Discussion in 'Hannah Graham' started by bessie, Sep 23, 2014.
i feel like it means he kidnapped her with the intent to do harm to her that was of a sexual nature.
How about this:
1. They found HG's DNA in his car or apartment, thus the new warrant, but
2. They are still waiting for a match of HIS DNA to potential other cases, since they just pulled his clothes and they need time.
Lots of love being sent to HG's family and friends.
Perhaps there was something in his cell records related to his intent.
That never occurred to me, but you might be right and DNA proving she was in his car perhaps? Interesting! He may not have known what evidence they had, but he knew they had his phone, maybe that caused him to run after talking to the lawyer. Just a thought.
You don't need to be a lawyer to try to mitigate a possible suspect's culpability.
I am curious, if this charge could be based on something a witness at tempo saw or overheard, or was told by the suspect after seeing him leave with an obviously inebriated HG.
Call me overly cautious, but I don't think they have anything more than this at the moment. If there was DNA, I would expect some acknowledgement of that. Not of course to the point where they reveal what DNA evidence they have or where it was located, naturally. I just find this odd.
That said. I don't doubt for a second that LE is sure this is their perp, or that these tactics will not only bring him in but also lead to finding HG. We'll just have to wait and see.
I'm wondering if his DNAdoes match, and they don't want a panic.. If he is a match to a prior rape, then can basically assume his intent? Maybe they don't want to know there's a serial on the loose. Just rambling, sorry.
Chief Longo did state vehemently that there would not be an arrest warrant issued unless a conviction would certainly follow. He said that from the start, so I believe they are certain.
Right...not intent to sexually assault. I don't know if there is a different legal definition in VA state law statutes for intent to sexually assault.
I respectfully disagree. I am not sure his DNA has even been processed yet.
Reading the statute, I am seeing prostitution included as a possibility in the definition of intent to defile - not solely rape. Can this be trafficking? I have thought that was what was going on since the beginning....
idk maybe in the virginia law rape has a very strict definition of what it is and they didn't feel like they could prove it yet.
Thank you. What multiple fights, poor impulse control and anger management issues? I haven't seen all that. Help me out.
First post. I have been following this fairly obsessively. I'm a lawyer in Richmond. Chief Longo specifically mentioned a trial. He isn't going to say anything that could mess with a future prosecution. The mere mention of trial leads me to believe he knows this is going somewhere. (Note: I practice boring business law!).
They have is cell phone correct? If so forensics may have come across deleted pics. Hence the 'more evidence' to charge him.
They would need more than that. Otherwise, JM could say that he just dropped her off at X. Clearly, there was some sign of attempted rape, not just assault, but rape. Can't tell if it actually occurred, but there must be some DNA present to show that. Enough evidence from those who saw her that could say she was disoriented. Cell texts show she was on her way to something. So he took here in his car, knowing she was not all there mentally, drunk or whatever, and made moves on her with DNA, probably semen evidence present.
It is possilble to claim that sex was consensual and she was then dropped off somewhere, but that starts getting into the "unreasonable" area. Case may follow same pattern of that of Alexis Murphy where no body was needed for charges and even conviction. Her assailant may have first been picked up on the very same charges.
It doesn't matter what the evidence is...A conviction will be extremely easy to obtain, unless someone else confesses before then.
If they have verification that a known rapist is at large they have a responsibility to inform the public of this. I can't imagine them holding back this information.
We don't know that. It's not like LE just placed all their cards on the table. We have no idea what they may have against him.
Thread moving quickly, you may not catch my post.
Approx. 1 second after leaving the podium, during the pc on 9/23/14 at approx. 7pm est. a reporter asked a question. The chief doubled back to the podium to answer. I was unable to hear the question. I can presume the question was "are you still looking for Hannah"; because chief answered...paraphrasing here; "yes we are still looking for Hannah, that is our still our main focus" (again paraphrasing). Chief apologized for not mentioning his answer in the pc.