VA - Hannah Elizabeth Graham, 18, Charlottesville, 13 Sept 2014 - #6

[mrshayes]

Maybe this has been mentioned before....they have a dna match with the girl that was raped 5 yrs ago and the same dna match killed MH. Couldn't they show the person who was raped that lived his pic to see if he is the one that could have been involved in those cases?

Yes, they can. Hope they have done that. The more I look at those pics the more I think it's him. The beard...

 

[Fireweed]

you're speculating. say whatever you want, but you aren't being technical and rigorous. the POI hasn't even been named as a suspect.

of course i believe hannah was most likely abducted. but as the sheriff himself said, you can't get tunnel vision about POIs or a certain way of looking at the case.

I do not have tunnel vision; I have simply weighed the evidence as I see it. I know we do not have video footage of HG getting into the car. What we do have is that she was seen with him just a few minutes before his car was seen leaving, and she was not spotted on any other camera after that moment. Also, LE seems to think this guy is the one, and they searched his car. That is not "tunnel vision".

 

[leilarose68]

I suppose to me, talking about evidence and something being more likely that not is the opposite of talking in terms of absolutes. I do not understand the purpose of this board, if, in cases such as these, people just constantly say there is no proof that a crime has been committed.

Yes, there is never going to be "proof" at this stage of the case. That is a given. There is not even a body yet. Of course there is not "proof". I simply do not understand why some people feel the need to shut down the discussion here by saying that. I mean, obviously we are not at the "absolute, concrete proof" stage. We are still at the "more likely than not based on the evidence" stage.

A girl missing under HG's circumstances is not proof of a crime, but it is more likely based on the evidence strongly indicative of a crime.

uhhh the discussion has not been shut down. people are just gently reminding you to have an open mind about the investigation, and not be like 'oh OBVIOUSLY it was this guy.' because nothing is obvious at this stage.

 

[birdbox]

Question: When WG first came forward with his story, did they check his car for evidence, hair, DNA, etc? They said WG was cleared. What is the process for "clearing" someone. I do not really think WG did it, but just for fun, let's say he followed Dreds and HG for a while. Saw her get in Dred's car, saw Dred's drop her off...then WG grabs her. He sets up Dreds. This is an insane scenario, I know. Just wondering how exactly they "cleared" WG? Anyone??

 

[ollibear]

From the moment the surveillance video was released, no one but the current POI has set off my hinky meter. My instincts tell me he may very well be responsible for the disappearance of Hannah Graham AND the deaths of Morgan Harrington and Alexis Murphy.


In the Alexis Murphy case, I keep asking myself if Randy Allen Taylor was telling the truth about a third party. Could he have smoked pot with the current POI for THIS case that night? Did he misidentify our current POI as Dameon Bradley way back then?

Dameon Bradley had an alibi for the night Alexis Murphy disappeared, plus his DNA did not match.

But if Randy Allen Taylor was telling the truth about a third person being involved, and if it was our current POI, then it supports the theory that a serial killer is behind these disappearances and murders.

 

[leilarose68]

I do not have tunnel vision; I have simply weighed the evidence as I see it. I know we do not have video footage of HG getting into the car. What we do have is that she was seen with him just a few minutes before his car was seen leaving, and she was not spotted on any other camera after that moment. Also, LE seems to think this guy is the one, and they searched his car. That is not "tunnel vision".

they haven't named him as a suspect yet, so i can't really assume what LE thinks. i think Longo was very careful to not give the impression that he is 'the one'; obviously they're looking into his stuff because from the footage they have seen, he's the last person to have been with her. when more footage is obtained, things may change.

 

[song22]

I feel pretty certain that Hannah became a victim of a crime sometime that night. But I also think there is a (very) small chance she may have fallen, injured herself, became lost, couldn't get up or whatever. She seemed intoxicated just by her behavior, Imo. Anything can happen. She could have run off to join a circus for all we know. They need hard evidence, especially if they can't find her.

In most cases when someone is charged without finding the victim, there is either a crime scene, a history of violence/abuse, or a witness and/or confession from a co-perp. Not too many cases without any kind of real evidence beyond "last seen with". Jmo

A few years ago, a student went missing at a University where I was teaching. He had also been drinking and left a party. It was over a week and we were sure he had been abducted and killed. He was eventually found having fallen down some steps in a barn/outbuilding on campus. It was an accident.

I doubt that has happened here, but it's possible for sure.

 

[missgulfsouth]

You know, the guy looks like a Teddy bear and definitely too young to be Morgan's killer. But let's stick to the case at hand with Hannah.

I think she was lost and she may have seen him before and if he is "a big teddybear" that might have made her feel at ease. He bought her a drink and then tells her he will take her home. She then says, can you buy some more alcohol? They do and she ends up with alcohol poisoning and he knowing he bought alcohol for a minor, panics.... and drives her somewhere and dumps her off. If he is not bright, he might have thought this was a better option than taking her to a hospital, etc. I just don't know... yes, that would be a crime (buying and contributing to the death of a minor and hiding a body) but definitely not murder. I am really on the fence on this.

BBM. Which is exactly why he should be marching down to the police station to tell what he knows. He was the last person to be seen with a woman who is now missing. Teddy bear or not, you got some splainin' to do. You don't talk, you look guilty. The end.

 

[Dixie811]

I'd like to clarify one point.. as I think the information about Hannah's last text has gotten a bit muddled. AFAIK, according to LE her last text said "I'm lost in the area of 14th and Wertlend". She did not say.. 'I'm going to a party and I'm lost'. Her text was apparently in response to her friend wondering why Hannah was so late in arriving at the party she had planned to meet them at (these are the friends she went to dinner with that evening and was meant to meet up with later). Hannah's last text doesn't specifically indicate she was still wanting to party or planning to party at all.

It seems like a small detail but I think it's important we try not to muddle the few facts we have

 

[cady]

In other cases LE will say what they found to lead to more warrants or whatever. Every case is different, and every department is different with what they will release. Sometimes we get a ton of info, and sometimes we are left to wonder. But it is important to remember that a warrant is not always an absolute indicator. It could be anything.

RIGHT! A warrant is an investigative tool. JMO And if the search generates evidence of a crime, then someone becomes a suspect and not just a person of interest.....JMO

 

[Claudia]

Question: When WG first came forward with his story, did they check his car for evidence, hair, DNA, etc? They said WG was cleared. What is the process for "clearing" someone. I do not really think WG did it, but just for fun, let's say he followed Dreds and HG for a while. Saw her get in Dred's car, saw Dred's drop her off...then WG grabs her. He sets up Dreds. This is an insane scenario, I know. Just wondering how exactly they "cleared" WG? Anyone??

Not completely insane, I have actually thought that same scenario up in my head, and I'm pretty sure I'm not insane...

 

[Fireweed]

they haven't named him as a suspect yet, so i can't really assume what LE thinks. obviously they're looking into his stuff because of the footage they've seen, he's the last person to have been with her. when more footage is obtained, things may change.

Alright I guess I totally misread Longo at the pressie, but I came away with a distinct impression of he thinks of JL and his involvement in this case. I could be wrong, but that was my own impression.

 

[mrshayes]

From the moment the surveillance video was released, no one but the current POI has set off my hinky meter. My instincts tell me he may very well be responsible for the disappearance of Hannah Graham AND the deaths of Morgan Harrington and Alexis Murphy.


In the Alexis Murphy case, I keep asking myself if Randy Allen Taylor was telling the truth about a third party. Could he have smoked pot with the current POI for THIS case that night? Did he misidentify our current POI as Dameon Bradley way back then?

Dameon Bradley had an alibi for the night Alexis Murphy disappeared, plus his DNA did not match.

But if Randy Allen Taylor was telling the truth about a third person being involved, and if it was our current POI, then it supports the theory that a serial killer is behind these disappearances and murders.

Thank you, completely agree. In my opinion, arrest is very imminent.

 

[Lava]

I suppose to me, talking about evidence and something being more likely that not is the opposite of talking in terms of absolutes. I do not understand the purpose of this board, if, in cases such as these, people just constantly say there is no proof that a crime has been committed.

Yes, there is never going to be "proof" at this stage of the case. That is a given. There is not even a body yet. Of course there is not "proof". I simply do not understand why some people feel the need to shut down the discussion here by saying that. I mean, obviously we are not at the "absolute, concrete proof" stage. We are still at the "more likely than not based on the evidence" stage.

A girl missing under HG's circumstances is not proof of a crime, but it is more likely based on the evidence strongly indicative of a crime.

Because when there are named POI's, who are not suspects yet, people like to tread very carefully. It can be frustrating, but we just like to keep all option open. Reputations and lives can be ruined. Mob mentality can happen on a forum, and get out of control. By keeping an open mind, and looking at ALL possibilities, even when your hinky meter is going off, we can at least feel like we looked at every angle. That is similar to what LE has to do. They can't just say "Oh yeah, missing girl, last seen with black guy, crime committed! Case closed!" they need to look at all the angles. In some of these cases we have had MULTIPLE named POI's, sometimes even with search warrants and everything. And they get cleared sometimes, and we feel some responsibility in not running away with things that aren't fact. That is why a lot of people will word things "IMO" or "Perhaps this happened" instead of "There is no way this guy didn't do this." especially this early.

When you have followed hundreds of cases, for years, I think you just learn to curb your enthusiasm and look at all sides.

 

[birdbox]

uhhh the discussion has not been shut down. people are just gently reminding you to have an open mind about the investigation, and not be like 'oh OBVIOUSLY it was this guy.' because nothing is obvious at this stage.

Yeah, but people keep saying, "All we have is a missing person." Technically true, but boring. I mean, this is a place for ideas, sleuthing, right?

 

[armcha1r_detect1ve]

There is not even a body yet.

And I think this is our whole point. No body = no proof of a crime even being committed.

You keep saying a crime has taken place, and some of us are saying that we don't have those facts yet.

 

[leilarose68]

BBM. Which is exactly why he should be marching down to the police station to tell what he knows. He was the last person to be seen with a woman who is now missing. Teddy bear or not, you got some splainin' to do. You don't talk, you look guilty. The end.

smart people lawyer up and wait for their lawyers to guide them a bit. when youi're the last person to have seen someone, you don't want to be speaking off the cuff, even if you're innocent.

 

[Zinn]

Question: When WG first came forward with his story, did they check his car for evidence, hair, DNA, etc? They said WG was cleared. What is the process for "clearing" someone. I do not really think WG did it, but just for fun, let's say he followed Dreds and HG for a while. Saw her get in Dred's car, saw Dred's drop her off...then WG grabs her. He sets up Dreds. This is an insane scenario, I know. Just wondering how exactly they "cleared" WG? Anyone??

I don't recall them ever saying WG was cleared. I think they said they were considering him a cooperative witness "for now" or something like that. Obviously, they are very focused on Dreadlocks Guy in connection with Hannah's disappearance. I'm not trying to minimize that. But I never heard they "cleared" WG. I could be wrong, so feel free to correct me.

JMO.

 

[Claudia]

Police helicopter in the air searching for Hannah.

 

[leilarose68]

Yeah, but people keep saying, "All we have is a missing person." Technically true, but boring. I mean, this is a place for ideas, sleuthing, right?

no one is shutting ideas down. i'm just saying, to be like 'it's obviously this guy' with no doubt whatsoever, is silly.