The (Alleged) Abduction

[LG3]

My main point was what better way to immediately gain someone's trust than to make them think there's another predator out there that you're "saving"them from? It just seems so likely that that was JM did. He preyed on her vulnerability and made her think someone else was possibly out there stalking her. From what I've gathered from friends and family, while she was friendly to everyone, it wasn't like her to just go off with any stranger. However, I could totally see that after walking a mile, drunk, lost, and now freaked out that she was just told someone was following her, that she'd completely trust this "nice guy" who saved her from that older man following her. JMO

 

[LG3]

One more thing and I promise I'm done with this theory - it would also explain why WG said it appeared HG knew JM when JM put his arm around her. Maybe JM came up and said something like "Are you by yourself? Because there's this weird guy following you - act like you know me so he backs off." Then maybe he suggested they go to Tempo, but when she told him she was underage, he told her to wait outside for him and he'd be right back to take her home. That would explain why she was willing to wait out there for him and then get in his car. She was probably terrified at the thought of some weird guy following her at that point, and relieved that someone came to save her and was going to finally get her back to campus. JMO.

 

[jamicat]

I really hope that LE doesn't have to prove the "Abduction with Intent to Defile" without a body. Unless they have a lot more, I don't think it will fly.

I agree completely with Lateott. Just not enough there to say Hannah was abducted just because she was inebriated and having trouble standing when she was with JM. How out of it she was would be a tough thing to prove.

 

[human]

She may have gone willingly for a ride to where she wanted to go.

But I think just about all of us can guarantee she did not want to go where the rapist/killer brought her.

Abduction.

Just like a child who takes a ride with the nice man offering candy

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I really hope that LE doesn't have to prove the "Abduction with Intent to Defile" without a body. Unless they have a lot more, I don't think it will fly.

I agree completely with Lateott. Just not enough there to say Hannah was abducted just because she was inebriated and having trouble standing when she was with JM. How out of it she was would be a tough thing to prove.

How do we know there is not enough evidence to prove she was abducted? They wouldn't have ever charged him if they didn't feel like they could prove the charges in court BARD. Its not that they don't have evidence (IMO they do and plenty of it) it is just, we the public, doesn't know what all the evidence entails that backs up these charges nor should we know. We may learn more if his attorney doesn't waive JMs preliminary hearing. But as of now none of us can begin to know any of the evidence they have against him.

I think that will be the easiest thing to prove. No matter if she got into his car willingly at first, the minute he would not let her go, he has committed felony abduction. It is obvious that he held her against her will, so he could rape and murder her.... so he was right smack dab in the middle of committing a felony abduction when he did so, whether he abducted her for 10 minutes or an hour or more before he murdered her.

No jury is ever going to believe Hannah was not abducted. Felony abduction is one continuous fluid event. It includes anytime she was being held against her will. A logical minded jury will know the only way for JM to take Hannah away and make her drop off the face of the earth is if he abducted her and refused to let her go.

And one day in the future, even though they may never find her body... he will be charged with murder also. IMO.

 

[CHERIE.T]

She may have gone willingly for a ride to where she wanted to go.

But I think just about all of us can guarantee she did not want to go where the rapist/killer brought her.

Abduction.

Just like a child who takes a ride with the nice man offering candy

Exactly

 

[CHERIE.T]

I really hope that LE doesn't have to prove the "Abduction with Intent to Defile" without a body. Unless they have a lot more, I don't think it will fly.

I agree completely with Lateott. Just not enough there to say Hannah was abducted just because she was inebriated and having trouble standing when she was with JM. How out of it she was would be a tough thing to prove.

Do you consider any evidence that proves Hannah was possibly in JM's auto and or apartment? IMO certain evidence could lean heavily towards a crime.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Do you consider any evidence that proves Hannah was possibly in JM's auto and or apartment? IMO certain evidence could lean heavily towards a crime.

This case will come down to common sense backed up by the evidence they have amassed against JM in the ongoing investigation.

IMO

 

[citygirl]

This case will come down to common sense backed up by the evidence they have amassed against JM in the ongoing investigation.

IMO

Common sense, as always, being the operative word.

 

[Evie Ivy Over]

I can't help but think HG's watch was found in JM's car--that's one item that wasn't on the list of HG's items for searchers to look for.

 

[jamicat]

Do you consider any evidence that proves Hannah was possibly in JM's auto and or apartment? IMO certain evidence could lean heavily towards a crime.

BBM/ Possibly? I am just about certain, would bet a bundle that Hannah was absolutely in JM's auto, and am pretty sure that there is evidence that she was. Where else did she go when she and JM left Tempo? She didn't vaporize when she turned the corner. Of course, she got into JM's car, and probably most willingly. That was the whole reason she was with JM, IMO, to get a ride back to the Corner where she lived. So absolutely she got into JM's car. No crime in doing that either. No crime in picking up a girl, offering her a ride and then getting into the car with her and driving off. Not at all. And that is what happened. LE knows too. That's why they grabbed the car. They are 100% certain IMO that Hannah was in that car and willingly got into it after leaving the Temp area.

The question then becomes what happened next. At what point did this become a crime and what evidence of that could be found. What could prove that a crime was committed? That's what LE needs to find, or they don't have anything.

The apartment? Don't think Hannah was there, but there could be signs, DNA of her found in there since her DNA was highly likely to be on some of JM's clothes. They were arm in arm. So, yes, her hair, fibers from her clothes, would not be unexpected to be on JM's clothes or anything that was in the car. Again, if Hannah was in JM's apartment (and I don't think she was), that is not necessarly a crime either. She could have agreed to have gone there. She could have agreed or not objected to going most anywhere, for that matter, though not in a river, in a ditch or off a cliff. Now if she were found in such locations, that would not just lean heavily towards a crime, but be outright evidence of it.

 

[abbadabbado]

I have to share this wonderfully written blog.... sending positive vibes out this evening that somehow, someway, and soon, Hannah will be found. I always wait for the Karma train in all things....as I said in a post on another case I follow, it always shows up, sooner OR later :yes:

http://www.rageforexplaining.com/happens-time/

 

[jamicat]

I can't help but think HG's watch was found in JM's car--that's one item that wasn't on the list of HG's items for searchers to look for.

Would that be an indicator that a crime was committed if it were? We all know she was in JM's car. It's a matter of finding evidence that some crime was committed. Whether something bad was done to her in that car. No crime for her to be in the car. I guess someone could take off a watch in the car and it not necessarily mean anything bad. If watch face is smashed, or it looks like watch was ripped off with unusual amount of skin, say or blood on it, a whole other story. Would a watch be likely to come off in a struggle?

 

[RNER]

Would that be an indicator that a crime was committed if it were? We all know she was in JM's car. It's a matter of finding evidence that some crime was committed. Whether something bad was done to her in that car. No crime for her to be in the car. I guess someone could take off a watch in the car and it not necessarily mean anything bad. If watch face is smashed, or it looks like watch was ripped off with unusual amount of skin, say or blood on it, a whole other story. Would a watch be likely to come off in a struggle?

I feel strongly that there was either video or eye witness accounts, backed up with forensic evidence found in the car and/or apartment that links JM to the charges. Agree that there has to be SOME evidence for a search warrant to be executed and for the charges he is facing. Maybe there was an unnamed eye witness or camera footage several blocks away that captured a struggle or altercation in the car. The car was already gone from the mall area and parked in JM's driveway when the search warrant was executed, right? If so, then unless LE was just walking in the neighborhood and spotted something "in" the car (which is IMO unlikely), then it has to be something caught on video or witnessed. We probably won't know what that is until trial time!

 

[hambirg]

Simply giving a drunk person a ride cannot be considered abduction. Giving a ride to someone too drunk to consent to the ride cannot be abduction. Nobody can seriously believe we would want to construct such a law!

Unless we want a lot more inebriated partiers just left on the floor/chair/curb/couch/grass until they wake up in the morning. Or worse, left to drive home on their own because a good Samaritan is worried about facing an abduction charge if the person reconsiders in the morning whether they had wanted a ride.

Last one seen with a missing person is a bit different, but a felony has to be more than "absence of consent to walk with," or "absence of consent to ride with."

Of course not.

BUT the legal definition of abduction is the carrying away of any person by force or fraud.

It doesn't matter if Hannah got in his car willingly or if she was too drunk or drugged to know what planet she was on. The abduction part comes with the deception. . ."get in the car and I'll take you home." If Hannah went willingly with JM on the pretense that she was going home. . .or even they were going to get something to eat, or go to another party BUT instead what happened is JM drove her out somewhere, beat, raped and murdered her then, yeah, that's abduction. It's the intent to defile part, that LE must have evidence to that we do not.

Put all together. . .abduction with intent to defile.

 

[RNER]

Of course not.

BUT the legal definition of abduction is the carrying away of any person by force or fraud.

It doesn't matter if Hannah got in his car willingly or if she was too drunk or drugged to know what planet she was on. The abduction part comes with the deception. . ."get in the car and I'll take you home." If Hannah went willingly with JM on the pretense that she was going home. . .or even they were going to get something to eat, or go to another party BUT instead what happened is JM drove her out somewhere, beat, raped and murdered her then, yeah, that's abduction. It's the intent to defile part, that LE must have evidence to that we do not.

Put all together. . .abduction with intent to defile.

We do not know that this happened, which is why I feel there has to be a witness or video capture of a struggle or of him incapacitating her, some evidence which would make it an abduction! I am not defending him in anyway, but IMO anything short of that is JM just dropping her off somewhere, "taking her home, going to eat, or going to another party".

 

[LG3]

Of course not.

BUT the legal definition of abduction is the carrying away of any person by force or fraud.

It doesn't matter if Hannah got in his car willingly or if she was too drunk or drugged to know what planet she was on. The abduction part comes with the deception. . ."get in the car and I'll take you home." If Hannah went willingly with JM on the pretense that she was going home. . .or even they were going to get something to eat, or go to another party BUT instead what happened is JM drove her out somewhere, beat, raped and murdered her then, yeah, that's abduction. It's the intent to defile part, that LE must have evidence to that we do not.

Put all together. . .abduction with intent to defile.

Exactly - this is just one of many articles that quotes Chief Longo's strategy in only making an arrest when there's enough evidence for a conviction - http://wtvr.com/2014/09/19/dreadlocked-man-went-into-bar-with-missing-uva-student-hannah-graham/

In the initial stages of investigation, while being criticized for letting JM get away, Chief Longo stressed that he would not make an arrest unless there was enough evidence to lead to a conviction. So there's a lot LE aren't telling us, and for good reason. They want as much help and info as they can from the public, but will not release anything that could jeopardize their case. Smart move on their part. Charlottesville has suffered too long. They want to find HG and they want to put JM away for good. If they can find her body, the better their case against JM. They certainly do not want him to get off on some overzealous mistake on their part. They've been meticulous in handling this case so far - even bringing in the FBI right off the bat. They obviously have some indication that the charge "abduction with intent to defile" is something that they can secure a conviction of. IMO, they have not been that sloppy. They have played it very safe, as they probably knew from the second they searched his car and then were able to gain a warrant for his apt, that they had something. But they did not want to jeopardize that and have him fall through the cracks in the system. IMO, they've done a pretty darn good job so far, and we won't know the grounds for the "abduction with intent to defile" charge for a while, as they need to continue to collect evidence and build their case. I don't think they would've charged him with that unless they had something pretty damning. JMO

 

[hambirg]

We do not know that this happened, which is why I feel there has to be a witness or video capture of a struggle or of him incapacitating her, some evidence which would make it an abduction! I am not defending him in anyway, but IMO anything short of that is JM just dropping her off somewhere, "taking her home, going to eat, or going to another party".

We don't. LE charged him with it. I beleieve they have evidence that Hannah was harmed. . .maybe not enough to show she was murdered, but harmed or struggled with JM.

 

[jamicat]

We do not know that this happened, which is why I feel there has to be a witness or video capture of a struggle or him incapacitating her, which would make it an abduction! I am not defending him in anyway, but IMO anything short of that is JM "taking her home, going to eat, or going to another party".

Don't necessarily need that much. There are clear signs of a struggle. The AM case is one where the forensic evidence, including DNA, circumstantial evidence as well as facts all added up to a murder conviction even without the body. I believe the DA in that case also started out with an Abduction with an Intent to Defile charge, that was then escalated all the ways up to Murder 1. So, it could happen here too.

But not just from showing that Hannah was drunk, that she was in JM's car, or even if JM drove elsewhere rather than directly to where she lived. Not even sure if having had sex with JM would be enough evidence without some signs that it was forced, that she was injured, that there was a struggle. It is possible though I don't believe it, that she agreed to have sex with him before going home. In court, it will be the job of the DA to prove that a crime was committed, with a presumption of innocence firmly in place that has to be overcome.

 

[LG3]

True, in the court of law, it is the burden of the Prosecution to prove JM's guilt, not JM's to prove his innocence. While his silence makes him look incredibly guilty to most people, it is his right to invoke. It's so frustrating though. IMO, he did abduct her, and the way it happened really isn't what's important. But, I think this thread is important in getting people to think outside the box and speculate what could've happened. IMO, it was an impulse grab, fueled by alcohol and rejection earlier that night, also triggered by the onset of the football season, and opportunistic in HG's being alone in a vulnerable condition. I think the abduction was completely a situation of "let's see how far I can get" sort of situation. He did something to make her feel safe enough to get in his car, and I won't further elaborate on my theories above on that since I already posted them, but I do believe once she was actually in the car, his adrenaline surged, and he immediately knew what he was going to do. IMO, at that point he wasn't just going to try to "have his way with her" and then only when she rebuffed his advances did he decide to go further. IMO, once she was in that car, he felt empowered as he probably did the night he allegedly abducted MH, and then took the quickest way to a road where he would be the least likely to be pulled over. Considering he'd been drinking all night, I doubt he was traveling busy roads while trying to convince HG he was going the right way back to campus. JMO.