VA - Hannah Elizabeth Graham, 18, Charlottesville, 13 Sept 2014 - #4

[Starry Night]

Patter sells. Good verbal game sells. That's how they slow them (victims) down. Get them to Stop-look-listen. And then groom and then boom. I am buying you more liquor to ply you with and you are now under my charming, masculine, flirting spell.

 

[bunnyesq.]

I do not believe that is correct. If they come upon evidence of an additional or different crime during the course of executing the warrant, as long as the warrant was lawfully issued, the individual can be arrested based on that evidence (assuming the evidence is sufficient to constitute probable cause). For example, if they found child *advertiser censored* while searching his computer for info about Hannah, he would be charged with possession of that contraband. IMO

Absolutely correct, it's called the plain view doctrine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[astridxx]

Here's a good link on searches and seizures : http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-rights/searches-and-seizures-the-limitations-of-the-police.html


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kevmoley]

WG felt she was in distress, that is why he followed her. Who did he think she feared? It could not be Dreads from across the food court? Are we to believe this poor girl had MANY people chasing after her? I am not saying that couldn't be the case. I just doubt it. Also, if he thought she was distressed, why come creeping out behind her and not simply ask her if she is OK? This is more of a bait and switch attack IMO

 

[cluciano63]

Imo, Hannah threw her friends off by saying she was going home, when she pretty clearly wasn't. If so, she had a reason.

 

[Hiandmighty]

Absolutely correct, it's called the plain view doctrine.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

But it isn't "in plain view" if it is seen inside a house during a search warrant for something else used to get inside the house.

 

[FlamingoLady]

Yea but how did they get a warrant for the car then? I don't get it.

They were together at Tempo. People saw the orange car drive away. He owns an orange car. Enough for a warrant for the car. Chief was pleading for people to come forward if they actually saw Hannah get in the car. That would be the money evidence, so to speak. Jmo

 

[mrshayes]

I hate to say it but I was the one who initiated the drug discussion and was completely shot down, but I always trust my gut and my gut told me drugs. Pimps and drug dealers are often one in the same AFAIK.

I grew up in the mean streets. I worked in a crisis center. I just feel like I know the signs better than someone who did not live in the middle of these types of people. Sorry to offend but if it walks like a duck....

Agreed. I thought drugs too and that she knew him. Not that she was necessarily using drugs, however.

 

[NJGuy]

I always believed she was walking with a destination in mind, either meeting a person or going to a specific place. In my experience when a young person leaves their friends during the night and are being vague about details or lie about, it's usually a love interest. Not saying this was the case with Hannah meeting dreadlocks, but I do believe she was going somewhere to meet someone. The way she was walking, her leaving her friends just says to me she was going to meet someone she didn't want her friends to know about it.

I'm also concerned that they searched his car and house and left with bags of evidence but nothing concrete enough to make an arrest on the spot. They need the public's help

 

[zelmajane]

Well he does have a pit bull.

I laughed. That's terrible.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[oldwindow]

See I was studying recently in criminal procedure and if I remember correctly, a person cannot be arrested for something found outside of what is detailed on the warrant. Or if they are, that evidence could be thrown out in court. Example: the detail on the warrant "we want to search all countertops" and some cop opens a drawer and finds an illegal sub machine gun or something, they can't take it and charge him with that because the search area wasn't on the warrant. Idk. I'm probably wrong.

That's true what your saying. you not wrong at all.. At the same time the law is always in effect even more during a search. they cant tie you to that item for that crime, but they can tie it to you for being a crime versus the law..

let say for example they warrant my house looking for you. And I got coke bag every where. Now they cant tie that to me for the case of your missing. But they tie those coke bags to me on a different set of charges. The law is always in effect

 

[jkloc420]

I don't think she knew the guy at all. She needed a ride and she trusted that guy.

 

[Jmm124567]

Did they say he was 32 years old?

 

[tiredblondy]

This is so true...maybe she knew the wg was following her and befriended the dredBG thinking he would make her safe. Even though the WG thought he was helping...he should have said something to her...not follow her....he was wrong ...very wrong to do that. He should have asked if she was alright..not follow her like a stalker.

Has there been any indication that Dred locks and WG were working together? I'm awfully suspicious of that.

 

[bluehydrangea]

Meant to quote another person who was doubting the white sneakers!... Like another person stated, they are very in style right now. I graduated in 2012 and they weren't nearly as trendy for going out then, but my sister is a senior in college now and lots of her friends wear them out. I don't think that detail is suspicious.

 

[doughgirl07]

IMO - HG had zero idea WG was watching out for her. BG was probably familiar...a local on scene in Cville, she a student going on second year. She has seen him before, the other two ladies had seen him before (high 5). He looks over, sees her and decides then and there that he wants to go speak/be with her. Either purposefully or by accident she is killed, or also scary, he drops her into trafficking ring.

 

[popsicle]

See I was studying recently in criminal procedure and if I remember correctly, a person cannot be arrested for something found outside of what is detailed on the warrant. Or if they are, that evidence could be thrown out in court. Example: the detail on the warrant "we want to search all countertops" and some cop opens a drawer and finds an illegal sub machine gun or something, they can't take it and charge him with that because the search area wasn't on the warrant. Idk. I'm probably wrong.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree, I think they have to get a separate search warrant.

 

[bessie]

From the Boston bombings to Hannah Graham: How Internet sleuths help (and hurt) police investigations
By Caitlin Dewey September 19 at 4:20 PM

[...]

This, in fact, may be the critical red line between “good” Internet sleuths and “bad”: The former work to help actual investigators; the latter want to be the investigators, themselves. It’s a subtle bit of hubris that explains the yawning ethical and efficacy chasm between calling a tip in to police, say, and calling the suspect or witness directly.

---

True dat!

 

[doughgirl07]

Like another person stated, they are very in style right now. I graduated in 2012 and they weren't nearly as trendy for going out then, but my sister is a senior in college now and lots of her friends wear them out.

Women are getting more aware that they can be comfortable...especially in a college town where you can walk for miles. In Cville, the Mall is all brick, which can be tough in heels

 

[bunnyesq.]

But it isn't "in plain view" if it is seen inside a house during a search warrant for something else used to get inside the house.

I thought as long as LE was inside the premises lawfully, (e.g. unrelated, valid warrant) any contraband within plain view is fair game. I could be totally wrong...I'm an attorney, but I practice in health law, so I might be misremembering some of the case law.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk