated, that LE believes he was basically walking her where he wants to go and because she was intoxicated, that she was not able to willingly consent and thus LE considers this to be abduction. As for "intent to defile", that can mean a lot of different things. I am guessing that LE has interviewed witnesses who claim to see/hear JM trying to get Hannah to come home with him or perhaps they removed unused condoms from his car or apartment and because that's the case, it means that JM would have likely had sex with her if Hannah did end up going home with him. There's no telling what evidence LE has to warrant the "intent to defile" charge so of course it's all speculation for now.

So I believe they went to Tempo and that's where their interaction ended after Hannah rejected the idea of going home with him. So JM eventually left in his car alone... but I have no ideas as to where Hannah could have gone once he left without her. I know early on there were eyewitnesses claiming to see her get into his car but I don't know how many witnesses there are or how detailed or how credible they are.

Have there been any witnesses from Tempo that have spoken out to the press about what they saw? And what exactly happened within Tempo? How long were they there? Did it look like Hannah was too drunk to be coherent? Did it look like Hannah and JM were being friendly with each other or was JM making her stay with him against her will?

Obviously this is all just my opinion and I'm sure LE is withholding a ton of information/possible evidence to make their case, but as of right now, I don't feel like we are all that much closer to figuring out exactly what happened and most importantly, finding Hannah.

IMO, LE has EVIDENCE that Hannah was in JM's car or apartment. I mentioned before that when searchers were being briefed on how to search, and what to search for, her pink phone case, her top and her white shoes were mentioned. Her black pants were NOT. "IF" Hannah's panties or pants were in JM's possession, then the only way for him to have them is to have taken them from Hannah. I don't think she willingly gave him such items, and then is never heard from again. Nooo!!!

Just being seen in public is not a crime. Going into that bar, not a crime. Evidence of some sort PROVES that JM and Hannah were together after that. With the known fact that Hannah is not here now, hasn't been seen since, then she is not staying away voluntarily. She was abducted/kidnapped against her will!! :moo:

 

[gwood22949]

I am so confused about what LE might have that would indicate "intent to defile" rather than "hoped to have sex" that night. And abduction.

I would guess, without a witness, they would have to have a "rape kit" of some sort, i.e rope, duct tap, and whatever else rapists use.

I noticed that in VA, though probably not enforced, it is illegal for two unmarried people to have sex. Could an obscure law like that affect the way charges are worded and used?

The charge is based on the specific code section below. I also have a strong hunch they have some hard evidence of a sexual assault.

§ 18.2-48. Abduction with intent to extort money or for immoral purpose.

Abduction (i) of any person with the intent to extort money or pecuniary benefit, (ii) of any person with intent to defile such person, (iii) of any child under sixteen years of age for the purpose of concubinage or prostitution, (iv) of any person for the purpose of prostitution, or (v) of any minor for the purpose of manufacturing child *advertiser censored* shall be punishable as a Class 2 felony. If the sentence imposed for a violation of (ii), (iii), (iv), or (v) includes a term of confinement less than life imprisonment, the judge shall impose, in addition to any active sentence, a suspended sentence of no less than 40 years. This suspended sentence shall be suspended for the remainder of the defendant's life subject to revocation by the court.

https://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+18.2-48

 

[Tracey4AU]

I'll check on that. Brb

So I see we gots us a smarty pants up in here.... :laugh:

 

[savoiadilucania]

To those who wish to convict Jesse Matthew based solely on the fact that the authorities have charged him........I'd really hate having you as a jury of my peers..

Hah. After sitting on a jury, I told my friend that I'd never want to be judged by my peers.

 

[RSC]

Or someone told him to get out.

Sounds like he was on the wrong side of the sign.

 

[Spool]

Info from court website:
Charlottesville City Circuit - Criminal Division
Case Details
Case Number: CR10000129-01
Filed: 05/11/2010
Defendant: MATTHEW, JESSE LEROY; JR
DOB: 12/14/****
Address: KESWICK VA 22947

Charge: TRESPASS AFTER FORBIDDEN
Code Section: 18.2-119
Charge Type: Misdemeanor
Class: 1
Offense Date: 03/17/2010
Arrest Date: 03/19/2010
Disposition Code: Guilty
Disposition Date: 08/12/2010
Concluded By: Trial - Judge With Witness
Fine Amount: $50.00
Costs: $218.00
Fines/Cost Paid: Yes

originally filed in
Charlottesville General District Court

Case # Defendant: GC10001889-00 MATTHEW, JESSE LEROY; JR
NOTE: This case was appealed to circuit court on 04/30/2010. See circuit court for final disposition.
Offense Date : 03/17/2010
Arrest Date : 03/19/2010
Filed Date: 03/22/2010
Charge: TRESPASS AFTER FORBIDDEN
Code Section : 18.2-119
Defense Attorney : REDINGER, JANICE L

What the code says:
§ 18.2-119. Trespass after having been forbidden to do so; penalties.

If any person without authority of law goes upon or remains upon the lands, buildings or premises of another, or any portion or area thereof, after having been forbidden to do so, either orally or in writing, by the owner, lessee, custodian, or the agent of any such person, or other person lawfully in charge thereof, or after having been forbidden to do so by a sign or signs posted by or at the direction of such persons or the agent of any such person or by the holder of any easement....

IICR, Keswick is a little crossroads community ease of Cville -- old country store with a gas station. Maybe some "no trespassing" signs around to discourage parking/peeing.

There is also the private Keswick estate, very exclusive, and likely to have a security system installed which would alert if any unauthorized personnel were on the property.

A motorist would have to go out of their way to drive onto the property, in my opinion, but much more like to "get caught trespassing" than if they were loitering around a convenience store . JMOO

 

[Phoebeb]

I didn't say anything about her being lost... Did you respond to me by accident? I'm confused.

Sorry, I meant I was was wondering where people were talking about guy offering to walk her home.
Then I just was writing my own thoughts about what I thought about the possibility of HG being lost. I don't think she was. Sorry for the confusion...

 

[jamicat]

I find it odd that no eyewitnesses--either on or off the record--have come forward claiming they saw Jesse and Hannah at the Tempo bar/restaurant that night.

From what I have read, and I can't remember where, witnesses did talk to LE about seeing JM at Tempo's that night. He was seen there earlier in the evening, he is a regular there and known, and the "returned" there with Hannah. Tempo does not have surveillance camera's, so all of the info there comes from witnesses. LE has stated that drinks were involved, that they were there for about 15 minutes and that those there did not seem to think that JM knew Hannah from any other time, that she and he just met. The crucial piece of info is that JM and Hannah left there together and that is where the trail ends for Hannah, which is what made JM the POI as the last person LE could place with her.

So eyewitnesses from Temp have spoken to LE and have been crucial to the investigation. They are just not being identified. Roommates, witnesses, those at the mall, Hannah's friends--names and specifics have not been released by LE and that's typical.

 

[TheTruthWillOut]

IMO, LE has EVIDENCE that Hannah was in JM's car or apartment. I mentioned before that when searchers were being briefed on how to search, and what to search for, her pink phone case, her top and her white shoes were mentioned. Her black pants were NOT. "IF" Hannah's panties or pants were in JM's possession, then the only way for him to have them is to have taken them from Hannah. I don't think she willingly gave him such items, and then is never heard from again. Nooo!!!

Just being seen in public is not a crime. Going into that bar, not a crime. Evidence of some sort PROVES that JM and Hannah were together after that. With the known fact that Hannah is not here now, hasn't been seen since, then she is not staying away voluntarily. She was abducted/kidnapped against her will!! :moo:

If you're right, why didn't LE arrest him on Saturday? They had the car Thursday/Friday right?

 

[Tracey4AU]

Awesome post. The police knowing Jesse is not responsible would explain the lack of urgency and warning about Jesse in the pressed yesterday. Could Chief Longo be so deflated because he knows the investigation is back to square one?

I'm still trying to figure out where this came from?? :thinking:

 

[EGirl]

The police cannot put out a warrant for his arrest if they do not believe he is responsible. That would be the end of all of their careers--LE, judge, etc--and set the city, state, FBI up for enormous lawsuits.

I'll preface this by saying.. I think they have the right guy. BUT, the Richard Jewell (Olympic Park Bombing) case taught me A LOT.



JMO

 

[Spearmint]

On the official FB page, I noted some posts where people were basically saying that LE "shoulda told us last week he was guilty before he fled"....scary stuff.

Yes it is. With all the media attention, it will be difficult to find a group of impartial jurors should this case move to trial.

 

[job]

IMO, LE has EVIDENCE that Hannah was in JM's car or apartment. I mentioned before that when searchers were being briefed on how to search, and what to search for, her pink phone case, her top and her white shoes were mentioned. Her black pants were NOT. "IF" Hannah's panties or pants were in JM's possession, then the only way for him to have them is to have taken them from Hannah. I don't think she willingly gave him such items, and then is never heard from again. Nooo!!!

Just being seen in public is not a crime. Going into that bar, not a crime. Evidence of some sort PROVES that JM and Hannah were together after that. With the known fact that Hannah is not here now, hasn't been seen since, then she is not staying away voluntarily. She was abducted/kidnapped against her will!! :moo:

BBM. This is the first I've read this. If in fact this was a deliberate move by the leaders of the search to not mention anything about looking for her pants and/or underwear, then this is a huge development!

 

[savoiadilucania]

My house is my home. Her apartment is her home. No?

I think they are at her residence and not her family residence. I can't imagine what they would be doing at her parents' house.

 

[Zuri]

So those of who aren't immediately and 100% convinced JM committed a horrendous crime (I haven't ready anywhere of people thinking he's completely innocent) we are either refusing to believe a truth (where there is no truth yet) or planting reasonable doubt as a friend of JM?

Man, you guys make it hard for people potentially new to this site to want to contribute. I think everybody's intentions are to find Hannah. I find myself saddened by this case more than others - maybe it's because I see myself in Hannah. And to accuse us of negative intentions seems misplaced and even damaging. I'm trying to help, and looking at all angles might be my way of doing so.

With that said I'm 100% sure I'd flunk detective school.

Thank you so much for posting! A lot of us are not totally convinced and are waiting for more evidence to be released.

I worked in a PACU (Recovery Room) and relied heavily on the OR techs/patient transport people. I personalized JM through them. I just can't imagine any one of them being anyone other than who they seemed to be: great, nice people.

I also have two college aged daughters who I worry about. My one daughter has already made poor choices while intoxicated at 17, resulting in personal harm. This case is tough. Please don't hesitate to post your opinions. You will find support for your views, even if they are not popular, simply because you are doing so in a polite, respectable, thoughtful way.

 

[DavidC]

Maybe not in those exact words. When those of us who are waiting for actual evidence before we believe the "police have their man" are criticized as "wishful thinkers".......well then.......the inference can be made.

I have not seen anyone say that.

 

[Lava]

I'm still trying to figure out where this came from?? :thinking:

It sounds like its based off DavidC's personal opinion, "would" and "could" being the key words.

 

[SuperTmo]

I'm still trying to figure out where this came from?? :thinking:

Yeah... issuing a warrant for arrest for abduction doesn't sound like the investigation is back to square one IMO...

Maybe the lack of urgency or warning is because they don't want people to panic or go vigilante on them.

 

[laurash988]

I'm still thinking perhaps Hannah died accidentally (reaction from a date rape drug, vomited and choked on it) and JM freaked out.

 

[Quill]

Don't be confused. Just because evidence hasn't been made public, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. LE is under no obligation to let us (the public) know what they have. They've had probable cause for, is it 4 search warrants now? Also charges have been made for abduction. Does it all mean he is guilty? Not necessarily. We really do not know what they have, but they have something for it to have gone this far.