VA - Hannah Elizabeth Graham, 18, Charlottesville, 13 Sept 2014 - #16 *ARREST*

[Sin City]

http://wtvr.com/2012/12/17/dashad-laquinn-smith-landfill-search/

Just for some reference material.

 

[Kas80]

Sorry...I just don't see her not communicating with someone throughout her "travels" during the night. She was very social, had many friends, was in various clubs and activities in school, and even attended parties with friends up until she left for the mall area. If she wasn't close with her roommate(s), she was close with other people that I assume would have been concerned about her not showing up at all the next day! I am not saying this communication never occurred. Actually, I bet it did occur (based on her social activities and appearance of normally being intelligent and responsible) we just don't know about it!

I was just answering to the why wouldn't her roommates notice question. I would think someone else definitely should have. In my case my best friend and I always ALWAYS knew where the other was. Most girls have at least that one friend.

 

[steelman]

I've been wondering about that "intent to defile" charge ever since they announced it. I read the legal description and all of that, and then I began trying to figure out how it would apply here. It almost seems like one of those charges they levy "so we can at least get him on something".

Just a shot in the dark here, but I'm thinking maybe he was taking pictures or video clips of her with his cell phone that night, unbeknownst to her. If she accepted a ride with him, maybe he took even more pictures of her after she was in his vehicle, especially if she had passed out or was close to it.

The key here is the word "intent". How would you establish that ? Helping a drunk girl walk along the sidewalk ? Starting up a chat with a tipsy woman that is out partying all night ? Putting your arm around someone that really isn't accepting of it ?

Is flirting with a pretty girl considered "Intent to defile" ?? If that's all it takes, then I would think that charge should be levied on 50 guys per night in those bars.

That charge by itself seems weak to me. However, coupled with additional evidence such as cell phone photos or video clips, it may have some teeth behind it depending what is shown. If there are no photo's or videos, just eye witness statements, then I have no idea how they would make that charge stick.

Bumped for AzPistonsGirl

 

[teeandcee]

We were right on the most important part tho LOL

I could picture the darned thing in my head. :banghead:

Makes no sense to me LE could suddenly come up with such a charge without evidence. Of course, I'm willing to admit I will always give LE the benefit of the doubt.

 

[hambirg]

this is interesting. What kind of forensics would lead them to an "intent to defile"? From forensics? Without a body? huh?

They would have to show she was held against her will. Evidence of a struggle or something like zip ties, rope or handcuffs with Hannah's DNA. "intent to defile" could be torn or cut undergarments, blood, bodily fluids, etc.

Ugh. . . Poor Hannah.

 

[AVIXEN]

Hey, I've got the same problem with it as you do. I don't know how police forensics can determine what is in somebodies mind.

I asked the same things this morning earlier------see post #561

Exactly what keeps hanging me up too... and, not to get off topic here, it's what keeps making me think they may have found something that linked him to a previous unsolved crime. Then again, perhaps it was something like a pubic hair or a bra. I guess we will find out eventually...

 

[Sin City]

I laughed outloud. I'm guessing that he will be boarded ahead of the other passengers and they will be seated at the back of the plane. Maybe squeezed up against the window. hehe That would make an interesting trip to the lavatory when others key onto him from the media notices.

The criminal will be the one in cuffs.

 

[hambirg]

Could forensics be identifying a pill?

They would have to show Hannah ingested it. I'm not sure how they do that without a body. :dunno:

 

[Elley Mae]

Hey, I've got the same problem with it as you do. I don't know how police forensics can determine what is in somebodies mind.

I asked the same things this morning earlier------see post #561

It was the first thing I thought of. WTH Supposedly there is evidence that we have not seen, seems that his (JM) lawyer would have to be shown this evidence, otherwise they could arrest people all day under that charge. jmo idk I also don't like that they pretty much went though his phone and wire tapped his family/friends to learn his wwhere abouts. jmo idk

 

[teeandcee]

Hey, I've got the same problem with it as you do. I don't know how police forensics can determine what is in somebodies mind.

I asked the same things this morning earlier------see post #561

I think he texted someone of his intent. It was probably phrased in locker room talk so they (his friend) didn't take it seriously. Something like "I see a hottie drunk off her ***. I'm hitting that!" Makes me sick typing that. Mods please edit if need be.

 

[JulesInVA]

thanks for indulging me, but humor me some more. How could a photo show INTENT to anything? Unless a text reads: "I plan to rape/hurt/maim" how could it possibly "show" intent? Just interesting with the language IMO... I want to know more.

If it's an undressed and unconscious photo, and the person is missing immediately thereafter, well. That would be enough for me for an arrest warrant.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[RNER]

BINGO!

I actually am somewhat taken aback by what has been said on this particular case especially that LE has no evidence on JM tying him to the abduction of Hannah because LE hasn't revealed it.

I don't know if it is because some have never kept up closely with other cases here or what it is.

But those who have, always knows that LE nor the DA ever divulges the evidence they have against ANY suspect before a trial is held. We complain about it all the time in just about every case. This case is no different.

It is like.....ok the police aren't telling all the evidence they have on JM to the public at large so therefore that has to mean they don't have any evidence. WHAT? LOLOLOLOL!

The only time we may get a glimpse at some of the evidence the DA has in any case is if a preliminary hearing is held or a bond hearing and the DA isn't wanting the suspect to get bond.

Other than that.... we are very use to having to wait for the trial so we can finally learn all the evidence they have against any suspect. And usually we are shocked to learn just how much evidence they truly had against the defendant all along.

IMO

Absolutely agree from personal experience of a family member involved as a "smoking gun" witness in a trial where the murderers received life sentences! It was truly emotional and shocking for the community, the jurors, the media, and the defense to find out at the trial what really transpired and the overwhelming evidence that put the killers away! For a year before the trial, it was speculated that there wasn't enough evidence to put them away for life because there was so much not made public.

 

[IMO]

I laughed outloud. I'm guessing that he will be boarded ahead of the other passengers and they will be seated at the back of the plane. Maybe squeezed up against the window. hehe That would make an interesting trip to the lavatory when others key onto him from the media notices.

That is exactly where the prisoner on my flight was. Window seat. Right next to the lav, with two huge guys blocking him in middle and aisle seats.

 

[Bravo]

The criminal will be the one in cuffs.

Thanks ya just spoiled my game LMAO

 

[teeandcee]

That is exactly where the prisoner on my flight was. Window seat. Right next to the lav, with two huge guys blocking him in middle and aisle seats.

Interesting. I've never been on a flight with a criminal, although there was a politician sitting behind me once so same thing, hehe.

 

[Sin City]

If I remember quite right the biohazard dumpsters were wheeled into a semi truck and/or had a lock on them. They were at the rear entrance of the building.

Yes. In my areas, housekeeping took care of the trash and put it in the designated dumpsters... The waste is double bagged in a clear bag and then a red bag marked biohazard IIRC. The bags would not hold the weight of a human being though. Typically, the biohazard trash was sealed needle boxes, syringes, bloody or soiled gauze/dressings, etc. from the areas where I worked, PACU, Ambulatory Surgery and ER. I am not sure about the OR though...

 

[Bravo]

They would have to show Hannah ingested it. I'm not sure how they do that without a body. :dunno:

The only way around that I see perhaps if there was vomit in his car?

 

[ElementaryDearWatson]

It was the first thing I thought of. WTH Supposedly there is evidence that we have not seen, seems that his (JM) lawyer would have to be shown this evidence, otherwise they could arrest people all day under that charge. jmo idk I also don't like that they pretty much went though his phone and wire tapped his family/friends to learn his wwhere abouts. jmo idk

JM's lawyer will see the evidence when he propounds discovery.

 

[IMO]

Interesting. I've never been on a flight with a criminal, although there was a politician sitting behind me once so same thing, hehe.

To be honest I wouldn't have noticed him if he hadn't been sitting in my seat. Which obviously was not my seat at all...

 

[Cortne]

Right!! haha

Interesting. I've never been on a flight with a criminal, although there was a politician sitting behind me once so same thing, hehe.